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.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I think I made the right choice in that Custodes box and not waiting for these Marines.

The only thing that sounds cool might be their new speeder.

We'll have to do the patented wait and see on that one on what happens with the impending custodes book.

I've been 99% sure based on HISTORIC behaviour they will drive the wedge in of units being singke system. But if they're a late autum/early winter release in-between the ork/marine waves and a decent tau wave, i can't see them getting many minis, so custodes might get away with keeping the 30k stuff or at least retaining it in purgatory.

Erm - I really hope that was autocorrect having a moment there, Dudeface.

I fixed it, I think I put in the word that was supposed to go there, auto-correct loves to do people dirty alright.

 BrookM wrote:
I fixed it, I think I put in the word that was supposed to go there, auto-correct loves to do people dirty alright.

Jfc what did it put in?

 Snord wrote:
I seem to be the only one who isn't very interested in the new Chaplain. He looks rather awkward to me, especially with his pistol held sideways. And I've never liked GW's attempts to sculpt smoke effects. Another pass for me. I was unlikely to have bought the 11th Edition box set anyway - I would to pick up the Ork models separately though. If anyone wants to sell me the Orks from their box set, let me know

I've found GW's efforts to make jump Marines fly not to work for me and this Chaplain is no different. I much prefer the old Assault Marine approach of having running poses (or standing ones, if you're so inclined, since legs used to be interchangeable) over awkward flying poses and some less than ideal way to mount the model on the base.

With regard to the latter the Chaplain got an especially visceral reaction from me. I don't like the various ways of mounting jump troops on debris very much, but I immediately despised this one. Quite a standout.

Good for all the people who like the guy. And there seem to be a lot of them. But I'm definitely not one of them.

I think part of the issue is that GW doesn't really model effects like thruster burn and such all that often; but jump-packs look strange when the model is in the air and there's no visible "thrust"

 Geifer wrote:

 Snord wrote:
I seem to be the only one who isn't very interested in the new Chaplain. He looks rather awkward to me, especially with his pistol held sideways. And I've never liked GW's attempts to sculpt smoke effects. Another pass for me. I was unlikely to have bought the 11th Edition box set anyway - I would to pick up the Ork models separately though. If anyone wants to sell me the Orks from their box set, let me know

I've found GW's efforts to make jump Marines fly not to work for me and this Chaplain is no different. I much prefer the old Assault Marine approach of having running poses (or standing ones, if you're so inclined, since legs used to be interchangeable) over awkward flying poses and some less than ideal way to mount the model on the base.

With regard to the latter the Chaplain got an especially visceral reaction from me. I don't like the various ways of mounting jump troops on debris very much, but I immediately despised this one. Quite a standout.

Good for all the people who like the guy. And there seem to be a lot of them. But I'm definitely not one of them.

The bigger question would be if this is good enough to carry the new edition box set? I like the model, looks fun to paint up but alone it does not sell me the full box. If your not interested in Orks the marine half needs to work extra hard and be nothing but freaking amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
I think part of the issue is that GW doesn't really model effects like thruster burn and such all that often; but jump-packs look strange when the model is in the air and there's no visible "thrust"

"didn't like" the new Ork on bike is not short of crazy effects so that can be a change of direction.

I take it #New40k is out of new rules to preview already?

Post-Adepticon WarCom has been a bit quiet overall, really. Did they mention anything in the Weirdboy article or on Sunday about anything #New40k later this week?

 Dysartes wrote:
Post-Adepticon WarCom has been a bit quiet overall, really. Did they mention anything in the Weirdboy article or on Sunday about anything #New40k later this week?

Nope, only a brief mention on the chaplain or what sound slike a grotz reveal Monday. I stand by my initial impression that this is feeling like a big datalsate and a really piss poor excuse for a new rulebook.

Well, the point of the rulebook isn't to bring the changes. The point of the rulebook is to drive sales. GW may just be testing the waters to see how little they can get away with changing and still make people buy it.

