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.

 Ghaz wrote:
A new weapon for the Black Templars:

Has this been amended already? Showing as D2 here, but D1 on the WHC article now...

Wow. That is the worst looking flamer I have seen in a long, long time.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
A new weapon for the Black Templars:

Has this been amended already? Showing as D2 here, but D1 on the WHC article now...

Yeah, it shows D1 now. Quick fix by the WHC.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah, why add actual options to subfactions so they aren't just some special rules and Characters? /

Probably, because that's how it goes for every single subfaction for every single faction that's not Marines. And probably because every relase spent further bloating out Marines is a relase not spent updating Eldar.

I did think that a D2 Infantry flamer looked a little odd at first glance, and thought the article was going to comment on it...

...then I just thought I'd been seeing things.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Hopefully the other supplements will see something similar. Even if it's just weapon options via upgrade sprues or whatever.

I'm of two minds where I don't want to see more Space Marines but at the same time, I also want to see the subfactions expanded out beyond single Characters.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Probably, because that's how it goes for every single subfaction for every single faction that's not Marines. And probably because every relase spent further bloating out Marines is a relase not spent updating Eldar.

Just get resigned to the fact that Craftworlds aren't getting an update. It makes your life easier.

Wow that damage mistake is real irritating

Hoping it stays D1 to be honest.

Does this Flamer line up with that big dump of Rumors we got?

Why do they keep having Marines hold the weapon by the carry handle or have top mounted grips when they have a handguard modeled on the weapon?

So...he's called a Primaris Initiate.

Is that like the primaris version of a neophyte?

jullevi wrote:
Wow. That is the worst looking flamer I have seen in a long, long time.

Tastes vary. I really like it (I may have a bad taste though )

 GaroRobe wrote:
So...he's called a Primaris Initiate.

Is that like the primaris version of a neophyte?

No, Initiate is the rank of a standard battle brother in the Templars.

Every other Chapter uses the term interchangeably for Scouts/recruits IIRC.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Why do they keep having Marines hold the weapon by the carry handle or have top mounted grips when they have a handguard modeled on the weapon?

Why do Primaris bolt weapons all have the 41st millennium equivalent of a picatinny rail yet insist on mounting nothing on them?

 Gert wrote:
Every other Chapter uses the term interchangeably for Scouts/recruits IIRC.

Most other Chapters do, but the Templar are odd ducks and use Initiate for their Battle Brothers, since they have been initiated into them and Neophyte for the new guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Why do they keep having Marines hold the weapon by the carry handle or have top mounted grips when they have a handguard modeled on the weapon?

Why do Primaris bolt weapons all have the 41st millennium equivalent of a picatinny rail yet insist on mounting nothing on them?

No one in GW has ever used or held a weapon? Also, theres like 2 weapons with stuff on them, but they go on that weird round part of the gun for some reason.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If they are all meant to be primaris, the flamer in the background right is quite interesting

Called it

I like the model, but i'm not sold on the weapon.

I guess it is just the Primaris version of a flamer and we might see a heavy pyreflamer as well.

 Albertorius wrote:
How many variants of flamer are in the game, by now? These kinda bespoke weapon craze leaves me very, very cold, ironically enough in this case.

People wanted bespoke, they are getting it

It's not a Heavy Flamer!

It's a totally original and necessary new weapon!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's not a Heavy Flamer!

It's a totally original and necessary new weapon!

I think I'm gonna use the bit to make some heavy flamers for my primaris-based sternguard.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
It's not a Heavy Flamer!

It's a totally original and necessary new weapon!

It's a Long Flamer. Totally new and original.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Why do they keep having Marines hold the weapon by the carry handle or have top mounted grips when they have a handguard modeled on the weapon?

Why do they always have to have this bit as well?

The 15’ range will fit nicely with the bolt rifles in the squad firing at half range and rapid firing

Would it make people feel better if the flamer was ap0 and 12" and the unit had rules to add range and ap?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Would it make people feel better if the flamer was ap0 and 12" and the unit had rules to add range and ap?

I'd just prefer 12" and Ap-1.

Those sculpted shoulder pads are sharp . Hope that either the BT kits come with extras or there is a infantry upgrade sprue.

 Valkyrie wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Why do they keep having Marines hold the weapon by the carry handle or have top mounted grips when they have a handguard modeled on the weapon?

Why do they always have to have this bit as well?

I've been wondering about that as well. It looks cool, but I really cannot imagine what its function could be as it is found on so many completely different weapons.

Isn't that the accelerator doomahicky??? Just be glad that they decided to add that instead of another skull.

 Theophony wrote:
Isn't that the accelerator doomahicky???

Has it actually been explained somewhere?