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.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Time to start panicky rumors that all 3rd-7th edition marines are being taken OOP?

Start? Did it ever stop once primaris were revealed back in 8th?

It ebbs and flows, but it’s been rumbling on for a while now. We should be due for a surge though, so feel free to add to the panic.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Time to start panicky rumors that all 3rd-7th edition marines are being taken OOP?

Start? Did it ever stop once primaris were revealed back in 8th?

It ebbs and flows, but it’s been rumbling on for a while now. We should be due for a surge though, so feel free to add to the panic.

Obviously, the Primaris miniatures are going to increase in size further and further, until the Firstborn are small enough to be rebranded as HH-era marines for the new Epic: Horus Heresy system

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Oh no, the best thing about primaris was the clean armour. The tendency to fill miniatures with loads of pointless details just makes them look worse. It's a poor design route and kind of the same mentality of filling everything with skulls for the sake of it.

Pass on this.

Termis though look nice and clean.

I actually thought the biggest failure point on Phobos was how clean it looked. The Vanguard Company are supposed to be operating independent of the Chapter's forces for weeks if not months or years at a time. They should be dirty. They should have repairs and ad hoc stuff.

The reason you have bags of leftovers Bitz from your sprues is for you to achieve that busy look... and the dirt/ battle damage you should aim to do it at painting stage. Shaving away those details is a million times harder than adding them in. So yes a clean mini with Bitz aside is the best for most modellers.
Not all armour should look like they endured years of abuse because some have not endured that or just had recent repair/clean and reserves etc.
Granted it's an LT so yeah full bananas design with even lil skull buttons decor on its lower legs XD. A bit much for me.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Not all Phobos are Vanguard, Kan. Battle and Reserve Companies maintain their own Phobos armor for when the need arises on campaign. It's easier to convert Phobos to look ad hoc than it is to "unconvert" them, so to speak.

By a lore perspective, I don’t understand why a marines should wears a Mark X armor instead of Phobos, same save but Phobos can infiltrate

 alextroy wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

How does Leadership work?

Leadership is much more impactful in the new edition. Your units’ morale is now gauged with a Battle-shock test. Many factors can force a unit to test for Battle-shock, including being below Half-strength during the Command Phase. Fail and they struggle to capture objectives, use Stratagems, or Fall Back from combat.

You’ll also notice that Leadership now counts upwards. Our Intercessor has LD 6+ – which is equivalent to his old value of 8.

Let’s all take a moment to celebrate GW giving us Morale rules that encourage larger squads.

Also look forward to repeatedly rolling for a unit for the rest of the game once it starts rolling due to causalities.

I'd take bets that this is one of the things that Marines either ignore outright or are greatly resistant against...

We can hope, probably in vain, that GW decides that a good leadership score is enough morale mitigation for marines.

In my opinion the hope should be that because failed leadership seems to revolve around disruption of tactical ability rather than running away like little girls, anyone and everyone doesn't need their special morale rules this time around and mitigation or outright immunity should be exceptionally rare. It would make for a better game.

But GW is the company that hands out mortal wounds, invulnerable saves, AP and so on like candy in spite of the obvious detrimental effects to the game, so what are the odds that they won't go overboard on morale mitigation before long? Yeah...

So are they going to just reveal a single model every few days now? Like to see at least a squad &/or sprue(s).

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's easier to convert Phobos to look ad hoc than it is to "unconvert" them, so to speak.

Disagree. A lot of things that can be done to create a more ad hoc or "lengthy campaigner" look could be added via weapon loadouts for units and characters, rules, or even stuff as simple as damaged alternate bits.

It is always easier to add things afterwards than remove things sculpted on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Not all Phobos are Vanguard, Kan. Battle and Reserve Companies maintain their own Phobos armor for when the need arises on campaign. It's easier to convert Phobos to look ad hoc than it is to "unconvert" them, so to speak.

By a lore perspective, I don’t understand why a marines should wears a Mark X armor instead of Phobos, same save but Phobos can infiltrate

Technically, basic MkX has better protection than Phobos, it's that the d6 system GW uses doesn't allow for that sort of granularity.

Which is why I said alternate parts and mixed/alternative loadouts for the Vanguard Company builds.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Time to start panicky rumors that all 3rd-7th edition marines are being taken OOP?

Start? Did it ever stop once primaris were revealed back in 8th?

It ebbs and flows, but it’s been rumbling on for a while now. We should be due for a surge though, so feel free to add to the panic.

I just saw on the internet all the old marines are going OOP!!!!!one!!!eleven!!

Stock up now!

Let me see the source...

(scrolls up)

Oh never mind, that was me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Obviously, the Primaris miniatures are going to increase in size further and further, until the Firstborn are small enough to be rebranded as HH-era marines for the new Epic: Horus Heresy system

It's already happening!



I mean look at that guy in the back!

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Time to start panicky rumors that all 3rd-7th edition marines are being taken OOP?

Start? Did it ever stop once primaris were revealed back in 8th?

It ebbs and flows, but it’s been rumbling on for a while now. We should be due for a surge though, so feel free to add to the panic.

I just saw on the internet all the old marines are going OOP!!!!!one!!!eleven!!

