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.

Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Isn't there a rumor that the 1k Sons are gaining Automata?

What would that replace in their old list?

Ideally? Nothing.

But it will.

How do you know that? TS is already a very small army, so why would anything need to be cut?

Nothing *needs* to be, it's more the writing on the wall from EC that some units are a high risk of being cut for various reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nathan2004 wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Marines are treated like delicate princesses, nobody else gets their cake and eats it the same way, it's the reason for a decade of balancing issues in a lot of ways.

For one brief, magical edition (my glorious 9th), EVERYONE had subfactions that actually mattered.

Then competitive players pissed and moaned about how much their brains hurt because they were convinced they had to know every rule for every army in order to WIN MOAR.

So we got the featherweight lack of options that is 10th. Reap the fething whirlwind.

9th was actually peak marine problem. The base codex had as many options in for marines as every other 9th ed army. Then they had access to the "what extra set of Relics and strats shall I have today" supplements, which also added extra models for no downsides in many cases. That isn't good or healthy, it wasn't then and isn't now.

nathan2004 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
If GW is consistent about one thing it’s their lack of fear or concern about pissing off their player base. But given what happened with the other codexes, this was always going to happen. Still sucks for people that bought everything for a specific army only to have these tight restrictions put in place.

I think its important that the community gets back to the mindset that when you buy an Emperor's Children army, you are essentially buying 3 different armies. Emperor's Children, Purple Chaos Space Marines and Legions of Excess or whatever they call them. Not every model you buy is going to work in all 3, but you are absolutely capable of shifting your models to wherever they work.

What about the people that don’t want 3 armies, they just wanna run 1. It’s one thing to not take stuff away but give options - it’s another to take this sort of approach. There are better games out there that don’t follow this approach - GW even makes one. But it’s definitely not 40K.

They can run their existing collection as 1 thing, the same 1 thing they had in 9th, 8th, uth, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd (my knowledge stops here). A chaos space marine army that's pink. I suspect daemons might be a problem next year though.

You picked an interesting hill to die on. They’ve completely separated cult marines and taking certain HQ’s to make them troops was the way to go imo. Not the approach they’re taking now.

This is a more interesting hill to die on, as there is no concept of troops, the CSM lists can take cult troops and they don't need a HQ to do it?

In an old edition way of thinking, the blades would just be possessed alternate sculpts and the infractors would just be alternate legionnaires. They'd also not have all the detachments, army rules and strats etc. To differentiate them.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Was the Hellbrute really that integral to everyone's lists? I didn't really see many when playing against CSM armies.

No, but that was mainly due to points cost. I converted a HH contemptor into a WE helbrute and was really pleased with the model, but struggled to justify it in lists at 140pts when it dies so quickly.

At the 100-120pt range it would probably be a staple unit.

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

It's not outdated, it looks perfectly fine alongside the rest of the CSM line. An update wouldn't be the worst thing, but I'm failing to see how it could be improved upon by the standards of modern GW sculpting.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

It's not outdated, it looks perfectly fine alongside the rest of the CSM line. An update wouldn't be the worst thing, but I'm failing to see how it could be improved upon by the standards of modern GW sculpting.

If nothing else they'd scale it up so it isn't like a third of the size of a Redemptor.

They should bring back proper chaos dreadnoughts and make the "hellbrute" an optional faceplate that represents a possessed dreadnought.

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

It's not outdated, it looks perfectly fine alongside the rest of the CSM line. An update wouldn't be the worst thing, but I'm failing to see how it could be improved upon by the standards of modern GW sculpting.

If nothing else they'd scale it up so it isn't like a third of the size of a Redemptor.

But isn't that one supposed to be extra large in compared to traditional dreadnoughts?

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

It's not outdated, it looks perfectly fine alongside the rest of the CSM line. An update wouldn't be the worst thing, but I'm failing to see how it could be improved upon by the standards of modern GW sculpting.

If nothing else they'd scale it up so it isn't like a third of the size of a Redemptor.

But isn't that one supposed to be extra large in compared to traditional dreadnoughts?

Lets spin this around, the helbrute is about the size of Abaddon or some other on foot characters, they be teeny now.

I said I'd think it kind of dull if EC got no units and while I guess you had to expect it after WE, this doesn't interest me much.

