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 datasheet for the Warpsmith can be 90% the same with a small line that says "This model can be equipped with either a Power Axe or a Thunder Hammer" and boom done. It's a relatively small line in the grand scheme of things.
clockworkchris9 wrote: Guys this has already been stated to be a leak that i myself cannot validate, could we stop posting that we need to take this with salt and that you dont believe it or that you have doubts. Its redundant and serves no purpose, instead lets just talk about our opinions on the actual leaks.
No? Because if you can't validate the rumors yourself and the information you're providing seems contradictory or unbelievable, then it's perfectly reasonable for people to discuss the validity as well as the contents.
Might it turn out that your source is correct? Possibly. I've also seen a Reddit poster that posted about both the ranger jetbike and exact box contents over 8 months ago. And lately they posted info about the yet undiscussed Chaos Knight release, both models and rules.
Whether or not that's the same poster you're talking about I don't know. But there have also been multiple fake leakers so getting worked up over a third hand rumor seems a little silly at this point.
Honestly, I see why clockworkchris9 is frustrated. On B&C they're discussing the content of the rumours, the credibility of the source is stated upfront and the mods step in to stop people demanding their nans medical history to prove the sky is blue.
They come here to share excitement and interesting stuff to discuss and people are so stiff about it all, refusing to accept anything unless it's a leaked picture a lot of the time. Rumours don't exist on Dakka any more really, the eldar calendar proved that, so many people just dumping on it because it wasn't believable, from a 'proven source', or simply because discord or reddit were mentioned. Discussing it for fun was secondary to it being legitimate.
And the original Eldar rumors there ended up being complete bunk, before someone came in with actual leaks complete with blurry photos of the codex.
There weren't any blurry codex photos until after new years iirc.
There were not, and one of the leakers had been leaking stuff for months before even the advent calendar. Which is why it's a bit annoying when we have people dumping on the rumor folks when they come here. Like, we already know to take anything with salt, it's rumors after all.
And the original Eldar rumors there ended up being complete bunk, before someone came in with actual leaks complete with blurry photos of the codex.
There was a set of rumours posted on r/Eldar in late November that turned out to be inaccurate.
However the next set of rumours from Dec 1st onwards came with no public proof, but apparently shared some material privately with the admins of the Eldar discord in return for a vouch. These rumours were at least 90% accurate so far.
Then from the start of January a third person started to leak codex images via the Eldar Discord server.
And the original Eldar rumors there ended up being complete bunk, before someone came in with actual leaks complete with blurry photos of the codex.
There was a set of rumours posted on r/Eldar in late November that turned out to be inaccurate.
However the next set of rumours from Dec 1st onwards came with no public proof, but apparently shared some material privately with the admins of the Eldar discord in return for a vouch. These rumours were at least 90% accurate so far.
Then from the start of January a third person started to leak codex images via the Eldar Discord server.
All in all, very little of what was leaked was complete bunk
Sasori wrote: There were not, and one of the leakers had been leaking stuff for months before even the advent calendar. Which is why it's a bit annoying when we have people dumping on the rumor folks when they come here. Like, we already know to take anything with salt, it's rumors after all.
I'm just asking questions about things that seem weird and what it might mean for other units. I don't really think that's verboten.
I honestly don't understand why the topic of rumor validity is so important. With GW being so tight-lipped and taking their sweet time getting things out, I'm thankful for anything that keeps the conversation going and I enjoy the speculation that comes with it. I know some rumors end up being bupkis, but I also know that they're fun to talk about regardless. Either way, the only thing that matters in the end is the official release, and everything up until that point is just debates, hopium and copium.
See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
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
drbored wrote: I honestly don't understand why the topic of rumor validity is so important. With GW being so tight-lipped and taking their sweet time getting things out, I'm thankful for anything that keeps the conversation going and I enjoy the speculation that comes with it. I know some rumors end up being bupkis, but I also know that they're fun to talk about regardless. Either way, the only thing that matters in the end is the official release, and everything up until that point is just debates, hopium and copium.