Thinking about it, the ATV going away makes sense, as one it is widely derided for appearance, and also removing it frees up the slot for a fast, lightly armored 2 man fast attack vehicle with gatling gun or anti tank weapon to put the new Landspeeder into so it doesn't compete directly with the heavier storm speeders.

Firestrike turrets are cool IMO, and sad to go away, but may be replaced with something else.

Suppressors probably are just being swapped out for the new gravis HB to make them more like anti infantry eradicators and less competition with inceptors.

Firestrikes are honestly the perfect Legends unit. They don't really have functional design space for a standard game, but can definitely be used well in custom scenarios that support them.

I am surprised they didn't toss the Vindicator yet, but I suppose it is a shared kit in a way the Razorback isn't really.

When they do toss it I expect a lot of anger, though, because tournament players adore Vindicators.

(Or maybe not, tournament players don't usually seem to mind stuff getting squatted unless it's, like, a whole faction).

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Thinking about it, the ATV going away makes sense, as one it is widely derided for appearance, and also removing it frees up the slot for a fast, lightly armored 2 man fast attack vehicle with gatling gun or anti tank weapon to put the new Landspeeder into so it doesn't compete directly with the heavier storm speeders.

Firestrike turrets are cool IMO, and sad to go away, but may be replaced with something else.

Suppressors probably are just being swapped out for the new gravis HB to make them more like anti infantry eradicators and less competition with inceptors.

Old school Land Speeders and Attack Bikes had a lot of overlap. There were pros and cons to each, but largely interchangeable. If they are bringing back the more light scouty speeder (vs. the more chonky stormspeeders) I could see dropping the ATV. The range is bloated enough.

Although will suck for people who want bike themed lists

 Ashiraya wrote:
Well, the point of the rulebook isn't to bring the changes. The point of the rulebook is to drive sales. GW may just be testing the waters to see how little they can get away with changing and still make people buy it.

It's also probably about the right time for a new 'edition' of the rulebook, even if not a complete overhaul of the game. So that a new player isn't also needing to stick in the 35 pages covering the changes to movement like pivots and the various limits to deepstrike, surge moves, discounted strat use.

I think that and a new launch box would probably generate the same big sales boost as a radical edition change too, with less risk.

Plus one of the biggest changes we've yet to see is likely to be in the combination detachments, especially if allies like Daemons and Agents get covered by this system. Still got 70 of them to go.

 LunarSol wrote:
Firestrikes are honestly the perfect Legends unit. They don't really have functional design space for a standard game, but can definitely be used well in custom scenarios that support them.

I don't have the current 'dex, so I'm going to have to ask - why don't the Firestrikes fit into a design space for a "standard" game?

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Snord wrote:
I seem to be the only one who isn't very interested in the new Chaplain. He looks rather awkward to me, especially with his pistol held sideways. And I've never liked GW's attempts to sculpt smoke effects. Another pass for me. I was unlikely to have bought the 11th Edition box set anyway - I would to pick up the Ork models separately though. If anyone wants to sell me the Orks from their box set, let me know

I've found GW's efforts to make jump Marines fly not to work for me and this Chaplain is no different. I much prefer the old Assault Marine approach of having running poses (or standing ones, if you're so inclined, since legs used to be interchangeable) over awkward flying poses and some less than ideal way to mount the model on the base.

With regard to the latter the Chaplain got an especially visceral reaction from me. I don't like the various ways of mounting jump troops on debris very much, but I immediately despised this one. Quite a standout.

Good for all the people who like the guy. And there seem to be a lot of them. But I'm definitely not one of them.

The bigger question would be if this is good enough to carry the new edition box set? I like the model, looks fun to paint up but alone it does not sell me the full box. If your not interested in Orks the marine half needs to work extra hard and be nothing but freaking amazing.