I mean the detachments scream 8th edition Harlequins Codex. I'm sure there's tricks I'm missing but you've basically got:
"The Daemons one."
"The Transports one."
"The movement tricks one."
"Do some more damage."
"Do some more damage but by a different mechanic."
"Wait, there's more. Another way of doing more damage with another mechanic."

Not exactly screaming varied build ideas. But maybe its more complicated if you get into the weeds.

Dudeface wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

It's not outdated, it looks perfectly fine alongside the rest of the CSM line. An update wouldn't be the worst thing, but I'm failing to see how it could be improved upon by the standards of modern GW sculpting.

If nothing else they'd scale it up so it isn't like a third of the size of a Redemptor.

But isn't that one supposed to be extra large in compared to traditional dreadnoughts?

Lets spin this around, the helbrute is about the size of Abaddon or some other on foot characters, they be teeny now.

That's a good point, I haven't thought of that.

Tyel wrote:
I said I'd think it kind of dull if EC got no units and while I guess you had to expect it after WE, this doesn't interest me much.

I mean the detachments scream 8th edition Harlequins Codex. I'm sure there's tricks I'm missing but you've basically got:
"The Daemons one."
"The Transports one."
"The movement tricks one."
"Do some more damage."
"Do some more damage but by a different mechanic."
"Wait, there's more. Another way of doing more damage with another mechanic."

Not exactly screaming varied build ideas. But maybe its more complicated if you get into the weeds.

They definitely seem more 'bottom-up' design, built around mechanics with the flavour added afterwards, rather than a 'top-down' finding mechanics that interpret an idea.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

If nothing else they'd scale it up so it isn't like a third of the size of a Redemptor.

But isn't that one supposed to be extra large in compared to traditional dreadnoughts?

Lets spin this around, the helbrute is about the size of Abaddon or some other on foot characters, they be teeny now.

That's a good point, I haven't thought of that.

Lets also be clear, we are just about to the point where we're dropping the whole Primaris farce. They've just been redesigning, resculpting and resizing the marine line. The Primaris fluff gave them an excuse to run them alongside the stuff that hadn't been redone and spread out the release over time, but the goal is very much for Primaris to be the marine line and not special, bigger marines.

You can really see it in Space Marine 2, where once the tutorial and intro has done the whole Rubicon thing, there's not a whiff of Firstborn. Everything is Primaris, including the Dreadnought that acts like he just woke up for the first time since he died during the Heresy. Redemptors aren't extra large, that's just what a Dreadnought is now and notably, they're not significantly larger than the Helbrutes

I think the main problem with this release is the same problem with the WE release and what kind of plagues the TS. It feels like half an army. I mean even if EC had access to predators, hell brutes etc. would is still feel finished? WE doesn't nor does TS and they both can bring all the generic CSM vehicles.

GW just needs to get these armies like 3-4 more unique units, similar to the DG which have their unique daemon engines, lots of unique characters, two types of terminators etc. and Even DG could prbably use 1-2 more units.

So maybe in what like 12th there will be something that feels like a full DG,EC,WE,TS army, after they release you know like 50 more primarais units lol.

I think over the last 4 editions a good chunk of the Chaos sculpting budget has been spent establishing these god focused factions. Now that they're all out, I'd hope that can be directed towards giving each of them some real depth. I am a little surprised they didn't lean harder on the daemons to accomplish that though.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Was the Hellbrute really that integral to everyone's lists? I didn't really see many when playing against CSM armies.

Currently, I would take three every chance I got. Giving units within 6" both lethal AND sustained hits is freaking amazing.

 PenitentJake wrote:


Then competitive players pissed and moaned about how much their brains hurt because they were convinced they had to know every rule for every army in order to WIN MOAR.

It wasnt competitive players complainibg, it was casuals lile me who played a couple times a month and couldnt commit 8 layets of rules to memory. The competitive community, knowing many of the upper tier of big name players as I do, are/were very much against this streamlining.

Dudeface wrote:
`
9th was actually peak marine problem. The base codex had as many options in for marines as every other 9th ed army. Then they had access to the "what extra set of Relics and strats shall I have today" supplements, which also added extra models for no downsides in many cases. That isn't good or healthy, it wasn't then and isn't now.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The problem is one of relativity: you can look at an edition where Marines have fewer sub faction options and say "That's good, because there's less Marine rules bloat."
But if other factions have NO SUBFACTION options, then even though the marines don't have much, it's still too much for them to have, because everyone else gets nothing.
Me getting a little, and them getting a lot felt better to me than them getting a little and me getting nothing.

