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.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
That's some nasty overwatch

Wait, why do Dire Avengers get to keep their selection of melee weapons on the sergeant, whilst Kabalites had their selection reduced to 'Sybarite close combat weapon'?

Because glaives are cool

No seriously that's pretty lame we get to keep ours and DE don't. I don't mind melee weapon consolidation on some level but it's unfortunate when it's not applied to everyone fairly.

My guess as to why would be that DAs don't just get to pick whichever weapon, but have always done so in "sets".
Glaive + Shield, Dire Sword + Pistol, or Dual catapults.
Sybarites, otoh, got to mix-and-match melee with any shooting options they had.

So from that perspective, it's a bit more restrictive for the DA Exarch. You cannot have the Dire Sword and Sheild, for example. If they consolidated the sword and glaive into a single profile, the choice would then JUST be better Shield, Pistol or double Cats. And NO ONE is picking just the Pistol in that scenario.

It still gives a "feel bad" vibe that factions are not being treated fairly. But it can make sense

-

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
IE: you can use your models, just not as what they are. Because "balance". Such a pathetic excuse. Just admit it gw: You want to tell us what models we can use.

40K players: Why do Space Marines have twice the number of data sheets as everyone else, they have way too many.

Also 40K players: I have to use my Space Marine Snowflake unit 343, as generic unit B. Boo.

Not often I'll defend GW, but they really can't win this one...

Not accurate for the csm side of things at all. And unlike sm csm don't hog the release schedule with primaris nefrguns and lieutnants.

The only thing for csm was a Cut of H H access AND 40K DAEMONENGINES.
And funnily enough it hadn't the redundancy to deal with the Cut of the sole reasonable shooting options unlike SM.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
IE: you can use your models, just not as what they are. Because "balance". Such a pathetic excuse. Just admit it gw: You want to tell us what models we can use.

40K players: Why do Space Marines have twice the number of data sheets as everyone else, they have way too many.

Also 40K players: I have to use my Space Marine Snowflake unit 343, as generic unit B. Boo.

Not often I'll defend GW, but they really can't win this one...

It's almost like there's a difference between your strawman and (just as a crazy pie in the sky example):

Removing Contemptors, Leviathans and Castaferrums, while adding in the Primaris Not-Furioso and Not-Hellfire.

 Galef wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
That's some nasty overwatch

Wait, why do Dire Avengers get to keep their selection of melee weapons on the sergeant, whilst Kabalites had their selection reduced to 'Sybarite close combat weapon'?

Because glaives are cool

No seriously that's pretty lame we get to keep ours and DE don't. I don't mind melee weapon consolidation on some level but it's unfortunate when it's not applied to everyone fairly.

My guess as to why would be that DAs don't just get to pick whichever weapon, but have always done so in "sets".
Glaive + Shield, Dire Sword + Pistol, or Dual catapults.
Sybarites, otoh, got to mix-and-match melee with any shooting options they had.

So from that perspective, it's a bit more restrictive for the DA Exarch. You cannot have the Dire Sword and Sheild, for example. If they consolidated the sword and glaive into a single profile, the choice would then JUST be better Shield, Pistol or double Cats. And NO ONE is picking just the Pistol in that scenario.

It still gives a "feel bad" vibe that factions are not being treated fairly. But it can make sense

-

I'm looking at battlescribe right now and you can take a dire sword and shimmer shield. Perhaps you are thinking of 7th edition.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
IE: you can use your models, just not as what they are. Because "balance". Such a pathetic excuse. Just admit it gw: You want to tell us what models we can use.

40K players: Why do Space Marines have twice the number of data sheets as everyone else, they have way too many.

Also 40K players: I have to use my Space Marine Snowflake unit 343, as generic unit B. Boo.

Not often I'll defend GW, but they really can't win this one...

Not accurate for the csm side of things at all.

100% accurate as both SM and CSM get to use Contemptors using boxnought rules. And while I had mixed feelings about removal at first, on reflection I am okay with it. I like Contemptor model and I can now field it without feeling guilty about it being broken gak it was for the entire 7th, 8th, and 9th edition.