It's hard to say at the moment if and what in the box might carry it. We're still in the lame phase of the preview period where we get individual models without any context, and most of them aren't flashy at all.

It'll be much easier to judge whether the box looks like a good deal once we get a complete high definition picture of what's in it. Or one per side. If that mix looks good it'll be a lot easier to sell.

 Tastyfish wrote:


It's also probably about the right time for a new 'edition' of the rulebook, even if not a complete overhaul of the game. So that a new player isn't also needing to stick in the 35 pages covering the changes to movement like pivots and the various limits to deepstrike, surge moves, discounted strat use.

Oh, let's be real here, 11th edition will need piles and piles of PDF changes too. That is not changing. GW is not the kind of company that pushes out a healthy product day one.

They may be able to bake some things like the changes to towering and devastating wounds into the physical rulebook, but make no mistake, that physical rulebook will still be outdated in a blink.

 Dysartes wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Firestrikes are honestly the perfect Legends unit. They don't really have functional design space for a standard game, but can definitely be used well in custom scenarios that support them.

I don't have the current 'dex, so I'm going to have to ask - why don't the Firestrikes fit into a design space for a "standard" game?

Beats me. If Broadsides and Krieg artillery teams fit, I don't see the issue.

Frankly, we'll be lucky if the new rulebook isn't out of date on launch day.

Genuinely possible. Codex books are essentially always out of date even before they release. This main rulebook might not account for the latest dataslate changes, considering GW is -still- printing detachments with outdated stratagems that have been reworked ages ago.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Tastyfish wrote:


It's also probably about the right time for a new 'edition' of the rulebook, even if not a complete overhaul of the game. So that a new player isn't also needing to stick in the 35 pages covering the changes to movement like pivots and the various limits to deepstrike, surge moves, discounted strat use.

Oh, let's be real here, 11th edition will need piles and piles of PDF changes too. That is not changing. GW is not the kind of company that pushes out a healthy product day one.

They may be able to bake some things like the changes to towering and devastating wounds into the physical rulebook, but make no mistake, that physical rulebook will still be outdated in a blink.

 Dysartes wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Firestrikes are honestly the perfect Legends unit. They don't really have functional design space for a standard game, but can definitely be used well in custom scenarios that support them.

I don't have the current 'dex, so I'm going to have to ask - why don't the Firestrikes fit into a design space for a "standard" game?

Beats me. If Broadsides and Krieg artillery teams fit, I don't see the issue.

My main gripe with new edition rules this time is the release process. This is feeling like the least impressive box in a while, the big hitter rules changes have been shared and they're hitting radio silence 6-7 weeks out? They seemingly have too little in it to be worth hyping and started too early.

 Ashiraya wrote:

(Or maybe not, tournament players don't usually seem to mind stuff getting squatted unless it's, like, a whole faction).

I'm not particularly competitive, but I understand the general perspective. No matter what, there's a chunk of my collection sitting on the shelf as soon as I own more than 2000 points. If you're building for tournaments, what chunk gets shelved is largely determined by the rules and at that point there's little difference between bad rules and no rules at all.

True, though it's exacerbated by GW's reluctance to buff stuff instead of nerfing.

Many bad units in 10th have been bad all edition with no help given, such as Hive Guard.

 Ashiraya wrote:
True, though it's exacerbated by GW's reluctance to buff stuff instead of nerfing.

Many bad units in 10th have been bad all edition with no help given, such as Hive Guard.

More stuff needs nerfed baseline. Lethality is already way too high.

 Ashiraya wrote:
True, though it's exacerbated by GW's reluctance to buff stuff instead of nerfing.

Many bad units in 10th have been bad all edition with no help given, such as Hive Guard.

I suspect that's largely a "devil you know" situation. When they buff things it creates more potential problems than it solves. GW seems pretty happy to let a meta develop with the game they launch with and mostly fix outlying problems, with systemic mistakes being the focus of the next edition. It makes a certain amount of sense, even if it doesn't do much for people who are big fans of aircraft or whatever element didn't work. Even from a player perspective there's a certain value in knowing that I'm not going to be made to buy Hive Guard, as significant buffs are often seen as an excuse to push sales of something.

