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.

It's a psychological weapon. Play it on an objective at the correct moment, and watch your opponent squirm.

M.

There have been more leaks, but I'm waiting for the Auspex resume. I think MG has basically leaked all the datasheets and points from the earlier versions of the codex.

To clarify some points I heard before going to sleep:

-Lord Solars name is Leonatus

-Bullgryns still the same, +1S, but more expensive

-Catachan can only pick 2 flamethrowers

-Karskin have 2 attacks, can add up to 4 spetial weapons, plus a meltamine, plus a sniper rifle

-In general: infa try a little disapointing

-Deathstrike has 3 missile options. One of them must use a tavle in which depending of the result can cause 0-8-12-16 MW

-MG has two rr profiles, one has them with 2 attacks, the other is the same as the death riders, cost the same

-Artillery very much better



-Superheavys:cañon 3d6 str 9 ap -3 daño 3 blast turret
tremmor 36" 2d6+3 tiros 10 ap -3 daño 3 blast
quake 96" 1d6+6 str 14 ap -4 daño 4
magma 48" d6+3 str 10 ap -4 d6+2 daño a cortas d6+4
hellhammer 36" heavy 3d6+6 str 7 ap 2 damage 2 blast ignores light cover
coaxial autocanon es turret tambien
vulkan mega bolter: 48" heavy 20 str 6 ap 2 damage 2
shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus

I really hope the catachan can only take 2 flamers is BS. I was really expectig the old catachan devils squad (WS3+, S4, heavy flamer, demo charge, shotguns + specials).

Garrac wrote:
shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus

Lolwut. A slightly bigger HWT lascannon ignores invulnerable saves, a massive titan killer does not. Go home GW, you're drunk.

And what's with taking "turret" literally? The gunners on a basic LRBT get effectively BS 3+ while the gunners on a Shadowsword, a rare and precious superheavy tank that gets the absolute best of the best crew, is only BS 4+? WTF is this nonsense.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Garrac wrote:
shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus

Lolwut. A slightly bigger HWT lascannon ignores invulnerable saves, a massive titan killer does not. Go home GW, you're drunk.

And what's with taking "turret" literally? The gunners on a basic LRBT get effectively BS 3+ while the gunners on a Shadowsword, a rare and precious superheavy tank that gets the absolute best of the best crew, is only BS 4+? WTF is this nonsense.

Easier to track and target something when you can move the gun without having to rotate the entire tank I guess?

What I find striking about the rumours so far is that there are leaks about a Platoon Command Squad, but I don't see anything for a Company one. And also no non-regiment locked senior officers.

There are no more regiments. So the senior officers are not regiment locked. The Cadian Castellan can give orders to Catachan, Cadian or Kriehers.

So there is a three order officer (New Creed) a two order officer (Castellan) and then the single order officers in the two types of command squad.

Garrac wrote:
shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus

There's that GW consistency we all know and love.

Shadowsword should get some sort of bonus, it had Targeters since it was first introduced.

Deathstrike seems OP, expecting a lot of whinging about that but I'm not too fussed. Looks like a lot of setup required to get it to go off, the opponent has a turn or two to mitigate it and they could even destroy it in the meantime.

Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

Well obviously its because (some GW fan please insert reasons).

Deathstrike - so keep a CP handy. But still? Turn 1 arm, turn 2 aim, turn 3 fire, roll a 1 no effect?

According to mordian glory rumours, all super heavy tanks have turret weapons rules, so essentially +1 ballistic skill

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Garrac wrote:
shadowsword 120" heavy d3+3 str 18 -5 daño 12 blast NO ignora invus

Lolwut. A slightly bigger HWT lascannon ignores invulnerable saves, a massive titan killer does not. Go home GW, you're drunk.

It's not consistent from a fluff POV, but that's not the point. It's clearly a bandaid to make single-shot weapons viable when invuln saves are so endemic. A gun with 4-6 shots at 12 damage doesn't have the same issue.

For now it's probably the least-worst solution until GW can overhaul armour saves in general across the game, and invulns can become something more rare or exceptional.

So the Shadowsword has gone from a cannon that required the tracks to be disconnected to have enough power to fire it to a gun superior to what a Reaver titan carries, and nearly equal to a full Belicosa

Well it's plastic vs resin

tneva82 wrote:
Well it's plastic vs resin

GW does try to make the big resin models unplayable, true. And for some reason the plastic Stompa gets caught up in that.

Sorry if this was already adresses, but has there be any mention if the Taurox will still be around? Or should I get one now if I want one?

Imagine that deathstrike with a Trojan Support vehicle. ICBM every turn.

Imagine 3 of these firung in concert making a line of denial areas.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Sorry if this was already adresses, but has there be any mention if the Taurox will still be around? Or should I get one now if I want one?

Taurox arent going anywhere, at least because they are attached to Scions.