Stock up now!

Let me see the source...

(scrolls up)

Oh never mind, that was me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Obviously, the Primaris miniatures are going to increase in size further and further, until the Firstborn are small enough to be rebranded as HH-era marines for the new Epic: Horus Heresy system

It's already happening!



I mean look at that guy in the back!

It’s just the guy in back is standing up taller. The ones in the front are all running/bent leg poses. They are actually the same size. Scale creep is a myth.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Obviously, the Primaris miniatures are going to increase in size further and further, until the Firstborn are small enough to be rebranded as HH-era marines for the new Epic: Horus Heresy system

It's already happening!

Spoiler:

I mean look at that guy in the back!

It’s just the guy in back is standing up taller. The ones in the front are all running/bent leg poses. They are actually the same size. Scale creep is a myth.

But Jes Goodwin said Marines ARE true scale and it's the rest of the studio that are wrong!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
We can hope, probably in vain, that GW decides that a good leadership score is enough morale mitigation for marines.

Absent modifiers a 6+ succeeds 72% of the time. I think marines will have a reroll, which gives ~8% fail. LD mods will be able to threaten marines, but otherwise they will be relatively solid.

Then give them a 4+ LD and save us all the rerolling!

Hopefully, any mitigation will be less on/off. Allowing them to ignore one of the many aspects of morale is better than them never failing.

Out with 28mm in with 32!

tneva82 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I’m glad LD rolls are being changed to rolling high, so I don’t have to explain to people why setting aside your bad dice that believe roll low for LD tests is actually cheating.

Superstition isn't cheating...so setting aside dice you believe roll isn't any more cheating as reserving dices you believe roll good for saving for clutch moments.

Now having loaded dice is but roll low, roll good doesn't matter as such. All same actually makes cheating easier.

Shame
For that die that needs to be taught a lesson.

 alextroy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
We can hope, probably in vain, that GW decides that a good leadership score is enough morale mitigation for marines.

Absent modifiers a 6+ succeeds 72% of the time. I think marines will have a reroll, which gives ~8% fail. LD mods will be able to threaten marines, but otherwise they will be relatively solid.

Then give them a 4+ LD and save us all the rerolling!

Hopefully, any mitigation will be less on/off. Allowing them to ignore one of the many aspects of morale is better than them never failing.

Giving them a 4+ gives less space for more LD durable units like GK/Custodes though who won't have a reroll and it makes abilities that force a roll on LD outside morale less reliable.

JWBS wrote:

 Snord wrote:
An unexciting miniature. And I’d hoped they’d learnt by now that flaming/dripping blades just don’t work.

It's really sad they have to keep doing this stuff. The number of times I've read "The Avatar is so good, except for the flames / blood stuck to him" or something similar about another model. I feel sure there's someone in management that's mandating this stuff. The artists they have seem good, at least too good to think these overwrought and tacky designs are aesthetically pleasing. The PR team memes on the tactical rocks. But they still won't stop.

Counterpoint - variety is good rather than never doing a certain type of weapon/model. Flaming/dripping blades can look great even if you personally don't like them, and if you are that bothered then do a weapon swap!

Swirly gak usually doesn’t bother me but the soul flames/wisps/vape trails on Be’lakor’s sword are awful. Really wished it was an optional part.

The drippy parts on plague marines are awfully bad looking.

 catbarf wrote:

Sounds like they're going for morale as a representation of friction- where taking casualties disrupts the unit and makes it harder to command- rather than the turn-tail-and-run of prior editions. Marines, Orks, or Cultists might have no fear of death and stay stuck in melee regardless of casualties, but break up their cohesion enough and then the commander can't get through to tell them 'no seriously, fall back'.

Yeah if that's the case then I rather like this version of morale, especially for elite units. Wouldn't be surprised if horde armies still lose a model or two due to a special rule.

though it would be real interesting if they brought back the idea of losing a melee forcing you to test.

I'd love for that to make a return, made for some really memorable battles when a last ditch melee went in your favor.

People who can't sculpt or paint shouldn't be consulted about what looks good. You'll get what you're given.

JSG wrote:
People who can't sculpt or paint shouldn't be consulted about what looks good. You'll get what you're given.

"People shouldn't criticize movies, books, architecture, or cars unless they make them."

 Platuan4th wrote:

JSG wrote:
People who can't sculpt or paint shouldn't be consulted about what looks good. You'll get what you're given.

"People shouldn't criticize movies, books, architecture, or cars unless they make them."

I think he was referring to someone in GW management having potentially too much input on the looks and minis designs.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

JSG wrote:
People who can't sculpt or paint shouldn't be consulted about what looks good. You'll get what you're given.

"People shouldn't criticize movies, books, architecture, or cars unless they make them."

.

I think he was referring to someone in GW management having potentially too much input on the looks and minis designs.

A level sarcasm there. Exalted!

 alextroy wrote:
Also look forward to repeatedly rolling for a unit for the rest of the game once it starts rolling due to causalities.

Just remember that correlation doesn't imply further causalities...

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:
Woo. A lot going on here.