 Nevelon wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Thinking about it, the ATV going away makes sense, as one it is widely derided for appearance, and also removing it frees up the slot for a fast, lightly armored 2 man fast attack vehicle with gatling gun or anti tank weapon to put the new Landspeeder into so it doesn't compete directly with the heavier storm speeders.

Firestrike turrets are cool IMO, and sad to go away, but may be replaced with something else.

Suppressors probably are just being swapped out for the new gravis HB to make them more like anti infantry eradicators and less competition with inceptors.

Old school Land Speeders and Attack Bikes had a lot of overlap. There were pros and cons to each, but largely interchangeable. If they are bringing back the more light scouty speeder (vs. the more chonky stormspeeders) I could see dropping the ATV. The range is bloated enough.

Although will suck for people who want bike themed lists

There is a rumor of Bikes getting redone, to give them more options. Could it be possible that one of those options is the reintroduction of the sidecar Attack Bike? I know I prefer that look over the ATV.

To tournament play comment, as someone who plays them, we dont like units getting squatted either.
Every unit is someones favorite unit. I have talked to people and are like "Oh man i wish i could use this, i hope they buff it soon to be viable" or akin to that.
While we might be more insulated to accepting, suddnely the ATVs you liked getting squatted sucks even if them being bad forever was the same result, on the shelf. it removes the hope something might come along and take if off the shelf.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
True, though it's exacerbated by GW's reluctance to buff stuff instead of nerfing.

Many bad units in 10th have been bad all edition with no help given, such as Hive Guard.

I suspect that's largely a "devil you know" situation. When they buff things it creates more potential problems than it solves. GW seems pretty happy to let a meta develop with the game they launch with and mostly fix outlying problems, with systemic mistakes being the focus of the next edition. It makes a certain amount of sense, even if it doesn't do much for people who are big fans of aircraft or whatever element didn't work. Even from a player perspective there's a certain value in knowing that I'm not going to be made to buy Hive Guard, as significant buffs are often seen as an excuse to push sales of something.

GW has buffed multiple underperforming options of many codices over the course of this edition, but only ever when paired with a nerf of the current good stuff or when the codex was already underperforming.

The problem they are having is that when a codex sits at a decent win rate, buffing other units might push that unit into current army lists and suddenly you get an unhealthy meta again. Events being swamped by lists perceived as too strong is affecting their sales much more than underperforming units. Even when the actual effect might not be felt on your home gaming table, content creators will overblow any negative to gigantic proportions - because that's they most efficient way for them to make more money.

The method of balancing entire codices against win rates is inherently flawed and causes units like hive guard or buggies to sit on the sidelines for an entire edition. That said, the current approach is still vastly better than whatever they have been trying to do in the past. At least there is a chance of shelved units to return to the battlefield where there previously was none.

 Nevelon wrote:


For me it’s the history and continuity. I’ve put my first RTB01 tac squad on the table of every FLGS I’ve frequented. In every edition. They have been with us since the start. A core foundation of the setting. I’ve got a firstborn battle company of the shelf. Each squad a weapon loadout for different roles. Gives them more personality and flavor then just basic bolter guys (with a grenade launder per 5 guys)

Dropping tacs is throwing a huge part of the history of the game into the bin.

How many older players are going to look at legacy collections, have a good long thought about sunk cost fallacies, and walk?

Because dropping tacticals is ripping the heart and soul out of a lot of marine players.

Yeah, this is basically it for me. I've been at this on and off for 35 years and if it doesn't have Tactical, Devastator and Assault Marine squads, it ain't 40K. From here on, it's alternate/homebrew/old rules that don't lock out any of my existing models instead of the incessant and accelerating churn of the 'official' rules/models.