As for whether or not subfaction content is good for the game in general, you can argue that it makes the game harder to balance, or whatever... But my priority is having the largest possible narrative sandbox, and the more rules content I have, the easier it is to create interesting stories on the table-top. Again, I don't play the game the way most people do- to me, 40k is a role-playing game that uses models. I realize this means that my opinions have limited appeal in a forum where most members really like more conventional wargames, with tight core rules to emphasize tactical decision making.

But despite my weird RPG preferences, 9th still managed to be everything I've wanted 40k to be since '89. Editions 1-5 were all great for their time, but 9th gave me more to work with than any of them did. Looking back now is kinda like visiting my old elementary school and seeing how small it is and how low all the drinking fountains are.

But the other armies DO have sub factions.
They’re just not locked to a paint scheme.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But the other armies DO have sub factions.
They’re just not locked to a paint scheme.

In 10th, what's the difference between a Sister from the Order of Our Martyred Lady and a Sister from the Bloody Rose?

There is no difference besides a name and a paint job... Sure, the subfactions have names, and there is lore associated with them, but when none of that affects the actual game, from my perspective subfactions might as well not exist at all.

YOU might not have liked it when OoOML were a cult of Martyrdom (and played that way) and BR were hot headed close combat specialists (and played that way), but I did.

And that doesn't mean that your preferences aren't valid; they are. Which is why, in 9th, if you said to me, "I know these sisters LOOK like OoOML, but I just liked those colours, and actually prefer to play them using Bloody Rose rules." I would have been fine with that, and in my experience, most I've the people I've played with over the past 36 years would have been fine with it too. Only dicks ever insisted that you paint your models in strict accordance with the colour scheme of the subfaction that best fit your preferred play style.

It would have been trivially simple for them to say that a named subfaction is just an example of that ruleset and anyone else can be it to, it's just the Blood Angels are the most famous example of X.

But they decided that it was all or nothing - either paint jobs were heinously restrictive, or they didn't matter at all.

Special characters also could have been positioned this way and been slightly less ridiculously unique in the process. Eldrad is an example of an ancient farseer, Farsight is an example of a rebellious tau commander etc.

But in the modern game we get this weird position where the paint scheme doesn't mean anything, but guilliman is unique and only an ultramarine while his army can be anything because key words don't actually require paint schemes.

 Hellebore wrote:
It would have been trivially simple for them to say that a named subfaction is just an example of that ruleset and anyone else can be it to, it's just the Blood Angels are the most famous example of X.

But they decided that it was all or nothing - either paint jobs were heinously restrictive, or they didn't matter at all.

Special characters also could have been positioned this way and been slightly less ridiculously unique in the process. Eldrad is an example of an ancient farseer, Farsight is an example of a rebellious tau commander etc.

Sooo exactly like 5th edition?

Funny how 15 years later, no GW writer managed to reach Ward level yet (worse, they managed to ruin the elegant usability and balance mechanics he left either out of spite or incomptence, which is amazing because AoS kept them and these regularly come up in 'why AoS is better than 40K' discussions showing it's not like 40K crew doesn't know how to do it, they simply won't), but hey, gotta appease bunch of 4chan kids screeching about spiritual liege instead of making game better (and what is really hilarious here, the fluff these clowns whine about was actually written by Phil Kelly, not Ward, making the whole affair even more sad)!

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Again, its not saying EC will never have Helbrutes, just that they don't have access to the current Helbrute that's going to Legends soon.

How do we know that they're going to Legends?

We don't, but its an outdated model that's only sold in Star Collecting. Singles are Webstore exclusive and not even available on the webstore. That's all the signs of a model getting a resculpt and I'm sure GW would like it to be more in line with the Redemptor. Not being in EC to me screams that they just don't want to sell them to people starting this "new" army only to be replaced soon.

It's not outdated, it looks perfectly fine alongside the rest of the CSM line. An update wouldn't be the worst thing, but I'm failing to see how it could be improved upon by the standards of modern GW sculpting.

