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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, GW really likes taking away Necron gimmicks.

Yeah...
Honestly with how ridiculous the power level has jumped with 9th, I think it's finally time for a real rework of the reanimation protocol, make all the Gauss weapons AP ∞, and give Ignore Invul to all Necron Blades.
And it wouldn't even be that crazy at this point.

And give beam to a bunch of things (The Gauss canon of the Annihilation barge, Doomdsday Ark Canon and the Monolith Death ray at minimum should get it), while Quantum Shielding should not only be brought back to every vehicles (including LoW) but also be changed from autofail wound rolls of 1-3 to autofail on 6.

As for the LoV, they look decent, I guess. The Judgement token mechanic is just very poorly thought out and will hard counter some army that honestly don't need more hardcounter than they already have, but the rest is okay I guess. I wish the marked legions got the same treatment.

I'm looking thing over, and LoV are going to be a HARD counter to Custodes, and to a lesser extent Deathguard.

With the right combo you can throw out 3 Judgement Tokens the beginning of turn 1, and get +1 to hit. With that combo a basic 220 point Hearthkyn squad can wipe 3 Custodes off the board with one round of shooting alone.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm looking thing over, and LoV are going to be a HARD counter to Custodes, and to a lesser extent Deathguard.

With the right combo you can throw out 3 Judgement Tokens the beginning of turn 1, and get +1 to hit. With that combo a basic 220 point Hearthkyn squad can wipe 3 Custodes off the board with one round of shooting alone.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuup. And imagine how hard the Knights will get countered.

As I said, that mechanic is very poorly thought out and should have been consumed on use.

You can put tokens on units, and then consume one for a auto hit, something like that, ANYTHING other than just "infinit duration stacking debuff".

I still can't figure out why the "Bolt Shotgun":

1. Exists.
2. Is somehow more powerful than a bolt gun when the force of the shot comes from the ammunition's own propulsion system.
3. Has the same rate of fire as a bolt gun.

[EDIT]: Holy crap!


"Votann Power!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still can't figure out why the "Bolt Shotgun":

1. Exists.
2. Is somehow more powerful than a bolt gun when the force of the shot comes from the ammunition's own propulsion system.
3. Has the same rate of fire as a bolt gun.

I can answer that.

1. Because the hacks at GW that replaced the old guard of historical nerds are a bunch of millennials that have no knowledge nor interest in weaponry or military in general. They also have very, VERY poor game designe skills as the total shitshow that has been 9th can attest, and have clearly lost view of what stats are supposed to mean, as the shift from GEq to MEq as the "standard" proves.
2. See point 1
3. See point 2.


[EDIT]: Holy crap!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoiler:

"Votann Power!"

Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.

BTW, I love how the super sturdy LAND FORTRESS use wheels and have a giant glass dome as cockpit.
Don't think too much about the logistic, just clap at the very "original design" and how this big one is a call back to the small one.

It does look good in green, though.

 (HN) wrote:
Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.

TMNT? "low-tier"? Get outta here...

Quite literally all of the Citadel range looks cartoonish with the right paint job.

There's a leaked picture from the codex that shows the Hearthkin and the Land Fortresses in a red colour scheme. I think they look excellent.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It does look good in green, though.

I mean, the TMNT color shem was nice back then and is still nice today, but it really highlight the cheap toy design of the thing ngl.

 Dysartes wrote:

 (HN) wrote:
Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.

TMNT? "low-tier"? Get outta here...

Sorry to break it to ya, but as much as I loved the cartoon back then, it's still a low tier advertisement show in the same style than He-Man and GI Joe.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
Quite literally all of the Citadel range looks cartoonish with the right paint job.

There's a leaked picture from the codex that shows the Hearthkin and the Land Fortresses in a red colour scheme. I think they look excellent.

Fair enough, but on the same token anything will look excellent with the right colorsheme.

I think I saw a black armor with brown cloth colorsheme on one of the artwork, it does look pretty nice too.

Still, doesn't change the fact that the Land Fortress looks bad and it get worse the more you look at it.
It has the exact same size and number of wheels than the Sagitaur and the same glass cockpit too.
While thos things looked okay on a small fast moving recon vehicle, on what is literally called "Land Fortress" it looks ridiculous.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoiler:

"Votann Power!"

