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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm 100% certain none of the faction previews are CP Datacards.

The only reason Legionaries have a generic heavy weapon is because the weapons that they can take include a powerfist and a heavy chainaxe. Those two weapons were incredibly similar and got combined.

Even if that's true, there is still a chance that the codex entry will be different and correct it.

I recall minor things like this when 8th indexes came out and then transitioned to codexes. I'm not terribly concerned at this point, but I am firmly in the camp of 'give me a Power Fist specific profile'. If GW wants to combine power sword/axe/maul, force sword/axe/stave... fine, whatever...But not the Power Fist, it's too iconic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Combining the Death Guard mace and cleaver into 'heavy melee weapon' makes sense. Lumping the Power Fist in with them does not. Not to me anyway.

Certainly possible though I think reversing these changes will come with their own problems.

Just thought, the Armourey Card may have a odd interaction with weapons having the BS/WS.

If they are standardised it could mean that all units that can take a certain weapon will be just as proficient in its use... which seems to against putting WS/BS in the weapons profile.

 stonehorse wrote:
Just thought, the Armourey Card may have a odd interaction with weapons having the BS/WS.

If they are standardised it could mean that all units that can take a certain weapon will be just as proficient in its use... which seems to against putting WS/BS in the weapons profile.

That looks to be covering very common weapons that aren't going to differ unit to unit. One primary reason is that they no longer needing to specify -1 to hit. Or -- to allow some units to not have a -1 and other still do.

In the case of Legionaries we see two heavy weapons. One hits on a 3 and the other a 4.

The idea that it allows weapons to be different unit to unit is a community assertion that may or may not come true.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Just thought, the Armourey Card may have a odd interaction with weapons having the BS/WS.

If they are standardised it could mean that all units that can take a certain weapon will be just as proficient in its use... which seems to against putting WS/BS in the weapons profile.

That looks to be covering very common weapons that aren't going to differ unit to unit. One primary reason is that they no longer needing to specify -1 to hit. Or -- to allow some units to not have a -1 and other still do.

In the case of Legionaries we see two heavy weapons. One hits on a 3 and the other a 4.

The idea that it allows weapons to be different unit to unit is a community assertion that may or may not come true.

I suspect its only going to be different from faction to faction. Everyone in the same codex who can use that weapon will use that BS/WS.

I fully expect that, for example, characters will have 'relic chainsword' and cultists will have 'shoddy pistols' and 'makeshift knives & clubs' rather than 'bolt pistols ' and 'close combat weapons.'
Its been leaning that direction anyway in 9th, so I figure it will continue.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Just thought, the Armourey Card may have a odd interaction with weapons having the BS/WS.

If they are standardised it could mean that all units that can take a certain weapon will be just as proficient in its use... which seems to against putting WS/BS in the weapons profile.

That looks to be covering very common weapons that aren't going to differ unit to unit. One primary reason is that they no longer needing to specify -1 to hit. Or -- to allow some units to not have a -1 and other still do.

In the case of Legionaries we see two heavy weapons. One hits on a 3 and the other a 4.

The idea that it allows weapons to be different unit to unit is a community assertion that may or may not come true.

I suspect its only going to be different from faction to faction. Everyone in the same codex who can use that weapon will use that BS/WS.

I fully expect that, for example, characters will have 'relic chainsword' and cultists will have 'shoddy pistols' and 'makeshift knives' rather than 'bolt pistols ' and 'close combat weapons.'

We're already seeing that with the Ballistus and the Land Raider, they each got their own bespoke Lascannon with a specific profile, the squad support variant will probably be the same for all squads that can take it. It only comes into play once your sheet is extremely full anyway, and if you absolutely need to you can still do a bespoke variant with a better profile for units that really need it.

Tsagualsa wrote:

We're already seeing that with the Ballistus and the Land Raider, they each got their own bespoke Lascannon with a specific profile, the squad support variant will probably be the same for all squads that can take it. It only comes into play once your sheet is extremely full anyway, and if you absolutely need to you can still do a bespoke variant with a better profile for units that really need it.

The Ballistus and Land Raider have the same profile with a different name. Effectively still a twin lascannon.

Presumably the squad version lascannon is the same S/Ap/Dam values, but BS4+ A1 with the Heavy trait.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

No, they didnt. The power weapons were all "take 5 points and allocate them to S/AP/D" Then you had Thunder hammer/powerfists that were meaningful because they hit an actually relevant level of strength.
Then chainfist that had a relevant level of damage to vehicles and monsters.

If you feel like Swords and Axes had clearly different roles, please, enlighten me.

One had more AP value for targets relying on their armor and the other had more strength value for targets relying less so on their armor. Same for how Custodes Spears vs Axes works, and gives two differing roles with little bloat.

Feel free to keep defending what GW does though.

