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.
kodos wrote: , otherwise we would see much more stuff coming back,
We ARE. Between FW and mainline GW, we've gotten a huge number of models that are references/reduxes to models of old from other 40K based games and outdated eras. Horus Heresy literally has models based on the freaking Space Crusade Dreadnoughts.
cool for HH, but which vehicles are coming back to 40k?
Um anything that can be used in HH can be taken in 40k for SM pretty much.
The custodes were an additional army that was added from the old lore. Tzangoors in 40k were technically a throw back.
GW dips into the their lore from the long back ago quite often.
carldooley wrote: Out of curiosity, who has a 'centerpiece model' for their army?
Knights I can understand as centerpiece models, and moved to today where people want just those models to make up their force.
Heck, Tau have those same issues - how many people have their Stormsurge survive past turn 1?
Thats how my knights started, and its the issue of having big center piece models, you cant just have one. Because if you have 1, you are going to loose it turn one. So you need to end up taking 2, but then at that point, you might as well take 3 of them because you are gonna wanna expereince the full power of it, and at that point, might as well just run a pure knight list.
I do kinda wish the knight army was expanded on though so it could be more of a knight house with supporting milita units as well.
Not to beat a dead horse, but everything available to non-primaris SM should be fieldable by CSM. Including all the 30k jank.
The vast majority of Marine "30K jank" IS available to CSM.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Why do they not belong in regular 40k?
"someone saw something similar and wanted it to have in 40k" as an argument for why they are in there, has just as much merit as me saying "GW dug through their old lore and said hey why the hell not, lets add knights back into the mix." We dont know the real reason as to why they did it, we are jsut speculating.
The fit perfectly fine into the game, just like if someone really wanted to, they can run 4 baneblades, and currently they are not broken, they are at a ~50% win rate.
Because 40k portraits relatively small scale battles, Super Heavy's (and Flyers) don't fit into that scale. Especially not armies of them.
Why do they not belong in regular 40k?
"someone saw something similar and wanted it to have in 40k" as an argument for why they are in there, has just as much merit as me saying "GW dug through their old lore and said hey why the hell not, lets add knights back into the mix." We dont know the real reason as to why they did it, we are jsut speculating.
The fit perfectly fine into the game, just like if someone really wanted to, they can run 4 baneblades, and currently they are not broken, they are at a ~50% win rate.
Because 40k portraits relatively small scale battles, Super Heavy's (and Flyers) don't fit into that scale. Especially not armies of them.
Why and who says 40k is small battle scale? nothing anywhere mentions its small scale battle.
Why do they not belong in regular 40k?
"someone saw something similar and wanted it to have in 40k" as an argument for why they are in there, has just as much merit as me saying "GW dug through their old lore and said hey why the hell not, lets add knights back into the mix." We dont know the real reason as to why they did it, we are jsut speculating.
The fit perfectly fine into the game, just like if someone really wanted to, they can run 4 baneblades, and currently they are not broken, they are at a ~50% win rate.
Because 40k portraits relatively small scale battles, Super Heavy's (and Flyers) don't fit into that scale. Especially not armies of them.
Why and who says 40k is small battle scale? nothing anywhere mentions its small scale battle.
Look at what a typical army contains, a few space marine squads and assorted vehicles? That's not a major battle, thats a small scale battle (I would call it a Skirmish but that might be confusing with Skirmish games being a thing, which 40k clearly isnt)
Backspacehacker wrote: Why and who says 40k is small battle scale? nothing anywhere mentions its small scale battle.
If you want small scale battles, feel free to run a Combat Patrol. Heck, recently I ran a 220(?) point Tau army on account that an opponent got the Necrons from the Recruit Edition and wanted a game.
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Thats according to you.
in a 2k list i can fit well close to
100 guardsmen if i really wanted to.
and like 5 russ battle tanks, it would not be a good list but you can
100 units and 5 tanks does not sound very small scale to me.
And thats the issue, its not small to me, to you it might be, to me its not.
So agian in a game where you have massive alien creatures and vehicles, how is a knight out of place that much?
Do think things like magnus and mortarian should not be there either?
i have never seen any real good argument as to why x can not be included into 40k regular games other then "Well they just should not be included because they dont belong."