This. If the Helbrute is outdated then so are the Dinobots, the Heldrake and the raptors, as they're all from 6th edition. And if these are outdated we better not start thinking about Rhinos and Land Raiders.
Also, chances are a new sculpt of the Helbrute would cut most of the options just to get a bigger clumsy model on the sprue. That would be okay for a sonic dreadnought for EC, but don't make all other CSM suffer for that. The "Standards of modern GW sculpting" are unfortunately lower in 40K than they were 10 years ago. The Helbrute is already quite modern in the sense that there's basically no way to do some positioning. But at least you get a proper range of arms and heads.

wAiT aNd SeE if at an indeterminate future time there is a new Helbrute!

So is there any good news on the horizon?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
wAiT aNd SeE if at an indeterminate future time there is a new Helbrute!

This bit you do really isn't entertaining, sorry. Nobody knows what's going on with the helbrute, so literally yeah, you'll have to wait and see. It's not some mythical woo-woo statement that needs typing like a 13 year old on CoD.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But the other armies DO have sub factions.
They’re just not locked to a paint scheme.

In 10th, what's the difference between a Sister from the Order of Our Martyred Lady and a Sister from the Bloody Rose?

There is no difference besides a name and a paint job... Sure, the subfactions have names, and there is lore associated with them, but when none of that affects the actual game, from my perspective subfactions might as well not exist at all.

YOU might not have liked it when OoOML were a cult of Martyrdom (and played that way) and BR were hot headed close combat specialists (and played that way), but I did.

There is still a difference, though. There's a detachment that's clearly based on OoOML and has a detachment rule that works off your own models dying, alongside various stratagems that do the same. Just because it's no longer literally called "Order of Our Martyred Lady" it doesn't mean it no longer exists. Other factions have identical approaches except now we don't get pigeon-holed because GW decided only Raven Guard would do sneaky scouting armies, or Hive Fleet Behemoth was the only one that had lots of monsters (not that most people ever cared about the paint scheme restrictions - and rightly so - but it was still a dumb move from GW to even attempt them). Also, how different should a basic line trooper be from one sub-faction tot he next? At the scale we're operating, a Sister of Battle from one sub-faction does not need to be hugely different to another sub-faction's Sister. Same with Necron Warriors, or Intercessors.

This is one area where I think creating the 4 god-specific legions as their own books works well for GW. There's a fine line between what needs to be its own thing versus what could just be a detachment in a more general book. DG are a good example of this done right, but I think the other 3 legions need a lot more fleshing out before they're at that level. I wonder if any new Hellbrute/Dread for Chaos will have alternate bits to make it more fitting for the god-sepcific legions? That would be one good approach. Theoretically everyone getting new vehicles like DG did would also be good, but the problem there is I can't really see any good reason for the legions to abandon their Predators and there's always the likelihood if GW goes down that route that one legion ends up getting screwed by having the worst unique vehicle options.

Slipspace wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But the other armies DO have sub factions.
They’re just not locked to a paint scheme.

In 10th, what's the difference between a Sister from the Order of Our Martyred Lady and a Sister from the Bloody Rose?

There is no difference besides a name and a paint job... Sure, the subfactions have names, and there is lore associated with them, but when none of that affects the actual game, from my perspective subfactions might as well not exist at all.

YOU might not have liked it when OoOML were a cult of Martyrdom (and played that way) and BR were hot headed close combat specialists (and played that way), but I did.

There is still a difference, though. There's a detachment that's clearly based on OoOML and has a detachment rule that works off your own models dying, alongside various stratagems that do the same. Just because it's no longer literally called "Order of Our Martyred Lady" it doesn't mean it no longer exists. Other factions have identical approaches except now we don't get pigeon-holed because GW decided only Raven Guard would do sneaky scouting armies, or Hive Fleet Behemoth was the only one that had lots of monsters (not that most people ever cared about the paint scheme restrictions - and rightly so - but it was still a dumb move from GW to even attempt them). Also, how different should a basic line trooper be from one sub-faction tot he next? At the scale we're operating, a Sister of Battle from one sub-faction does not need to be hugely different to another sub-faction's Sister. Same with Necron Warriors, or Intercessors.

There are six major Sororitas Orders Militant, but the codex only has four detachments. Clearly, there is not one distinct equivalent detachment for each of the orders.

Hang on - Sisters only got four detachments? How many are they squeezing out of this tin y EC roster? My memory is telling me six which, while fitting, is kinda insulting to the Sisters.