That will go really well with the various Power Ranger Eldar armies I've seen!

 (HN) wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It does look good in green, though.

I mean, the TMNT color shem was nice back then and is still nice today, but it really highlight the cheap toy design of the thing ngl.

 Dysartes wrote:

 (HN) wrote:
Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.

TMNT? "low-tier"? Get outta here...

Sorry to break it to ya, but as much as I loved the cartoon back then, it's still a low tier advertisement show in the same style than He-Man and GI Joe.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
Quite literally all of the Citadel range looks cartoonish with the right paint job.

There's a leaked picture from the codex that shows the Hearthkin and the Land Fortresses in a red colour scheme. I think they look excellent.

Fair enough, but on the same token anything will look excellent with the right colorsheme.

I think I saw a black armor with brown cloth colorsheme on one of the artwork, it does look pretty nice too.

Still, doesn't change the fact that the Land Fortress looks bad and it get worse the more you look at it.
It has the exact same size and number of wheels than the Sagitaur and the same glass cockpit too.
While thos things looked okay on a small fast moving recon vehicle, on what is literally called "Land Fortress" it looks ridiculous.

And here we go again with the opinion stated as fact. Useful.

I think, like someone above said, the issue with the Land fortress is the name, not the model, the model makes sense for the faction, the word “fortress” doesn’t fit the model.

Ps. I like the little wheels, it looks great not to have huge Tonka truck wheels, especial for a race of dwarves, everything would have had to be very high up with big wheels, keeping stuff low down for the squats is perfect logistical sense.

They could have a step stool on the side to get in, like a lot of trucks.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still can't figure out why the "Bolt Shotgun":

1. Exists.
2. Is somehow more powerful than a bolt gun when the force of the shot comes from the ammunition's own propulsion system.
3. Has the same rate of fire as a bolt gun.

[EDIT]: Holy crap!

Spoiler:

"Votann Power!"

Please tell me somewhere that someone has done the BT emperors champion as He-Man with a Necron Skeletor

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.

Tell that to gw who is doing it.

Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September

so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise

I wonder if it's a hint about when the LoV stuff will be out ?

[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]

Was the same true for the coin, Orlando?

they didn't have them and they didn't have a date for them either, sorry not to be more helpful

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September

so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise

I wonder if it's a hint about when the LoV stuff will be out ?

[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]

The Rotmire MoM was available from the 13th of August same day as Heart of Ghur released.

Andykp wrote:
And here we go again with the opinion stated as fact. Useful.

And here we go again, terrible take needlessly agressive. Useful.

Andykp wrote:
I think, like someone above said, the issue with the Land fortress is the name, not the model, the model makes sense for the faction, the word “fortress” doesn’t fit the model.

The name doesn't help, but even without that, they are trying to pretend this thing with its tiny wheels and giant glass cockpit is supposed to be among the sturdiest vehicles of the 41th millenium, which makes no sens if you try to turn on your brain for more than 1 second.

Andykp wrote:
Ps. I like the little wheels, it looks great not to have huge Tonka truck wheels, especial for a race of dwarves, everything would have had to be very high up with big wheels, keeping stuff low down for the squats is perfect logistical sense.

Nop, it doesn't make sens for a giant heavy tank to have the same set of wheels than a light recon vehicle. If they really wanted to keep the same wheel because they are too cheap to 3D cad new ones, they should have at least increased the number of wheels to 4 pairs.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September

so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise

Yup, same here, I dropped specifically to get one and was told "Ho you didn't know? They are for the 24th!"
I double checked the site and I'm convinced they have edited it to add that date, because when I read it the first time it wasn' there.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I wonder if it's a hint about when the LoV stuff will be out ?

[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]

From what the store guy told me today, is "totally unconfirmed guess" is that the LoV may be released (the launch box at least) the same day than this free mini.
Take that with a

 Dysartes wrote:
Was the same true for the coin, Orlando?

Nop the coin was there.
From what I understand GW has been struggling to supply free minies on time at the start of the month like they used to, and it's apparently not intentional (from what the store guy told me).