Taurox are still in. The only change is that they are not allowed to take heavy stubbers any more.

 Miguelsan wrote:
It's a psychological weapon. Play it on an objective at the correct moment, and watch your opponent squirm.

M.

Or watch them shuffle to the edges of the objective because objectives are 40mm+3" radii and the blast is only 3". Or it does hit but only does a couple of MW with the bigger radius blasts.

That would be the plasma missile that does less damage but on a 1d6+6 radius.

M.

I really do hope senior officers aren't going to only be cadian and/or special characters.

I don't mind my HQ being called a platoon command squad in some regard, but I do want a none cadian/special character option to have a character issue 2 orders.... Or have a lore friendly DKoK Marshall on the field rather than just a Lieutenant.

 Polonius wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
More people for the sake of more people doesn't make for a better hobby. We live in an age of 3rd party bitz and Ebay. Getting what you need or want is NOT some gargantuan task.

I suppose you can either acknowledge that limiting options is somehow good for GW sales (which is, of course, indirectly good for the hobby) or you can assume that GW is doing this purely out of malice and/or incompetence. It's up to you.

The hobby is wargaming, not buying GW models. Kirby appreciates your talking point though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Irbis wrote:


Second, normal players or people who collect to paint, though? Will be fine taking all comer squad with melta/plasma as your AT unit, and whatever other two specials as anti-infantry.

As a casual gamer who collects and paints way more than plays, you're way off the mark in my experience. Mixed weapons look terrible on a display from a purely aesthetic point of view, regardless of how well they do in game.I HATE seeing the GW squads like the Devestators with one of each weapon, they look like gak.

Yeah but according to Ibris if you aren't building a hodgepodge and even try a little bit of optimization you're a power gamer.

My real worry right now is the rules and lore. Right now I am terrified, and part of that is not knowing what is the actual rules and lore in this codex.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Imagine that deathstrike with a Trojan Support vehicle. ICBM every turn.

Imagine 3 of these firung in concert making a line of denial areas.

Well every turn from turn 3. Is assuming it doesn't have to go through step 1 and 2. Also not clear if multiple missiles can use same marker.

Also doesn't say how big the marker can be.....

 xttz wrote:
It's not consistent from a fluff POV, but that's not the point. It's clearly a bandaid to make single-shot weapons viable when invuln saves are so endemic. A gun with 4-6 shots at 12 damage doesn't have the same issue.

For now it's probably the least-worst solution until GW can overhaul armour saves in general across the game, and invulns can become something more rare or exceptional.

Fluff absolutely is the point. If a tiny lascannon ignores invulnerable saves then a titan killer's main gun absolutely should. Balance the stats appropriately but lore matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.

You're right in that it's a stupid decision by GW, but I'm not going to whinge and moan and complain about it. I'm going to run my usual squad of Hostile Environment Guard, with a Flamer and maybe an Autocannon or Lascannon, and just enjoy the game.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Irbis wrote:


Second, normal players or people who collect to paint, though? Will be fine taking all comer squad with melta/plasma as your AT unit, and whatever other two specials as anti-infantry.

As a casual gamer who collects and paints way more than plays, you're way off the mark in my experience. Mixed weapons look terrible on a display from a purely aesthetic point of view, regardless of how well they do in game.I HATE seeing the GW squads like the Devestators with one of each weapon, they look like gak.

I suspect GW is aware of that, and intends for you to buy multiple box sets so you can have more options. Which is a pretty gakky for the consumer, but some will do that and that's good enough for GW.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.

You're right in that it's a stupid decision by GW, but I'm not going to whinge and moan and complain about it. I'm going to run my usual squad of Hostile Environment Guard, with a Flamer and maybe an Autocannon or Lascannon, and just enjoy the game.

AKA you'll just not think about it and consoom. For the amount of hate Kirby gets from you lot, y'all sure were the perfect customer to him.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

Yes because that attitude worked SUPER well with the CSM codex LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Honestly I couldn't give a damn about the whole special weapon debate, bit fed up with the whole "the sky is falling and the book is dead based on a few rumours" mentality I've seen on here and other sites. Wait until the book is out, give it a go.

What exactly do you think is going to change here? GW has demonstrated the precedent of removing options with other armies, is there any real reason to doubt the accuracy of the leaks other than desperate wishful thinking? Whether or not the army is good at winning games it's still an incredibly stupid and anti-customer decision by GW and there's no missing information that could possibly justify it.

You're right in that it's a stupid decision by GW, but I'm not going to whinge and moan and complain about it. I'm going to run my usual squad of Hostile Environment Guard, with a Flamer and maybe an Autocannon or Lascannon, and just enjoy the game.

AKA you'll just not think about it and consoom. For the amount of hate Kirby gets from you lot, y'all sure were the perfect customer to him.

Nice, going straight to the "GW simp" crap. Haven't actually bought from GW for around 3 years now, either second hand or other means.