If they are pointed correctly. there is no reason for them not to be in the game outside of literally being physically unable to fit them to the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/11 20:52:22
carldooley wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but everything available to non-primaris SM should be fieldable by CSM. Including all the 30k jank.
There used to be fluff reasons for CSM not having access to certain things - Land Speeder's grav systems degraded quickly in the warp/eye, they didn't have the equipment to recover drop pods after the battle (and could just teleport anyway), or just that X was a post 30k thing. I don't think they've touched on it recently, and it wouldn't apply to renegades who've recently turned...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: Why and who says 40k is small battle scale? nothing anywhere mentions its small scale battle.
Rogue Trader was designed for a squad or two on each side - The Battle of the Farm example was one squad of Marines against two of Orks. The intended size has grown across editions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/11 21:00:58
Backspacehacker wrote: Why and who says 40k is small battle scale? nothing anywhere mentions its small scale battle.
the rules, whatever is the smallest tactical unit in the game defines the scale of said game and for 40k the smallest tactical unit is the (fire-) team hence it is a small scale (pitched) battle
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
There was a fun Chaos Knights list that did well at a recent tourney as per the OP suggestion.
One Maegera and 8 regular wardogs/ 2 Moirax, all with traits for movement and rerolls. I think they made top 10. Wardogs kitted melta/chain and Moirax with lightning
1900 points with 100 left over for summoning on a Moirax character.
As a Tau player I'm honestly not looking forward to a castle/gunline book and hope we can interact in more phases of the game with this new codex
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/12 04:03:22
Do we? Has there been leak showing it's BS is going to be lowered? Haven't seen any leaks of stats besides what GW has shown and none has shown hammerhead BS(which is 3+ with reroll atm)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/12 07:50:15
Backspacehacker wrote: Thats according to you.
in a 2k list i can fit well close to
100 guardsmen if i really wanted to.
and like 5 russ battle tanks, it would not be a good list but you can
100 units and 5 tanks does not sound very small scale to me.
And thats the issue, its not small to me, to you it might be, to me its not.
So agian in a game where you have massive alien creatures and vehicles, how is a knight out of place that much?
Do think things like magnus and mortarian should not be there either?
i have never seen any real good argument as to why x can not be included into 40k regular games other then "Well they just should not be included because they dont belong."
If they are pointed correctly. there is no reason for them not to be in the game outside of literally being physically unable to fit them to the table.
100 guardsmen and five tanks begins to approach what is considered a 'large battle' in the game of 40k, but doesn't come close to the definition in the lore of the setting. Our own world has seen battles where hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of tanks vied to capture a single city over the course of a months long engagement, these figures (at least nominally) pale in comparison to 40k's lore.
The general workaround for this kind of problem is the concession that your game on the tabletop typically represents some obscure section of the front where the fighting is thick, but forces are densely distributed enough to be roughly equal in fighting strength - too close and minute a slice for factors like relative force strength, logistical support, and other macro-scale influences on the overall battle outcome to factor.
no portion is mortal wounds, barely does more damage than the hammerhead railgun in most cases (minimum 10, max of 12 vs flat 12), 24" range (which is almost a relevantly short range!) and doesn't ignore invuln saves.
This is exactly the kind of unproblematic (read: bad) weapon people have been lamenting since 8e began.
Daaaaamn. This is way more scary. I am curious at how easy it will be to drain T'au by putting incidental shots into counterfire models. It's certainly a mental game that has to be backed up by sufficient threats.
Backspacehacker wrote: 100 units and 5 tanks does not sound very small scale to me.
And thats the issue, its not small to me, to you it might be, to me its not.
Look at the art in your codex and tell me if the battles look like they involve a total of 100 guys and 5 tanks on each side.
In the real world, that's not even a full infantry company, reinforced by an armored platoon, and their engagement would be a minor skirmish, not even a 'battle'. It's not a big enough unit to have organic air support or artillery. A fight at this scale really shouldn't involve either- an Imperial Guard company commander is not going to have aircraft, superheavy tanks, or division-level artillery directly under his command. That's just not how the Guard is structured.
To justify the force composition we see in 40K you basically have to assume you're playing a small part of a much larger battle, but with major strategic assets allocated to this particular skirmish for some reason. You're not playing the Battle of Stalingrad, you're playing Pavlov's House, except there's a King Tiger there.