I'd say validity is important because people get massively riled up over this stuff, act like it's 100% going to happen, and then start hurling insults if someone says "stop being so mad it's just a rumour". Generally, it also happens that if someone doesn't believe the rumour they get told "you just don't understand GW" or "you're <insert insult> if you think GW wouldn't do that". The discussion never goes anywhere, it just becomes another dumping ground for those who have an axe to grind. Just my two pence.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/03 23:51:29
drbored wrote: I honestly don't understand why the topic of rumor validity is so important. With GW being so tight-lipped and taking their sweet time getting things out, I'm thankful for anything that keeps the conversation going and I enjoy the speculation that comes with it. I know some rumors end up being bupkis, but I also know that they're fun to talk about regardless. Either way, the only thing that matters in the end is the official release, and everything up until that point is just debates, hopium and copium.
I'd say validity is important because people get massively riled up over this stuff, act like it's 100% going to happen, and then start hurling insults if someone says "stop being so mad it's just a rumour". Generally, it also happens that if someone doesn't believe the rumour they get told "you just don't understand GW" or "you're <insert insult> if you think GW wouldn't do that". The discussion never goes anywhere, it just becomes another dumping ground for those who have an axe to grind. Just my two pence.
That's fair. In my mind it's less about validity and more about where you get your entertainment. This sort of forum is entertainment, whether it's watching other people grind axes or speculating on what's coming, what might come, etc.
From what I've seen, anyone that makes any sort of claim along the lines of "GW would NEVER/ALWAYS do this!" ends up being wrong more often than not, and that's fun to watch.
Sasori wrote: There were not, and one of the leakers had been leaking stuff for months before even the advent calendar. Which is why it's a bit annoying when we have people dumping on the rumor folks when they come here. Like, we already know to take anything with salt, it's rumors after all.
I'm just asking questions about things that seem weird and what it might mean for other units. I don't really think that's verboten.
It isn't, but it's more interesting to discuss the actual leaked rules. For instance, look at that Night Lords trait compared to the others. How am I supposed to make that work against high leadership factions? C'mon, give me that "Daedalus" positive spin.
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing. The fact that this comes about only because of GW's asinine no model/no rule issue having a head-on collision with an extremely option poor kit (Chaos Termies) makes it all the worse, as it is 100% in GW's power to not do this. This is a dilemma of their own creation and, sadly, a solution that only they could come up with...
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing.
But that's exactly what the Jackals deal with when it comes to the models having shotguns, autopistols, and an autogun all having one generic "Jackal guns" statline despite Neophytes being able to literally mix those three actual weapon statlines in a squad.
I can literally in one army put a unit down with 1 autopistol, 4 shotguns, and 5 autogun that have autopistol, shotgun, autogun statlines when they shoot and in that same army put down a unit with 3 shotguns, 3 autopistol, and 2 autoguns that all share a 12" Pistol 2 statline when they fire.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2022/02/04 01:01:30
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
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing. The fact that this comes about only because of GW's asinine no model/no rule issue having a head-on collision with an extremely option poor kit (Chaos Termies) makes it all the worse, as it is 100% in GW's power to not do this. This is a dilemma of their own creation and, sadly, a solution that only they could come up with...
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing. The fact that this comes about only because of GW's asinine no model/no rule issue having a head-on collision with an extremely option poor kit (Chaos Termies) makes it all the worse, as it is 100% in GW's power to not do this. This is a dilemma of their own creation and, sadly, a solution that only they could come up with...
Yeah, I'll forever be in the camp that GW should just have more bits in the box, especially if kit prices are going to keep going up like they are. Simplification of rules aside, this is the greater point of the issue. So many sprues are jam-packed with bits, in ways that minimize seam-lines gorgeously, but with less and less customization.
In a faction like Chaos Marines where customization is incredibly important, having both kit options and rules options shrink away like this feels real bad.
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing.
But that's exactly what the Jackals deal with when it comes to the models having shotguns, autopistols, and an autogun all having one generic "Jackal guns" statline despite Neophytes being able to literally mix those three actual weapon statlines in a squad.
I can literally in one army put a unit down with 1 autopistol, 4 shotguns, and 5 autogun that have autopistol, shotgun, autogun statlines when they shoot and in that same army put down a unit with 3 shotguns, 3 autopistol, and 2 autoguns that all share a 12" Pistol 2 statline when they fire.
