Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

the_scotsman wrote:
we've already seen most psychic powers are going CORE only

Wait....we have?

 Ordana wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

Yeah I already made this point. If aggressors are core...which are competitively some of the most popular and powerful units marines are bringing to the table - if they are core - they aren't doing it for purposes of balance (unless we see radical points changes in the codex).

The assignment of core is likely going to be arbitrarily assigned to codex units (this/not this...why) and you can sure but that 0/to near 0 forge world units are going to be core - because they are the rarer versions of the army. In my mind it's likely the originator of the change. "forge world units don't interact with codex units rules as intended" lets make and arbitrary keyword assignment on units to keep them from interacting with units we don't want. It is not a terrible idea. Without proper points adjustments for not having the core keyword it's just going to put a bunch of units on the side line.

It was suggested above that maybe there will be special buffing units for non core units. Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system. I am of the camp that the way you fix auras was just to make them single target or CP activation or something like a command ability in sigmar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:

Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?

Because it buffs close combat? I don't know about SM but the SW equivalent is very good, one of the best HQs in the codex and also the cheapest one. I take it everytime.

Now also SM should have good melee dedicated units and if the player can't spam captains the chaplain could be viable maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:


I hope not. we really don't need razorback parking lots

We don't need buggies, dreads, speeders parking lots either.

Build freedom is fun - rules that make the game less fun are bad rules.

I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

And in a weird twist of fate, the only Dreadnought to get Core turned out to be the Deredeo...

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.

As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.

These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".

 Xenomancers wrote:

It was suggested above that maybe there will be special buffing units for non core units. Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system. I am of the camp that the way you fix auras was just to make them single target or CP activation or something like a command ability in sigmar.

The thing is, GW have shown that this is possible. Look at T'au, There are 3 different models with rules like this. The Fireblade with Volley fire, Darkstrider with Fighting retreat and Longstrike with his bonus for hammerheads. It can be done, but there should be consideration on where it is done and not just spew out several HQ's for every army just to cater to this.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".

Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.

Moreover, because they can.

Also I own a few forgeworld units, so its not like I'm crying for forgeworld bias.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".

Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.

The codex one isn't a relic so what about that one?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".

Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.

The codex one isn't a relic so what about that one?

Sadly looking at the culling of datasheets from the new Imperial Armour and the fact that the main studio have no excuse for forgetting the rules they wrote for units (though I am sure they will)
I wouldn't be surprised to see alot of consolidation in the FW 30k range given all the contemptors have been given 1 points cost, I suspect they will just be merged into 1 datasheet with the difference being ignored for rules purposes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor?

He said standard, not Venerable.

 Tristanleo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It was suggested above that maybe there will be special buffing units for non core units. Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system. I am of the camp that the way you fix auras was just to make them single target or CP activation or something like a command ability in sigmar.

The thing is, GW have shown that this is possible. Look at T'au, There are 3 different models with rules like this. The Fireblade with Volley fire, Darkstrider with Fighting retreat and Longstrike with his bonus for hammerheads. It can be done, but there should be consideration on where it is done and not just spew out several HQ's for every army just to cater to this.

Good points there. Pure speculation as this point beyond what we know though.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".

Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.

Moreover, because they can.

Also I own a few forgeworld units, so its not like I'm crying for forgeworld bias.

And ven dreds are plentiful? Honestly, should anything that hits on 2s have access to rerolls? It seems a bit excessive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor?

He said standard, not Venerable.

I assumed that meant "codex dreadnoughts", my apologies if that was incorrect.

Doohicky wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is not necessarily no re-rolls for non-CORE.

Some characters might might sense to buff non-CORE things, eg Lord Discordant or Techmarines. Interesting new design space!

I'm certain of this.
The new nurgle character that was in the codex preview was said to buff Daemon engines. Daemon engines will not be core. Of course his stuff could be pick a unit instead of aura.

Not all auras go CORE only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:

Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?

Because it buffs close combat? I don't know about SM but the SW equivalent is very good, one of the best HQs in the codex and also the cheapest one. I take it everytime. .

Remember originally he only had the one Litany. The was duplicated and exceeded by the captain reroll.

I wonder if this will affect the necron overlord's new MWBD tha can be applied apparently to any dynasty unit including vehicles like monoliths.

I do like how this is bringing SMs (and presumably Necrons) down to Tyranid levels of synergy (highly specific rather than general and layered).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.

Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".

Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.

Moreover, because they can.

Also I own a few forgeworld units, so its not like I'm crying for forgeworld bias.

And ven dreds are plentiful? Honestly, should anything that hits on 2s have access to rerolls? It seems a bit excessive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor?

He said standard, not Venerable.

I assumed that meant "codex dreadnoughts", my apologies if that was incorrect.

Traitor scumbag here forgot that venerable ones exist. My intent was the bog standard washing machines.

I think this is a step in the right direction. There was far too much rerolling. So, I welcome any reduction in all this rerolling.

Spoletta wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Leman russes will be core, and I think that's it.
I don't see many more vehicles being core.

Maybe venoms.

doubt it. Tank Commander abilities already specify LEMAN RUSS keyword.so no need for them to be core.

It makes sense actually. I can easily imagine that Tank commanders commanding themselves is on the list of things that GW doesn't like. Tank commanders will probably only command CORE vehicles.

Eh, if they want to rein that in, all they need to do is change the Order target from "<REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS" to "non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS", and Bob's your mother's brother.

Ice_can wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.

I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.

I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.

Decent melta units existing is fine. Broken undercosted melta units existing is not.
Eradicators as a concept is fine, but remove double shoot and you can probably still justify increasing their point cost.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.

I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.

Totally agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.

I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.

Decent melta units existing is fine. Broken undercosted melta units existing is not.
Eradicators as a concept is fine, but remove double shoot and you can probably still justify increasing their point cost.

So you want to make them 1 shot and increase their cost? They are pretty bad with one shot. Even worst than hell blasters.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The codex one isn't a relic so what about that one?

It is by the lore. That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)

Given your flip flopping I'm sure you'd defend a double shooting repulsor that cost 100 points while complaining about the balance of the game at this point.
Eradicators with 1 shot still cost 10 points less than a BS 4 Crisis Suit with a Fusion gun and an ATS which is the doctorines marines get for free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The codex one isn't a relic so what about that one?

It is by the lore. That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)

You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?

Ice_can wrote:

You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?

Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?

Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.

Why? The codex one sucks. It has literally two options for range weapons AND degrading movement for a melee walker.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Why? The codex one sucks. It has literally two options for range weapons AND degrading movement for a melee walker.

There can of course be rules for the FW loadouts. The point is that there should be one contemptor profile and all contemptors should use that.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?

Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.

The Relic Contemptor datasheet feels more like a Dreadnaught should to me than any of the dozen other Dreadnaught datasheets. If they pull the Relic Contemptor datasheet and leave everything else at 6"/8W/3+ I will be very disappointed.

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?

Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.

No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.

Ice_can wrote:

No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.

Yes, we all know the model history. And I'm not talking about FW's 'relic' keyword. All Contemptors are relics in the fluff, ancient machines from the HH era, thus it is bizarre to have a better, even relicier version of them.