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.

Yeah, if not, this is going to be the edition of dreads and MEQ

Hopefully they did minor tweaks to dreads. I love the rock'em sock'em coffins but as they sit now in the leaks they're seeming pretty ridiculous.

 tauist wrote:
All this talk about being a part of the lore has given me an idea. I will name my legionnaires as "The Angels Vermillion", a small part of the IXth legion who eventually broke off into the same named chapter during the Second Founding. This explains their nonstandard colourscheme. As for why some their chapter symbols differ from the "right one", they got Mk VI to replenish their ranks and adopted the "new" BA symbol (the one used in 40K) before it became the standard one for the Blood Angels during the Second Founding. Heck, few of their vets (like Brother Furian) still hold on to their MkIV and the HH-era chapter symbol, and the banner their Ancient is toting has the RT era Chapter symbol. It's a mismash of the small details, and depicts the shift in the forces' customs, gradually moving further from the commonly adopted Legion uniforms and symbols..

What's the story about Aquilas? Are they strictly Haram in times of HH? I mean, my resin contemptor even has one..

They show up as early as the Drop Site Massacre (according to the book Massacre where Talos has one on and it gets damaged in the fight, so it was likely adopted by the legions sent to censure Horus to show fealty to the Emperor over Horus only for Traitors to wear it because they captured gear with it on or were waiting to turncoat on the loyalists).

Speaking of HH lore, isn't part of the canon of the black books is that they're written by a remembrancer and aren't based on objective information and could even leave information out?

I thought there was a difference between single-headed aquilas and double-headed aquilas? Only Emperor's Children could wear the double-headed aquila... until some point. Maybe when the Heresy broke out?

 Rihgu wrote:
I thought there was a difference between single-headed aquilas and double-headed aquilas? Only Emperor's Children could wear the double-headed aquila... until some point. Maybe when the Heresy broke out?

The EC have the Aquila Palantine (or was it Palantine Aquila?) which has swept wings instead of the flat wings of the Aquila Imperialis.

The EC could wear the Palatine Aquila, the one that they wear as their Legion emblem.

 Gert wrote:
The EC could wear the Palatine Aquila, the one that they wear as their Legion emblem.

Yup. The Aquila Imperialis being worn in wide adoption seems to be something when Horus's betrayal was exposed.

Looking at older lore it seems it used to be that there was just one kind of Aquila (which exists on older marks of armour in GW's "Armour Through the Ages" set) but FW made a distinction between the EC one and modern aquila which previously was widely adopted when MkVII armour was adopted.

Basically this shows how malleable the HH lore has been and how muddled the "modern" 40k understanding of what happened has become as we learn more new things as time goes on.

On a different note: I've seen the new Praetors described as "baroque" and honestly I am all for that. Then again when I imagine 40k I usually do so with the dramatic lighting of a Dutch Baroque painting so I am on board for such a thing.

That said I feel that in other paint styles those models will work better for people. Kind of like how seeing non-'Eavy Metal Primaris lead to people warming up to the models when they're not painted in such a way to draw attention to every small detail on the model.

Looking at Lexicanum and the 40k wiki, only the EC were allowed to wear the the Palatine aquilia (apparently that was the old name), or aka the imperial eagal, loud and proud on their chests, while none of the other legions were not. This was done in honor of the sacrifice of the 16th cohort of the EC, who died alongside the custodes while a wounded Big E escaped. The difference between the palatine aquila and the post HH one being the palatine aquila was blindfolded one side.



It was apparently only until after the HH it was officially handed out to all loyalists, though during the war it became a way to identify allegiances. The half-eagle wing on the EC shoulders is the legion's symbol, which they wore in conjunction with the aquila.

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Aquila
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Aquila
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Emperor%27s_Children

Do we expect maybe the 1d6 damage thing to be ported to HH 2.0 ? Maybe only against vehicles / dreadnought etc thanks to a keyword maybe?

There's a few things that do effectively d3 damage - most notably the Brutal USR (very rare though), Destroyer weapon type, and Dreadnoughts ignore Instant Death, instead suffering D3 wounds.

But no, there's no damage characteristic seen as yet.

There was a main Battle between Sons of Horus and Ultramarines during the Horus Heresy in the RT-Era Fluff, does someone know or remember which battle this was?

 godardc wrote:
Do we expect maybe the 1d6 damage thing to be ported to HH 2.0 ? Maybe only against vehicles / dreadnought etc thanks to a keyword maybe?

Nope as mentioned the onlythings so far that we see that do a Dx damage are
Brutal D3
and Destroyer.