And oh boy, was it broken - remember 8th edition codex SM that was supposedly ""OP""? Too bad Contemptors were so broken no one fielded actual plastic models besides token HQ. The dreaded "Iron Hands" lists were full of FW dreads (with zero actual IH minis) making rules that were perfectly fine with 80 pts plastic dreads completely broken when slapped on big stuff - and instead of nerfing the FW offenders, GW went and ruined IH rules for people who were using plastic models instead of pay to win stuff most of SM players had little idea existed. No thanks, once was enough, and I like to field my models without feeling guilty or outright 'that guy' when they effortlessly sealclub balanced list opposite me.

Then you have 9th edition, where usual suspects were whining about melta gravis, when dual las contemptor next to them was cheaper, vastly more durable, far better melee output and better gun damage (and 5x the range, too) plus hitting twice as often. Which then after slight nerf was replaced by dual volkite making both CSM and SM ranges pretty obsolete in 95% of cases, with nerfs helping little as after each one next resin broken wombo combo just slightly less efficient always raised its ugly head. Gee, I have no idea why GW (and sane players) might be sick of it

And CSM players should be grateful, too, now GW will look at CSM standings and instead of seeing 50% winrate using resin pay to win gak completely obscuring issues with the plastic range. Now true winrate will show up and if the book needs buffs, it will get them instead of languishing untouched state because upping the bad parts of the range into balanced state might make army broken when supported with resin junk, much like IH above. What's the downside, again?

And unlike sm csm don't hog the release schedule with primaris nefrguns and lieutnants.

Nice strawman, but it's complete and utter 4chan . Since the release of primaris alongside new TSons, Chaos got absolute gigantic mountain of minis easily dwarfing SM releases by an order of magnitude or two, including 47865734 cultist kits in both AoS and 40K (hell, whole new game range filled with nothing with chaos gak), demons, engines, etc, etc, most of it useable in both settings with slight conversions. Why do we need eight different boxes of nothing but khornate melee cultists, again?

But hey, go complain primaris finally got heavy weapon squad after massive wait, years after CSM did four similar kits, not to mention three separate releases of just basic CSM squad along the way (Shadow Spear, regular, then regular+), and other nonsense way more egregious than primaris having huge hole in lineup finally filled 5 years after it should have been done. Bias, what's that?

 Irbis wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
IE: you can use your models, just not as what they are. Because "balance". Such a pathetic excuse. Just admit it gw: You want to tell us what models we can use.

40K players: Why do Space Marines have twice the number of data sheets as everyone else, they have way too many.

Also 40K players: I have to use my Space Marine Snowflake unit 343, as generic unit B. Boo.

Not often I'll defend GW, but they really can't win this one...

Not accurate for the csm side of things at all.

100% accurate as both SM and CSM get to use Contemptors using boxnought rules. And while I had mixed feelings about removal at first, on reflection I am okay with it. I like Contemptor model and I can now field it without feeling guilty about it being broken gak it was for the entire 7th, 8th, and 9th edition.

And oh boy, was it broken - remember 8th edition codex SM that was supposedly ""OP""? Too bad Contemptors were so broken no one fielded actual plastic models besides token HQ. The dreaded "Iron Hands" lists were full of FW dreads (with zero actual IH minis) making rules that were perfectly fine with 80 pts plastic dreads completely broken when slapped on big stuff - and instead of nerfing the FW offenders, GW went and ruined IH rules for people who were using plastic models instead of pay to win stuff most of SM players had little idea existed. No thanks, once was enough, and I like to field my models without feeling guilty or outright 'that guy' when they effortlessly sealclub balanced list opposite me.

Then you have 9th edition, where usual suspects were whining about melta gravis, when dual las contemptor next to them was cheaper, vastly more durable, far better melee output and better gun damage (and 5x the range, too) plus hitting twice as often. Which then after slight nerf was replaced by dual volkite making both CSM and SM ranges pretty obsolete in 95% of cases, with nerfs helping little as after each one next resin broken wombo combo just slightly less efficient always raised its ugly head. Gee, I have no idea why GW (and sane players) might be sick of it

And CSM players should be grateful, too, now GW will look at CSM standings and instead of seeing 50% winrate using resin pay to win gak completely obscuring issues with the plastic range. Now true winrate will show up and if the book needs buffs, it will get them instead of languishing untouched state because upping the bad parts of the range into balanced state might make army broken when supported with resin junk, much like IH above. What's the downside, again?