 Gert wrote:
Glad I already sold off my Black Legion because this isn't looking any better than the 9th book. I especially love the bit where they say:

these traitors have long since abandoned notions of professionalism and tradition

And then immediately the Legionaries datasheet says "No duplicate weapons". Totally breaking professionalism and tradition by basically sticking to the Codex Astartes Tactical options there guys.

I think it's because Horus Heresy Marines and Primaris Marines are all armed the same way at squad level and GW wants to forget that "Firstborn" Marines exist.

 xttz wrote:
The Ballistus and Land Raider have the same profile with a different name. Effectively still a twin lascannon.

Presumably the squad version lascannon is the same S/Ap/Dam values, but BS4+ A1 with the Heavy trait.

I don't think it will be the exact same stats. I mean the Ballistus Dread's missile launcher is basically a missile launcher with +1 strength (S10/5 for krak/frag profiles)

So it is likely that the infantry version has less strength (either S10 or 11) than the vehicle version.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

No, they didnt. The power weapons were all "take 5 points and allocate them to S/AP/D" Then you had Thunder hammer/powerfists that were meaningful because they hit an actually relevant level of strength.
Then chainfist that had a relevant level of damage to vehicles and monsters.

If you feel like Swords and Axes had clearly different roles, please, enlighten me.

One had more AP value for targets relying on their armor and the other had more strength value for targets relying less so on their armor. Same for how Custodes Spears vs Axes works, and gives two differing roles with little bloat.

Feel free to keep defending what GW does though.

And yet you've been lobbying to remove all options for months.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

No, they didnt. The power weapons were all "take 5 points and allocate them to S/AP/D" Then you had Thunder hammer/powerfists that were meaningful because they hit an actually relevant level of strength.
Then chainfist that had a relevant level of damage to vehicles and monsters.

If you feel like Swords and Axes had clearly different roles, please, enlighten me.

One had more AP value for targets relying on their armor and the other had more strength value for targets relying less so on their armor. Same for how Custodes Spears vs Axes works, and gives two differing roles with little bloat.

Feel free to keep defending what GW does though.

And as per usual you end up with one option being better by default depending on the platform carrying it.

Also it's a fairly dishonest comparison thinking on it, the custodian axe boosts them to s8 which is the relevant breakpoint for dealing with the most common profile in the game and possibly the most valuable bump up in strength value in the game.

 stonehorse wrote:
Just thought, the Armourey Card may have a odd interaction with weapons having the BS/WS.

If they are standardised it could mean that all units that can take a certain weapon will be just as proficient in its use... which seems to against putting WS/BS in the weapons profile.

I was thinking the same, especially as Havocs and Legionaries will share the use of Lascannons, Missile Launchers and Heavy Bolters, and in 9th Havocs were better at shooting those three weapons (as well as Autocannons and Reaper Chaincannons) while moving. In theory the Helbrute/Predator/Land Raider weapons should be different as they are vehicle mounted, so they shouldn't share the Lascannon and instead will have a Helforged Lascannon.

ERJAK wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

So did Power Swords vs Power Axes but you're not trying to defend that change here. You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

No, they didnt. The power weapons were all "take 5 points and allocate them to S/AP/D" Then you had Thunder hammer/powerfists that were meaningful because they hit an actually relevant level of strength.
Then chainfist that had a relevant level of damage to vehicles and monsters.

If you feel like Swords and Axes had clearly different roles, please, enlighten me.

One had more AP value for targets relying on their armor and the other had more strength value for targets relying less so on their armor. Same for how Custodes Spears vs Axes works, and gives two differing roles with little bloat.

Feel free to keep defending what GW does though.

And yet you've been lobbying to remove all options for months.

Saying we don't need 20 different Bolters or Grav =/= Removing options

edit not worth it

Corporate needs you to find the difference between [bloat] and [flavour].

They're the same picture.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm 100% certain none of the faction previews are CP Datacards.

The only reason Legionaries have a generic heavy weapon is because the weapons that they can take include a powerfist and a heavy chainaxe. Those two weapons were incredibly similar and got combined.

Or could it be because these are Index datacards and you will have to use them until you get the Chaos Legions Codex and accompanying datacards?

I am not happy about any loss of weapon differentiation, but I think it's fairly likely that the Index datacards are going to be somewhat simpler than the final Codex datacards.

Da Butcha wrote:


I am not happy about any loss of weapon differentiation, but I think it's fairly likely that the Index datacards are going to be somewhat simpler than the final Codex datacards.

Wanna share that Copium?

Abby has an aura that benefits mounted units - new keyword there, could be rebranding for bikers, or some kind of cavalry?

Disappointed but not surprised that pointless restrictions are still pointless. No 20 man units, and no reason to not bypass all restrictions and just stick to 5 man units.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:


I am not happy about any loss of weapon differentiation, but I think it's fairly likely that the Index datacards are going to be somewhat simpler than the final Codex datacards.

Wanna share that Copium?

