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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't think that was retconned. It was just explained that it took some time for the flaws to surface.

Primaris still cover some flaws. For example, they made it possible for Space Wolves to have successors, something that seemed impossible before (for unknown reasons, it could have been a literal curse for all we know).

Maybe not retcon but they've pivoted and I doubt it'll ever come up again.

Maybe. It's still important to keep developments apart from retcons though. Primaris themselves introduced essentially no retcons to the lore, but despite that people say they do all the time.

Darth Vader being Luke's father all along (despite Obi-Wan very much alluding otherwise) was not a retcon, it was revealing something previously secret.

A retcon would be writing a story about Guilliman going to Armageddon and then two years later declaring that Guilliman actually has never gone to Armageddon, shush you!

Billicus wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't think that was retconned. It was just explained that it took some time for the flaws to surface.

Primaris still cover some flaws. For example, they made it possible for Space Wolves to have successors, something that seemed impossible before (for unknown reasons, it could have been a literal curse for all we know).

Maybe not retcon but they've pivoted and I doubt it'll ever come up again.

The 'no more geneseed flaws' was very clearly just there to cover the lack of Chapter-specific units when Primaris launched.

Yeah, I know, it stunk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Maybe. It's still important to keep developments apart from retcons though. Primaris themselves introduced essentially no retcons to the lore, but despite that people say they do all the time.

Darth Vader being Luke's father all along (despite Obi-Wan very much alluding otherwise) was not a retcon, it was revealing something previously secret.

A retcon would be writing a story about Guilliman going to Armageddon and then two years later declaring that Guilliman actually has never gone to Armageddon, shush you!

I used the wrong word, sorry. I do understand the distinction.

 Asmodai wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I like that you can't deep strike into your opponen't deployment zone before Turn 3.

Also I found the mortal wounds wording odd in that it no longer explicitly says you don't get a save, it just doesn't mention saves at all and just says the model loses 1 Wound.

Doesn't it say the opposite for Deep Strike?

DEEP STRIKE 24.09
There are many ways by which to deploy troops to the field of battle including tunnels, teleportation devices and other esoteric means of transportation.
Each time this unit makes an ingress move (20.04), if every model in this unit has this ability, it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 8" horizontally from all enemy units, even if that is within your opponent’s deployment zone.

Yeah in my head I conflated "reserves" with deep Strike because I use the terms interchangably.

Whoops

First floor windows is an official rule now.

 LunarSol wrote:
First floor windows is an official rule now.

Silly Americans, they're ground floor windows!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Billicus wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't think that was retconned. It was just explained that it took some time for the flaws to surface.

Primaris still cover some flaws. For example, they made it possible for Space Wolves to have successors, something that seemed impossible before (for unknown reasons, it could have been a literal curse for all we know).

Maybe not retcon but they've pivoted and I doubt it'll ever come up again.

The 'no more geneseed flaws' was very clearly just there to cover the lack of Chapter-specific units when Primaris launched.

Then they did Chapter-specific units, then squatted them, then did more.

Hounds of Morkai being booted out in the latest codex was one of the more befuddling things I've ever seen. Sure, they were never my thing, but that's one quick turnaround!

"Primaris fixed all the geneseed flaws" always just felt like part of Primaris being the bestest most awesome Space Marines ever.

As was quickly followed up with "but they didn't fix any of the flaws that the fans think are cool!" which is really just a continuation of the first paragraph

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Core rules up for download now:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/nhqt9wx3/new40k-rules-download-the-free-core-rules-now/

+5pts for having more abilities in the core rules.

-9999pts for otherwise being the exact same gak as 10th.

Guess I'll be skipping this edition, too.

This is definitely to 10th was what 7th was to 6th and 9th was to 8th.

I hope for a full reset back to customisation in 12th. (More likely they will just remove even more of my stuff, but I can hope).

Core rules are only half of an edition though - the codex design philosophy is the other half.

Basically every criticism people have with 9th was a codex design element not a core rule element

It certainly doesn't look like anything significant has changed in the rules, but I'm withholding the decision until my codex (Tau) comes out. Rumours are it won't be long

Also, I watched that trailer. Very cool. Imagine the horror in those Guardsmen when they got a direct hit on that CSM with a frag, are hosing him with point blank lasgun shots, and we see he is GETTING BACK UP.