Yeah, that's more my issue. I actually don't care about 'jackal guns' and 'accursed weapons' as something supposedly inherently bad. I actually liked all power weapons (or hand weapons in fantasy) being the same back in the day- it meant modelling for the look of the miniature, not min/maxing every applicable bonus. I honestly really like that more. 'Small arms' being a category for anti-infantry weapons is an idea I can get behind instead of 4.5 pages of stats vomit- save that for small scale games like Necromunda or Warcry.
But I very much dislike them being inconsistent about it.
Platuan4th wrote: But that's exactly what the Jackals deal with when it comes to the models having shotguns, autopistols, and an autogun all having one generic "Jackal guns" statline despite Neophytes being able to literally mix those three actual weapon statlines in a squad.
My apologies. I didn't realise they had done it with ranged weaponry, only a few random HTH weapons (an axe here, a pick there).
Yeah... that's beyond stupid. And I really thought that the insufferable word-salad unit option nonsense from Death Guard through Sword Brethren was the bottom of the barrel. Somehow GW dug deeper.
drbored wrote: Yeah, I'll forever be in the camp that GW should just have more bits in the box, especially if kit prices are going to keep going up like they are. Simplification of rules aside, this is the greater point of the issue. So many sprues are jam-packed with bits, in ways that minimize seam-lines gorgeously, but with less and less customization.
'Bits, bits, everywhere and not a option to use...' - The Rime of the Ancient Jervisifier
drbored wrote: In a faction like Chaos Marines where customization is incredibly important, having both kit options and rules options shrink away like this feels real bad.
It's a doubly poor showing for Chaos in this particular instance, because we're finally getting a full plastic Chosen kit.
Chosen. The Chosen of the Warmaster. The leader's top soldiers. The absolute best of the best. The men who have been through everything, slaughtered thousands in the name of the Dark Gods, and should, by rights, have first pick of the best equipment. And what do they get:
1. A sprue with a limited selection of weapons*. 2. Rules that make all their weapons generic.
Talk about a kick to the progenoid gland!
*Not as limited as Terminators, of course.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/02/04 01:18:09
Yeah, that's the sting. Tbh, I can deal with rules being wonky or weird or simply lacking, I've been dealing with that since 5th edition when it comes to Chaos Marines.
But when the actual kits are less impressive... All I can hope is that I can indeed kitbash the Chosen more easily than some other models. Plague Marines, for example, sometimes only build one or two ways. As long as I can swap in some Havoc, Chaos Marine, or Raptor weapons in among the Chosen, then I can make whatever I want. But, for a kit that's likely going to be 60USD for 5 models, I was hoping for a lot more.
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing. The fact that this comes about only because of GW's asinine no model/no rule issue having a head-on collision with an extremely option poor kit (Chaos Termies) makes it all the worse, as it is 100% in GW's power to not do this. This is a dilemma of their own creation and, sadly, a solution that only they could come up with...
Yeah, I'll forever be in the camp that GW should just have more bits in the box, especially if kit prices are going to keep going up like they are. Simplification of rules aside, this is the greater point of the issue. So many sprues are jam-packed with bits, in ways that minimize seam-lines gorgeously, but with less and less customization.
In a faction like Chaos Marines where customization is incredibly important, having both kit options and rules options shrink away like this feels real bad.
It comes down to gw not putting equal sprues for equal $$ in kits. Chaos Terminators are two sprues for $60. Meanwhile, Sword Brethren are three sprues for $55. The Chaos Terminators kit comes with, what? 11 melee weapons? My Cataphractii came with: 10 lighting claws, 5 power fists, 5 chainfists, and a power sword. Why couldn't they get another sprue in the Chaos Terminators box when they could similar models?
Platuan4th wrote: See, I totally buy the Accursed Weapon thing after they did the same thing to Jackals in the GSC book.
Jervis' kids must be playing the game again.
Yeah I dunno if I'd call it the 'same thing'. Giving us a situation where one unit has a Lightning Claw that's the same as a Power Maul, but another where it's not, is needlessly confusing. The fact that this comes about only because of GW's asinine no model/no rule issue having a head-on collision with an extremely option poor kit (Chaos Termies) makes it all the worse, as it is 100% in GW's power to not do this. This is a dilemma of their own creation and, sadly, a solution that only they could come up with...