And unlike sm csm don't hog the release schedule with primaris nefrguns and lieutnants.

Nice strawman, but it's complete and utter 4chan . Since the release of primaris alongside new TSons, Chaos got absolute gigantic mountain of minis easily dwarfing SM releases by an order of magnitude or two, including 47865734 cultist kits in both AoS and 40K (hell, whole new game range filled with nothing with chaos gak), demons, engines, etc, etc, most of it useable in both settings with slight conversions. Why do we need eight different boxes of nothing but khornate melee cultists, again?

But hey, go complain primaris finally got heavy weapon squad after massive wait, years after CSM did four similar kits, not to mention three separate releases of just basic CSM squad along the way (Shadow Spear, regular, then regular+), and other nonsense way more egregious than primaris having huge hole in lineup finally filled 5 years after it should have been done. Bias, what's that?

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
That's some nasty overwatch

Wait, why do Dire Avengers get to keep their selection of melee weapons on the sergeant, whilst Kabalites had their selection reduced to 'Sybarite close combat weapon'?

Because glaives are cool

No seriously that's pretty lame we get to keep ours and DE don't. I don't mind melee weapon consolidation on some level but it's unfortunate when it's not applied to everyone fairly.

My guess as to why would be that DAs don't just get to pick whichever weapon, but have always done so in "sets".
Glaive + Shield, Dire Sword + Pistol, or Dual catapults.
Sybarites, otoh, got to mix-and-match melee with any shooting options they had.

So from that perspective, it's a bit more restrictive for the DA Exarch. You cannot have the Dire Sword and Sheild, for example. If they consolidated the sword and glaive into a single profile, the choice would then JUST be better Shield, Pistol or double Cats. And NO ONE is picking just the Pistol in that scenario.

It still gives a "feel bad" vibe that factions are not being treated fairly. But it can make sense

-

I'm looking at battlescribe right now and you can take a dire sword and shimmer shield. Perhaps you are thinking of 7th edition.

You may be correct.
Then I'd look at it this way: Sybarites are unit leaders of a BATTLELINE unit and thus not as "elite" as an Exarch, which has the shared experience of all prior individuals that previously were its armor.

-

Anyone else spot that dkok can't equip a medi-pack, so can't use the rule?

 Trickstick wrote:
Anyone else spot that dkok can't equip a medi-pack, so can't use the rule?

Are you sure?

I assumed it would be on the (hidden) left side of the card.

 vipoid wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Anyone else spot that dkok can't equip a medi-pack, so can't use the rule?

Are you sure?

I assumed it would be on the (hidden) left side of the card.

I can't see it there. Did you see both images?

Loads of content creators unboxing videos and streams etc... Mixed feelings with the snap fit sprues to be honest.

 Trickstick wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Anyone else spot that dkok can't equip a medi-pack, so can't use the rule?

Are you sure?

I assumed it would be on the (hidden) left side of the card.

I can't see it there. Did you see both images?

Oh no, I hadn't seen that image.

Yeah, looks like GW forgot to give them a way to get medi-packs.

For those wondering, I made a scale comparison video of the new Terminators with over 20 models. From 2nd Edition Terminators to Horus Heresy to Space Marine Heroes, plus various generations of power armour and a couple human-sized models.




Leviathan Terminators are MASSIVE

 Hellebore wrote:
Wait, why do Dire Avengers get to keep their selection of melee weapons on the sergeant, whilst Kabalites had their selection reduced to 'Sybarite close combat weapon'?

I'm going to assume it is because they could easily make the Dire Avengers weapons different yet equal. On the other hand, it must have been too hard to balance the Power Sword and the Poison Power Sword (Agoniser)? So they just said Sybarite close combat weapon and called it a day.

Souleater wrote:But I am happy that Exarchs got to keep their wargear, even if my Sybs didn’t. Although no more Double Catapults for the DA Exarch is hopefully an omission.