Epic is a better representation of the scale of 40K lore, and operates at a game scale where things like superheavies, aircraft, and long-range artillery fit more organically.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 14:52:47
Aenar wrote: Now I'm curious to read how flat dmg 12 on the big stormsurge gun is going to be the end of all 40K
It seems usable now. Personally I kept to the Pulse Driver Cannon as I prefer range. I generally always take the ATS & Shield generator, and unless the stabilization system is deployed, I will almost certainly use the dispersed shot - I prefer more shots to less.
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
The lack of invuln busting does make it seem a little lacking compared to a railgun, and will probably continue to once points are known... But, the Heavy 2 does make it's shots more reliable... Unless you can bring two Railguns per Pulse Blastcannon, then the better choice is obvious.
As said - it feels like bad design because its doubling down on "get lucky, your opponents stuff disappears, get unlucky it does precisely nothing".
Less with dispersed as people say - but still.
Oh well. Can't wait to see what they do with Volcano weapons. "Roll a dice, on a 4+ just remove your opponents unit".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 15:27:10
Tyel wrote: As said - it feels like bad design because its doubling down on "get lucky, your opponents stuff disappears, get unlucky it does precisely nothing".
Less with dispersed as people say - but still.
Oh well. Can't wait to see what they do with Volcano weapons. "Roll a dice, on a 4+ just remove your opponents unit".
Tyel wrote: As said - it feels like bad design because its doubling down on "get lucky, your opponents stuff disappears, get unlucky it does precisely nothing".
Less with dispersed as people say - but still.
Oh well. Can't wait to see what they do with Volcano weapons. "Roll a dice, on a 4+ just remove your opponents unit".
You say that as if its preposterous but that is literally what Str D weapons were in 7th. (not saying that was a good thing but 40k has already had this.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 15:34:46
As Custodes, this is hilarious. We get 2d weapons, while Mutants with ramshackle hammers made from rebar get 3d weapons, and Tau are getting this stupidity. Can Custodes get their old Tank and Storm cannon profiles back now please?
Backspacehacker wrote: 100 units and 5 tanks does not sound very small scale to me.
And thats the issue, its not small to me, to you it might be, to me its not.
Look at the art in your codex and tell me if the battles look like they involve a total of 100 guys and 5 tanks on each side.
In the real world, that's not even a full infantry company, reinforced by an armored platoon, and their engagement would be a minor skirmish, not even a 'battle'. It's not a big enough unit to have organic air support or artillery. A fight at this scale really shouldn't involve either- an Imperial Guard company commander is not going to have aircraft, superheavy tanks, or division-level artillery directly under his command. That's just not how the Guard is structured.
To justify the force composition we see in 40K you basically have to assume you're playing a small part of a much larger battle, but with major strategic assets allocated to this particular skirmish for some reason. You're not playing the Battle of Stalingrad, you're playing Pavlov's House, except there's a King Tiger there.
Epic is a better representation of the scale of 40K lore, and operates at a game scale where things like superheavies, aircraft, and long-range artillery fit more organically.
He said 100 *units*, not 100 *guys*. 100 *units* is not a company, depending on what you mean by "units" you're probably talking somewhere between a battalion and a brigade in size, which could (and likely would) have access to at least some, if not all of the organic assets you're clamoring on about depending on the organization of the guard unit in question.
Also, your perception of what constitutes a battle is flawed. By definition, a battle is "an occurrence of combat in warfare between opposing military units of any number or size that is well defined in duration, area, and force commitment." Two companies clashing can certainly constitute a battle, arguably this is more or less typical for what might constitute a battle in the modern war especially in lower intensity conflict. Given how wide unit frontages have become and the extremely large areas of operation that very small units are expected to cover in the modern day on what are termed "empty battlefields" for a fairly good reason, its not outside of the realm of reality for two company sized formations to enter into a discrete combat action that would be termed a battle.
A King Tiger does not constitute a "strategic asset" by any sense of the definition of the term.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/13 15:56:33
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Ordana wrote: You say that as if its preposterous but that is literally what Str D weapons were in 7th. (not saying that was a good thing but 40k has already had this.)
Fair point.
I try and forget the situation in 7th.
Wolfspear's 2k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
Skaven - 4500
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 