Yeah, I'll forever be in the camp that GW should just have more bits in the box, especially if kit prices are going to keep going up like they are. Simplification of rules aside, this is the greater point of the issue. So many sprues are jam-packed with bits, in ways that minimize seam-lines gorgeously, but with less and less customization.
In a faction like Chaos Marines where customization is incredibly important, having both kit options and rules options shrink away like this feels real bad.
It comes down to gw not putting equal sprues for equal $$ in kits. Chaos Terminators are two sprues for $60. Meanwhile, Sword Brethren are three sprues for $55. The Chaos Terminators kit comes with, what? 11 melee weapons? My Cataphractii came with: 10 lighting claws, 5 power fists, 5 chainfists, and a power sword. Why couldn't they get another sprue in the Chaos Terminators box when they could similar models?
A wonderful question that I'd love to ask the higher ups.
drbored wrote: But when the actual kits are less impressive... All I can hope is that I can indeed kitbash the Chosen more easily than some other models. Plague Marines, for example, sometimes only build one or two ways. As long as I can swap in some Havoc, Chaos Marine, or Raptor weapons in among the Chosen, then I can make whatever I want. But, for a kit that's likely going to be 60USD for 5 models, I was hoping for a lot more.
I've never sat down and counted them, but I believe I own roughly 5-6 boxes of Vanguard Vets, 5-6 boxes of Sternguard Vets and between 8-10 boxes of Deathwatch Vets. I bought them all to kit-bash the ever-loving feth out of them, mixing and matching all sorts of crazy gear.
Then I look at the Chosen kit... and... what went wrong?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/04 01:52:56
Sasori wrote: There were not, and one of the leakers had been leaking stuff for months before even the advent calendar. Which is why it's a bit annoying when we have people dumping on the rumor folks when they come here. Like, we already know to take anything with salt, it's rumors after all.
I'm just asking questions about things that seem weird and what it might mean for other units. I don't really think that's verboten.
It isn't, but it's more interesting to discuss the actual leaked rules. For instance, look at that Night Lords trait compared to the others. How am I supposed to make that work against high leadership factions? C'mon, give me that "Daedalus" positive spin.
I think I am in the minority, but I personally don't really mind the "Accursed Weapons" thing. I own a lot of old metal terminators, some with chain axes, some with power swords, some power mauls etc, and it will be actually quite nice that the weapons have the same profile so can just be rolled all at once. And the "Accursed Weapons" profile actually looks pretty good. I mean do people really want to have a combat where you roll one chain ax, four chain swords, a power sword, a power maul, and a fist? Now you can just put any weapon that looks cool (like a power maul as the profile sucks) or kitbash your own cool looking weapons (like a buzz saw or daemon whip) and not worry about what it does. Actually kit bashing my own weapons seems like the best reason to like this rule, as it opens up a lot of possibilities. And it is better than GW limiting you to the exact weapons in the kit so one chose must have claws, on one can have a chain ax etc.
I am more annoyed about terminators losing access to the combi-bolter weapons as I can't take a melta bomb squad (never had the energy to get all the plasma) anymore and that kind of sucks. I feel bad for anyone who put in the work for the plasma spam.
Outside of the terminator/chosen issue I am really liking the rumors so far. I think the doctrines seem good but not over the top. I am pretty excited as I have not played CSM for several years and really want to break out my models.
Sasori wrote: There were not, and one of the leakers had been leaking stuff for months before even the advent calendar. Which is why it's a bit annoying when we have people dumping on the rumor folks when they come here. Like, we already know to take anything with salt, it's rumors after all.
I'm just asking questions about things that seem weird and what it might mean for other units. I don't really think that's verboten.
It isn't, but it's more interesting to discuss the actual leaked rules. For instance, look at that Night Lords trait compared to the others. How am I supposed to make that work against high leadership factions? C'mon, give me that "Daedalus" positive spin.
Hang on let me go read them, lol.
So, -2LD @ 9" is pretty decent. If that stacked under current rules it would murder so hard - not even considering -1 CA. If spearguy still puts out -1LD then you're 3/4 the way to the -4LD from DG terminators.
I don't know your favorite mark, but +1S and +1AP with another +1AP in doctrine on top of the +1 to wound...like that friggin' murders with basic weapons...
The ability to trigger morale with the -2 when you hit melee will be quite high.
xeen wrote: I mean do people really want to have a combat where you roll one chain ax, four chain swords, a power sword, a power maul, and a fist?