Which im 100% ok with, random damage values honestly suck, they are a horrible unbalanced features that are way to random. A weapon having a swing in damage from 1 to 6 is far to insane.
The only way i personally would tolerate is would be if there was a floor to the damage. Example being d6 damage but rolls of 1 and 2 are doubled.

Ok, I'm very curious to see how the dreadnoughts are going to be balanced then, as they look particularly sturdy rn

 godardc wrote:
Ok, I'm very curious to see how the dreadnoughts are going to be balanced then, as they look particularly sturdy rn

Massed fire or CC. IDK if its special shield works in melee to negate instant death.

It's shield does work in melee.
Massed fire isn't really practical either, you need several hundred shots from even stuff like heavy bolters or volkite.

I really hope Dreadnoughts get nerfed, they really are absurd.
It's exactly the same problem you used to have with the likes of Riptides in 7th edition, except now we don't have Riptides and 7th Grav to fight them with!

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's shield does work in melee.
Massed fire isn't really practical either, you need several hundred shots from even stuff like heavy bolters or volkite.

I really hope Dreadnoughts get nerfed, they really are absurd.
It's exactly the same problem you used to have with the likes of Riptides in 7th edition, except now we don't have Riptides and 7th Grav to fight them with!

Honestly all that would need to be done is just remove the ability to not get instant deathed or just have it be a hard "You take 3 wounds rather then 1"

Instant Deathing a Dreadnought would be silly though - Murderous Strike is more common now as well.
A flat 3 wounds would be better.
But really the main problem is T7/2+ makes it more or less immune to anything but actual AT guns, combined with the fact that 5++/6W means it can shrug off even actual AT guns 'till the cows come home.
Leviathons in particular can shrug off more melta and lascannons than some super heavies!

The best choice, really, would just be to make them flipping vehicles.
Walkers worked just fine - it was always Monsters that were borked.

Failing that, reducing them to 3+ with like 4W would be better.

Yeah im happy on one had that they stopped being just vehicles but at the other time its a can of worms.

I for one welcome our osiron overlords.

How much do you think the box will cost?

 Viridovix wrote:
How much do you think the box will cost?

Being very very VERY hopeful, i would say 250, as this is in line with the discount off of the MSRP of the models in B@C
Being realistic, its probably going to be about 300 or 350
Being Highly pessimistic, 400 possibly, which would still end up being a 50% off MSRP.

350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away

Well it isn't supposed to be a Started Box but a Launch Box akin to Indomitus or Dominion.

I mean if the rumors are true its a CRAP ton of models

 godardc wrote:
350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away

BAC was 30 Tacs, 5 termies, 2 HQs and a dread. this launch box has all that and then tosses in a Spartan.

BrianDavion wrote:

 godardc wrote:
350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away

BAC was 30 Tacs, 5 termies, 2 HQs and a dread. this launch box has all that and then tosses in a Spartan.

rumor being 40 tacs and 10 terms actually.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 godardc wrote:
350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away

BAC was 30 Tacs, 5 termies, 2 HQs and a dread. this launch box has all that and then tosses in a Spartan.

rumor being 40 tacs and 10 terms actually.

right, which means you'relooking at, effectively, 3 more kits.

BaC/BoP were £90/$150, but that's £90 in 2016. You're looking at at least £120 for the same now.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
BaC/BoP were £90/$150, but that's £90 in 2016. You're looking at at least £120 for the same now.

Yeah I definitely see an increase in price with this boxe, obviously but around 350 looks ... Unsustainable. But indeed, Titanucs launch boxe was pretty expensive, was it 240 ?
Maybe they can get the price somehow acceptable by not tossing a game in it, unlike BaC and Prospero

I think the idea behind the "launch" box is that this is everything one person will need to create their full army and get playing. Rulebook(s), dice, templates, piles of models, everything you need to start playing today!
Whether or not it's really worth it will depend on exactly what all comes in it and what the final price will be. Until GW announces it and confirms the complete contents, the rumored contents can still change a bit right up until the box itself goes to the printers and the contents are printed on it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think the idea behind the "launch" box is that this is everything one person will need to create their full army and get playing. Rulebook(s), dice, templates, piles of models, everything you need to start playing today!
Whether or not it's really worth it will depend on exactly what all comes in it and what the final price will be. Until GW announces it and confirms the complete contents, the rumored contents can still change a bit right up until the box itself goes to the printers and the contents are printed on it.

I mean if it clocks in at 300, and you were someone who wanted a spartan? hell yeah it is.