Always fun seeing Chaos getting to be cool too.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Just a question, can we still use the old L-Shaped buildings in the new 40k game or will we need new building terrain for objectives?

I assure you that 40k will not stop working if you deviate from whatever footprint patterns the geniuses in Nottingham are pushing in this new edition.
Or if you continue to use a full 6x4 or 8x4 table. Or an end table....
Or if you use old mission decks.
Or if you make custom scenarios.
etc.

ccs wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Just a question, can we still use the old L-Shaped buildings in the new 40k game or will we need new building terrain for objectives?

I assure you that 40k will not stop working if you deviate from whatever footprint patterns the geniuses in Nottingham are pushing in this new edition.
Or if you continue to use a full 6x4 or 8x4 table. Or an end table....
Or if you use old mission decks.
Or if you make custom scenarios.
etc.

This is a little dishonest.

- Changed footprints/terrain means some objectives are more or less exposed/accessible and as a result some missions may get a little funkier.
- If you use a bigger table and don't adjust the deployment zones/objectives locations, this again impacts how the missions plays. Even if you do adjust those, the larger deployment zones can make a big difference.
- If you use old mission decks, similar as above they weren't designed for the 11th terrain rules or layouts, hence might need some adjustment or play very differently
- To do more of the above you are essentially playing a custom scenario

You are correct that nothing stops someone utilising what they have, or adapting for what they want. But you have to acknowledge the game doesn't fully work as well as designed when you do.

Apart from the free core rules available today, I'm not bothered about the new edition. Codices will arrive too late before we're on to the inevitable "much needed overhaul" of 12th edition.

ccs wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Just a question, can we still use the old L-Shaped buildings in the new 40k game or will we need new building terrain for objectives?

I assure you that 40k will not stop working if you deviate from whatever footprint patterns the geniuses in Nottingham are pushing in this new edition.
Or if you continue to use a full 6x4 or 8x4 table. Or an end table....
Or if you use old mission decks.
Or if you make custom scenarios.
etc.

It should also be noted that the footprint patterns and predefined terrain layouts only actually seem to be a thing for the tournament pack, the actual cards inluded in the boxset just show where the objectives should be and let you decide on the terrain yourselves.
Now whether everyone collectively decides to ignore casual play and turn everything into a tournament prep game again needs to be seen...

If the objective placement remains constant even in casual play, and objectives are terrain, there's little reason to not just follow th3 tournament pack anyway as you're 90% of the way there anyway

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Core rules are only half of an edition though - the codex design philosophy is the other half.

Basically every criticism people have with 9th was a codex design element not a core rule element

It certainly doesn't look like anything significant has changed in the rules, but I'm withholding the decision until my codex (Tau) comes out. Rumours are it won't be long

Hidden is probably one of the biggest changes the game has seen in years. Really curious to see how it plays out. The other significant overhaul is the terrain rules, though most of them are just codifying things that reasonable people could have designed 10th tables around with a tiny bit of effort.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If the objective placement remains constant even in casual play, and objectives are terrain, there's little reason to not just follow th3 tournament pack anyway as you're 90% of the way there anyway

The reason for not following is that your over the years amassed random terrain collection might not perfectly match the tournament terrain template guidelines.

 Crimson wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If the objective placement remains constant even in casual play, and objectives are terrain, there's little reason to not just follow th3 tournament pack anyway as you're 90% of the way there anyway

The reason for not following is that your over the years amassed random terrain collection might not perfectly match the tournament terrain template guidelines.

Tbh the new layouts may help with that. The outline is the important thing, they intent seems to be you can be quite flexible in how you fill it - more so that 10th where building shape was really important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't think that was retconned. It was just explained that it took some time for the flaws to surface.

Primaris still cover some flaws. For example, they made it possible for Space Wolves to have successors, something that seemed impossible before (for unknown reasons, it could have been a literal curse for all we know).

There was a novel (Battle of the Fang IIRC) which implied that pre-Imperial gene modding of the Fenrisien population (itself also heavily implied in the Prospero Burns HH novel) screwed up the geneseed gestated in marines from Fenrisien stock so that after a few generations it would no longer work properly on non-Fenrisiens (hence their attempts at successors failing).