I want the rules to represent the models on a consistent basis.
I want a Lightning Claw pair in one squad to be the same as a Lightning Claw pair in another squad, not claws in one and some Jervisified generic weapon in another because the people writing the rules had a mental meltdown when faced with no model/no rule vs poorly designed kits. Personally I don't think that's too much to ask a power sword be a power sword consistently across the entire army, especially given Marines have 89 different types of Bolters.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/02/04 02:22:54
Sasori wrote: There were not, and one of the leakers had been leaking stuff for months before even the advent calendar. Which is why it's a bit annoying when we have people dumping on the rumor folks when they come here. Like, we already know to take anything with salt, it's rumors after all.
I'm just asking questions about things that seem weird and what it might mean for other units. I don't really think that's verboten.
It isn't, but it's more interesting to discuss the actual leaked rules. For instance, look at that Night Lords trait compared to the others. How am I supposed to make that work against high leadership factions? C'mon, give me that "Daedalus" positive spin.
Hang on let me go read them, lol.
So, -2LD @ 9" is pretty decent. If that stacked under current rules it would murder so hard - not even considering -1 CA. If spearguy still puts out -1LD then you're 3/4 the way to the -4LD from DG terminators.
I don't know your favorite mark, but +1S and +1AP with another +1AP in doctrine on top of the +1 to wound...like that friggin' murders with basic weapons...
The ability to trigger morale with the -2 when you hit melee will be quite high.
"Spearguy" is Black Legion. As for Marks, I prefer none, because they're Night Lords. But since that doesn't appear to be a viable option again, I'd go "mix-n-match". Nurgle for Havocs (T5 with -1 to wound and auto-wounding 6s with chaincannons, yowza), Khorne for Raptors for the reasons you stated, Slaanesh for Warp Talons (hitting on 2s + fighting first + no fallback + 5 attacks = Bladeguard killers). Still undecided on CSM and Chosen (need to see all of those Veteran Skills first). Sound like a plan?
Just....looking at the Chosen Sprue is depressing.
The sheer amount of split torsos, split bodies with one and a half legs etc. is just depressing. I wasn't a huge fan of the CSM kit going down that route but at least the arms and in some cases the torsos were salvageable and could be, for the most part mixed with heads/shoulders/arms from other kits.
But the Chosen Sprue.... literally has backpacks that are forced to bodies. Bodies that have the strangest splits I have ever seen.
At least it looks like we can mostly ccw/pistol or all bolter them if need be but given what they pulled with Plague Marines, I don't trust them not to shaft us with random luck of the kit options.
What they did to Plague Marines was diabolical. In the space of 1 edition. 1 edition the majority of my DG army basically became illegal. And I have no idea who the hell thought that was a good idea.
Did they not think people woulddouble up on weapon options and run multiples? I mean, it's a wargame, technically. Strategicially it's not valid to run a squad that has half a dozen different weapons suited for half a dozen different targets.
The universal blobbing of weapons seems...terrible.
Now, if they pulled a complete overhaul of the gave so that infantry all had X, Y or Z TYPES as profiles for weapons, that wouldn't be a problem.
But as people have pointed out with GSC - when you can literally have other units in the very same army with the very same VISUAL representation of weapons but completely different statlines... that's a problem.
Clarity and WYSIWYG is important. And though this might be an easy solution for WYSIWYG purposes and to not completely invalidate CSM players squads entirely (haha, only 1 pair of Lightnig Claws for your Terminators, RIP those squads of them) the other option is to just let us take them as we did before and NOT restrict them to what horrible design plans GW decided when doingt he kit for options.
DarkStarSabre wrote: But the Chosen Sprue.... literally has backpacks that are forced to bodies. Bodies that have the strangest splits I have ever seen.
The backpacks, arms, pauldrons & heads/helmets are interchangeable in the same way as they are in e.g. the basic CSM box. You're not forced to put certain backpacks on certain bodies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/04 03:45:48
Yeah it's not quite the Havoc situation, where the helmets attach to the backpack, further limiting posing.
But, still, given the type of kit we couldhavegot, it ain't great, and the disappointment is further compounded by what I said earlier: These are meant to be Chosen, FFS!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/04 03:56:16
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