I had that thought too, but then realized that they don't need a different weapon profile for a DA Exarch armed with 2 Catapults.

Deathstrike

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Deathstrike

The fact that it skips the select target step means it can bypass several defensive rules that are activated when targetted. Interesting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, his spell does 3.7 to T10.

How many times must I tell you this: Math. Isn't. Everything.

This is about options, fluff, background, thematic resonance, and the fact that Kairos - mightiest Lord of Change in the service of Tzeentch, the Chaos God of Fate and Magic - has ONE psychic power.

It doesn't matter whether it does 1 wound or 1000 wounds on average: It's boring.

Don't you get it yet?

Well, right, but think about the mechanics.

The primary goal of spells is to do damage. Often we'd go through these steps to make us feel like we're doing something unique, but really we're doing a roll to hit and wound (cast) and the opponent makes a save (deny).

How we take the steps feels less thematic, but the outcome is the same.

What I find curious is something like the LoC. Most games he's a durable caster and doesn't do much else. Now he can be a monster with decent shooting. We don't have to be scared about throwing him in lest we lose the damage / utility.

It becomes a more present model.

Magnus will certainly be gaze and a pick 1 ability. If he can live longer than he does now and still has an effect I think I'm happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Deathstrike

I feel like that is a ton more usable without being absurd.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I feel like that is a ton more usable without being absurd.

Because things are usually linked to targetting, it can do a lot of weird stuff. Like snipe lone operatives, fire into combat, bypass strategems like smoke. Seems an interesting weapon.

But you still get a turn to get away from the aim marker … which is strategically useful on its own I guess but still feels like not actually firing it is the best use for one.

Also, I feel like the Deadly Demise value should be bigger as long as the missile hasn’t been launched yet.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
But you still get a turn to get away from the aim marker … which is strategically useful on its own I guess but still feels like not actually firing it is the best use for one.

Also, I feel like the Deadly Demise value should be bigger as long as the missile hasn’t been launched yet.

Maybe you have a basilisk though. Or use it as GSC to zone markers.

About Contemptor Dreadnoughts: Had GW just put all the odd weapon upgrade in Legends, I'd have been 100 percent on board with them. Removing them from the 40k codex entirely is just silly. The basic fist with multimelta/ assault cannon model was introduced in a 40k starter set. They should keep that.

Makes me afraid for the Custodes now.

Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

Read the cards before the game. Done.

Warmachine players are already used to this, it is very handy.

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

It has grown on me after the Russ reveal. I can't wait to see what each variant gets. Adds something more to the game than just weapon stats. And because every unit gets them, it actually makes surprises less likely. Instead of finding out a unit has a special rule you don't know, you know it has a special rule you don't know.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Deathstrike

That seems underwhelming for some reason.

Spoletta wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

Read the cards before the game. Done.

Warmachine players are already used to this, it is very handy.

9th…. Read the strats before the game. Done.
So basically the same.
I just don’t see why every unit needs a special rule. A wind rider unit is a fast unit of guardians with cannons. Does it need to have a reroll wound mechanic for targeting closer models, and a better rule if they’re on the objective? Less rerolls…… sure, geedubs.

The objective based rules are there for a reason.

They encourage people to play to the mission rather than focus solely on unit elimination. And encourage the basic units/core identity of the faction

Voss wrote:
The objective based rules are there for a reason.

They encourage people to play to the mission rather than focus solely on unit elimination. And encourage the basic units/core identity of the faction

But why are they rerolling wounds in the first place? What’s the point, what’s the justification? It’s a guardian on a bike.
I’m all for a few units that are more elite having special rules, but every unit?

 bullyboy wrote:
Ok, just going to come out and say it. Yes, stratagems were way over abused in 9th, but does every unit really have to have its own special rule? Just looking at the data sheets and most of the rules are simply arbitrary. I don’t see how this is simplifying the game if I have to ask my opponent what the special rule is of every unit I encounter to avoid “gotcha” moments.

It's less that units have special rules. It's more that so many of them are repeated over and over again between different units in different armies and could have easily been USRs.