Least noteworthy:
Not-explicitly-Primaris LT (though obviously the armor style is phobos). Hate the model a bit. Don't like all the specific-foe styled stuff. Combi flamer is interesting, as its more an old style boltgun.

Neither current Phobos Lt has "Primaris" in their name on their datasheets either, just the Primaris Keyword. Just like the Bolt Pistol, that's neither a change nor noteworthy. Also, the combi-flamer matches the one on the Black Templar Marshal.

We haven't been shown their datasheet.

I'm just fascinated with new edition marketing material that's avoiding the word primaris (or shrugging it off in the case of terminators) and referencing classic stuff like Cassius rather than the recent BT kit.

I'm not suggesting they're going away, but there's a significant tilt on the marketing angle from 7th & 8th.

Voss wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:
Woo. A lot going on here.

Least noteworthy:
Not-explicitly-Primaris LT (though obviously the armor style is phobos). Hate the model a bit. Don't like all the specific-foe styled stuff. Combi flamer is interesting, as its more an old style boltgun.

Neither current Phobos Lt has "Primaris" in their name on their datasheets either, just the Primaris Keyword. Just like the Bolt Pistol, that's neither a change nor noteworthy. Also, the combi-flamer matches the one on the Black Templar Marshal.

We haven't been shown their datasheet.

I'm just fascinated with new edition marketing material that's avoiding the word primaris (or shrugging it off in the case of terminators) and referencing classic stuff like Cassius rather than the recent BT kit.

I'm not suggesting they're going away, but there's a significant tilt on the marketing angle from 7th & 8th.

You missed the point, which is that GW already don't refer to Phobos Lts as "Primaris X" and so not doing so here isn't odd or noteworthy.

 Platuan4th wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Not all Phobos are Vanguard, Kan. Battle and Reserve Companies maintain their own Phobos armor for when the need arises on campaign. It's easier to convert Phobos to look ad hoc than it is to "unconvert" them, so to speak.

By a lore perspective, I don’t understand why a marines should wears a Mark X armor instead of Phobos, same save but Phobos can infiltrate

Technically, basic MkX has better protection than Phobos, it's that the d6 system GW uses doesn't allow for that sort of granularity.

Phobos is a configuration of Mark X space marine armor. Mark X armor was designed to be highly modular to allow the removal and addition of various armor and other components depending on the desired role of the marine. In the case of Phobos, much of the armor that would be found on the Tacticus configuration is removed and either left completely off or replaced with lighter/'sound-dampening' plates along with any more specialized armor mounted/installed equipment such as what is found on Infiltrators and Incursors.

Overall, Mark X space marine armor permits marines to become more of a special operations force even when not looking tacticool. It's just more apparent with Phobos because the armor is so stripped back. Whether GW decided to affect rules to reflect that depends on how much the designers at the time want them to apparently.

I really don’t want to like this boxset, but that Phobos Lt is one cool cucumber. Love Phobos already, and he looks like a grizzled vet. Like him better than the terminators (just a personal preference because they look a little plain to me, nothing wrong with them per se)

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Voss wrote:
Woo. A lot going on here.

Least noteworthy:
Not-explicitly-Primaris LT (though obviously the armor style is phobos). Hate the model a bit. Don't like all the specific-foe styled stuff. Combi flamer is interesting, as its more an old style boltgun.

Neither current Phobos Lt has "Primaris" in their name on their datasheets either, just the Primaris Keyword. Just like the Bolt Pistol, that's neither a change nor noteworthy. Also, the combi-flamer matches the one on the Black Templar Marshal.

We haven't been shown their datasheet.

I'm just fascinated with new edition marketing material that's avoiding the word primaris (or shrugging it off in the case of terminators) and referencing classic stuff like Cassius rather than the recent BT kit.

I'm not suggesting they're going away, but there's a significant tilt on the marketing angle from 7th & 8th.

You missed the point, which is that GW already don't refer to Phobos Lts as "Primaris X" and so not doing so here isn't odd or noteworthy.

I think you missed the point that there is a difference between a datasheet title inside a book people already bought and the marketing push for the new edition.

Compare 8th edition articles at a similar point in the lead up to release
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/26/new-warhammer-40000-primaris-space-marinesgw-homepage-post-4/
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/15/a-new-breed-of-hero-may15gw-homepage-post-1/

Or 9th edition
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/05/24/warhammer-40000-more-models-revealedgw-homepage-post-3/
'Primaris Ahoy!' is unironically a subheading for the article.

So it looks like “shock assault” might be gone and baked in to melee stats as the close combat weapon “data sheet” on the article for the SM was listed as three attacks. This is similar to what they did in the CSM book last year isn’t it? They baked in the extra attack from “Hateful assault”?

tneva82 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I’m glad LD rolls are being changed to rolling high, so I don’t have to explain to people why setting aside your bad dice that believe roll low for LD tests is actually cheating.

Superstition isn't cheating...so setting aside dice you believe roll isn't any more cheating as reserving dices you believe roll good for saving for clutch moments.

Now having loaded dice is but roll low, roll good doesn't matter as such. All same actually makes cheating easier.

If you keep separate dice that roll low vs roll high depending on what results you need, that is absolutely cheating.