If the codex cards aren’t different in some way, how are they supposed to sell you another set of them?
Also, every set of free “get you by” rules has been less complicated than the codex or army book that followed.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:


I am not happy about any loss of weapon differentiation, but I think it's fairly likely that the Index datacards are going to be somewhat simpler than the final Codex datacards.

Wanna share that Copium?

If the codex cards aren’t different in some way, how are they supposed to sell you another set of them?
Also, every set of free “get you by” rules has been less complicated than the codex or army book that followed.

You don't have to buy the first set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

Tell me - what marketing did GW use here that I "fell for"?

Did they make a statement about the weapons? Nope.

What actually happened is they showed a picture and then I said, 'oh that's fine'.

But that's not ok with you, because you're clearly incapable of dealing with ideas that don't agree with you, which you express in useless and absurd statements.

 Insularum wrote:
Abby has an aura that benefits mounted units - new keyword there, could be rebranding for bikers, or some kind of cavalry?

Probably just consolidating bikers & cavalry into a single keyword to make it easier to do general interactions, like terrain rules.

Tyel wrote:
Corporate needs you to find the difference between [bloat] and [flavour].

They're the same picture.

They absolutely are not.

A Dominion Squad can have three different special weapons, plus Bolters, Bolt Pistols, a close combat weapon of some variety, a Simulacrum and a Cherub... yet the Sister Superior having a Combi-Weapons having different profiles is somehow a bridge too far?

Santtu wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Glad I already sold off my Black Legion because this isn't looking any better than the 9th book. I especially love the bit where they say:

these traitors have long since abandoned notions of professionalism and tradition

And then immediately the Legionaries datasheet says "No duplicate weapons". Totally breaking professionalism and tradition by basically sticking to the Codex Astartes Tactical options there guys.

I think it's because Horus Heresy Marines and Primaris Marines are all armed the same way at squad level and GW wants to forget that "Firstborn" Marines exist.

Yep. Definitely.
That's why GW gave up on a 'primaris terminator' equivalent design and just did plain old terminators with a nod to scale adjustments. At worst there is a 'Schrodinger's primaris' inside. But maybe there isn't!
Also why the updated sternguard and dread have so many design cues and weapon loadouts straight from the old models. The real primaris squad in the Launch box is one of the worst things in there. Though the apothecary is quite a nice model.

Plus, its just weird to mention HH in this context. The rollout hasn't been perfect by a longshot, but its a goldmine of old marine stuff, with a demand for more that is (slowly) coming.

 xttz wrote:
If every named character recieved ingame rules to represent their plot armour from the books they'd be T9 W50 with a 1-wound-per-phase damage cap.

I don't think he's asking for every character. I think he's asking that the Big Bad of the setting, the leader of Chaos, perhaps have a toughness value befitting his station.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:


I am not happy about any loss of weapon differentiation, but I think it's fairly likely that the Index datacards are going to be somewhat simpler than the final Codex datacards.

Wanna share that Copium?

If the codex cards aren’t different in some way, how are they supposed to sell you another set of them?
Also, every set of free “get you by” rules has been less complicated than the codex or army book that followed.

You don't have to buy the first set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You fall for GW's marketing so easily it's almost sad.

Tell me - what marketing did GW use here that I "fell for"?

Well for one, you just defended, within the same post, the cards that are going to be outdated via "just don't buy them", so I'd argue you fall for a lot of it just to defend them.

You know they won't send you free kits, right?

But you can, at least for the initial wave, just print the cards or reference them online. You don't need to buy them at all.

I mean, it's possible that GW is outright lying about the initial rules being free, but I'm pretty sure that'd be opening them up to some lawsuits about false advertising.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Corporate needs you to find the difference between [bloat] and [flavour].

They're the same picture.

They absolutely are not.

A Dominion Squad can have three different special weapons, plus Bolters, Bolt Pistols, a close combat weapon of some variety, a Simulacrum and a Cherub... yet the Sister Superior having a Combi-Weapons having different profiles is somehow a bridge too far?

Do we know they don't? I know the Terminator Librarian makes it likely, but it is not definite just yet.

 alextroy wrote:
Do we know they don't? I know the Terminator Librarian makes it likely, but it is not definite just yet.

Given that power fists just got removed as a separate item for the first time in the game's history, I can't have much hope that Combi-Weapons aren't getting Jervis'd this edition as well.

Gert wrote:Glad I already sold off my Black Legion because this isn't looking any better than the 9th book. I especially love the bit where they say:

these traitors have long since abandoned notions of professionalism and tradition

And then immediately the Legionaries datasheet says "No duplicate weapons". Totally breaking professionalism and tradition by basically sticking to the Codex Astartes Tactical options there guys.

Gert wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I really should start thinking about repainting my chaos marines in HH AL colours i guess, certainly would expand my infantry / veterans core in a minimal ammount of time

Genuinely the better choice. The Traitor Legions are far better represented in HH than they have been since 8th dropped for 40k.

What Gert said.