Some of these new models look great, I like the champion in exo armour (or whatever it’s called) though I do hope it comes with a helmet, I love the new fortress personally I think it’s a great looking vehicle.

Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.

 (HN) wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And here we go again with the opinion stated as fact. Useful.

And here we go again, terrible take needlessly agressive. Useful.

Andykp wrote:
I think, like someone above said, the issue with the Land fortress is the name, not the model, the model makes sense for the faction, the word “fortress” doesn’t fit the model.

The name doesn't help, but even without that, they are trying to pretend this thing with its tiny wheels and giant glass cockpit is supposed to be among the sturdiest vehicles of the 41th millenium, which makes no sens if you try to turn on your brain for more than 1 second.

Andykp wrote:
Ps. I like the little wheels, it looks great not to have huge Tonka truck wheels, especial for a race of dwarves, everything would have had to be very high up with big wheels, keeping stuff low down for the squats is perfect logistical sense.

Nop, it doesn't make sens for a giant heavy tank to have the same set of wheels than a light recon vehicle. If they really wanted to keep the same wheel because they are too cheap to 3D cad new ones, they should have at least increased the number of wheels to 4 pairs.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September

so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise

Yup, same here, I dropped specifically to get one and was told "Ho you didn't know? They are for the 24th!"
I double checked the site and I'm convinced they have edited it to add that date, because when I read it the first time it wasn' there.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I wonder if it's a hint about when the LoV stuff will be out ?

[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]

From what the store guy told me today, is "totally unconfirmed guess" is that the LoV may be released (the launch box at least) the same day than this free mini.
Take that with a

 Dysartes wrote:
Was the same true for the coin, Orlando?

Nop the coin was there.
From what I understand GW has been struggling to supply free minies on time at the start of the month like they used to, and it's apparently not intentional (from what the store guy told me).

When you look at it next to the little buggy it isn’t that much bigger, so again it’s only the name that suggests it’s a huge super tough thing. It’s supposed to be a rugged explorer vehicle, and it fits that bill ok, can I turn my brain off again now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.

Sounds about right for the imperium.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.

I sure hope that's something they went with to explain their return. A bit strange that they haven't mentioned anything about that in their blog yet ngl.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
When you look at it next to the little buggy it isn’t that much bigger, so again it’s only the name that suggests it’s a huge super tough thing.

Damn, you are trying REALLY hard to reach on that one. Sadly, just like your inabiltiy to properly quote people without flooding, you don't seem to be able to pull that one correctly.
No, it's not "huuur juss the nam", it's literally how they are stated and described by GW itself. It's supposed to be as thought as a landraider. Does it look as sturdy as a land raider to you?
You know what, don't even answer I know you are going to pull some laborious mental gymnastic once again, that was a rhetorical question. It's DOESN'T look like what the stats and what GW is trying to sell it as.

Andykp wrote:
It’s supposed to be a rugged explorer vehicle, and it fits that bill ok, can I turn my brain off again now?

Nice headcanon my dude. Again, that thing isn't stated like a "rugger explorer vehicle" nor it's describe as such by GW, try again.
Also to turn your brain off again you'd have to have turned it on at some point, something your post seem to indicate you have yet to do.

 (HN) wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.

I sure hope that's something they went with to explain their return. A bit strange that they haven't mentioned anything about that in their blog yet ngl.

It's in the loremaster. The Leagues overall have had significant trouble with Tyranids which led to rumours about them being wiped out by them. The Imperium officially declared them extinct based on just a rumour and clearly didn't do any further investigation.

It even says the Tau believe it, thinking that the Demiurg ships they encounter and have good relations with are the last of their species after a Tyranid attack.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.

Nonsense. It gives the game options, which are fun.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

It's in the loremaster. The Leagues overall have had significant trouble with Tyranids which led to rumours about them being wiped out by them. The Imperium officially declared them extinct based on just a rumour and clearly didn't do any further investigation.

It even says the Tau believe it, thinking that the Demiurg ships they encounter and have good relations with are the last of their species after a Tyranid attack.

Oh yeah, I forgot that GW last desperate attempt at saving their already failed streaming platform was to paywall the new lore that should OBVIOUSLY be part of their promo material for the new release.

Heafstaag wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.

Nonsense. It gives the game options, which are fun.

Exactly, the same way than having slight variation between axe and sword is a nice thing to have.
Sadly GW lazy bum can't be arsed to give us enough of each variants nowadays and since they are still hung up on their silly "not in the box not in the game" thing they are slowly getting rid of thos nice things to have.

 (HN) wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.

I sure hope that's something they went with to explain their return. A bit strange that they haven't mentioned anything about that in their blog yet ngl.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
When you look at it next to the little buggy it isn’t that much bigger, so again it’s only the name that suggests it’s a huge super tough thing.

Damn, you are trying REALLY hard to reach on that one. Sadly, just like your inabiltiy to properly quote people without flooding, you don't seem to be able to pull that one correctly.
No, it's not "huuur juss the nam", it's literally how they are stated and described by GW itself. It's supposed to be as thought as a landraider. Does it look as sturdy as a land raider to you?
You know what, don't even answer I know you are going to pull some laborious mental gymnastic once again, that was a rhetorical question. It's DOESN'T look like what the stats and what GW is trying to sell it as.

Andykp wrote:
It’s supposed to be a rugged explorer vehicle, and it fits that bill ok, can I turn my brain off again now?

Nice headcanon my dude. Again, that thing isn't stated like a "rugger explorer vehicle" nor it's describe as such by GW, try again.
Also to turn your brain off again you'd have to have turned it on at some point, something your post seem to indicate you have yet to do.

It is lovely having these friendly chats with you, you are a delight as per usual. So you don’t like the little wheels and the canopy. Fine. As I said before I like the little wheels. I also like the on the Sagittaur, the chunky visible chassis and roll bars. The thick layered armour. Things can be sturdy with being big metal boxes, and another big metal box would be boring. GW marketing also say one marine is a good as an army and imperial guard tanks can move, sometimes you have to read between the lines of the hyperbole. Maybe one day I will manage to switch my brain on long enough to be a smart and edgy as you, until the pin I’m planning an army based around the big buggies being supported by a bunch of little ones full angry space dwarfs.

Must admit, that Land fortress hits like a certain Stonehenge prop. Though I think it will rock in Necromunda!

Andykp wrote:
It is lovely having these friendly chats with you, you are a delight as per usual.

Please, don't try to be a smartass when you can't even follow the most basique etiquet when it comes to quoting on a forum.

Andykp wrote:
So you don’t like the little wheels and the canopy. Fine.

Aight, I'll stop you right there, I know you love to do that, gaslighting and strawmaning gak, because that's apprently the only thing you can do, but that has nothing to do with what I "like".
It's about how much sens that design make. It objectively doesn't make any sens as a heavy frontline sturdy tank.

Andykp wrote:
As I said before I like the little wheels. I also like the on the Sagittaur, the chunky visible chassis and roll bars.

Again, nobody care about what you like or not. This isn't about how much sens it makes for what it's supposed to do.

Andykp wrote:
The thick layered armour.

Except, yaknow, the part where the driver is exposed on the front of the vehicle.

Andykp wrote:
Things can be sturdy with being big metal boxes, and another big metal box would be boring.

And here you have it. The unimaginative excuse from people with poor analytic skills "buh hut wuld be buring if ut muh sens".
What the feth are you even trying to say?
NOT having a canopy would be "boring"?
Having tracks would be "boring"?

Hell, even having more appropriate wheels (ie more of them, or bigger version of them) would be "boring"?
You don't make any sens, you can't do better than that and that's because you know your point is indefensible, it's yet another malformed contrarian reflex to someone actual valid criticism that clash with your total lack of processing of what's infront of your eyes outside of "hu me like it".

Andykp wrote:
GW marketing also say one marine is a good as an army and imperial guard tanks can move, sometimes you have to read between the lines of the hyperbole. Maybe one day I will manage to switch my brain on long enough to be a smart and edgy as you, until the pin I’m planning an army based around the big buggies being supported by a bunch of little ones full angry space dwarfs.

And let's throw some whataboutism because why not, right?
My god you are so predictable and "boring".
Get back when you can actually make a coherent point for a change would ya?