The original Primaris were made from geneseed ostensibly taken directly from the primarchs and multiplied in vat slaves, so it would presumably not have been messed up by whatever is in Fenrisiens, hence successors were possible.

There’s also a chance that some of the ‘Space Wolves successors’ were actually Lunar Wolves or World Eaters or whatever successors that Cawl just pretended were Space Wolves as he’d been told he wasn’t allowed to use the Traitor Legion geneseed he also had access to but blatantly did…

 Platuan4th wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Core rules feel weird to read, but I think they've written stuff with a much more robust skeleton for just generally tightening up various rules interactions

They need to tighten up those coherency rules so the shenanigans that the 100% legally coherent unit of 7 at the back and 2 up at the extreme of "within 9 inches" creates are eliminated.

This is one of those situations where even if it's technically legal, you know damn well you're gonna get kicked in the bitz for doing it.

warl0rdb0b wrote:
I may have missed it in the thread, but Auspex Tactics have reported the price confirmed at £185 direct from GW. So based on GW's current prices, a good deal, but still damned expensive in the long run.

I was about to think to myself "Maybe I'll get this box if I save up a lot of money!" but then realized you were talking about British pounds and not United States dollars

Reading through the post, am I the old guy here? Still has metal marines, unpainted? Whose land raider came with metal parts?

From my point of view the Space Marine models get better, not all of them. I would not own half the primaris line. I do want this box though. The intercessors have more shooting poses. This would be the first basic intercessors I have bought.
I have the Assault guys, I have the blood claws to be made into assault guys x2.
The nice thing about the mono pose in this box is quick to paint.
Reading that a new dread is coming out, I own none of the new ones. Mine are from Forge World. I would like to own it, if its the squarish version. The new ones are nice but do not look good with my old guys.

All to say, getting the box seems to me a good idea, understanding 10 years from now, I might still have the land speeder and leaders unpainted.

I'll be interested in primaris when they do a tactical squad. They can even do it with only 2 heavy and 2 special weapon options rather than the huge list they used to have. They can even make them unique heavies to that squad.

But the intercessor squad is the most boring marine unit in the game. And to make it competitive they need a op bolter.

GW desperately needs an editor. Every page has so much stuff on it that could be much more concisely and clearly written. Maybe it's just a me thing, but it's annoying they still haven't figured this out yet.

Speaking of, they define "active" and "opposing" player on literally the first page of the rules. They then forget about them by the time the Fight phase rules roll by. Seriously, the text is littered with "player whose turn it is" and similar terms. You've just created a handy, less wordy, definition of that on page 1. Use it, you utter, utter buffoons.

Speaking of the Fight phase, I feel like a few more examples of fighting order with Fights First, ongoing, etc, would have been a good idea. I'm pretty sure I understand it, but the text is difficult to parse. A couple of examples with different numbers of Fights First and regular units for each player would do wonders to clear up any confusion and clarify the text.

There are a few weird quirks too. It took me ages to spot the "distance" numbers in various rules summary boxes because they're in a tiny grey box with white text. It's fine once you know where to look, but it seems like poor graphic design. Also, do the rules define "within" and "wholly within"? I can't see anything in there, but may have missed it.

 Hellebore wrote:
I'll be interested in primaris when they do a tactical squad. They can even do it with only 2 heavy and 2 special weapon options rather than the huge list they used to have. They can even make them unique heavies to that squad.

But the intercessor squad is the most boring marine unit in the game. And to make it competitive they need a op bolter.

They already have 2 grenade launchers per 10. But no thank you, msu special/heavy weapons with 4 ablative wounds can go burn in a fire.

I hate mono-equipped squads but it's more for aesthetic reasons, and my solution has been to just convert things anyway and ignore wysiwyg. Yes I know that intercessor is holding a heavy bolter and that one's holding a bolt carbine and the rest have auto bolt rifles, but they're just intercessors, don't worry about it. Plus they can have their proper guns when I play Grimdark Future.

Dudeface wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'll be interested in primaris when they do a tactical squad. They can even do it with only 2 heavy and 2 special weapon options rather than the huge list they used to have. They can even make them unique heavies to that squad.

But the intercessor squad is the most boring marine unit in the game. And to make it competitive they need a op bolter.

They already have 2 grenade launchers per 10. But no thank you, msu special/heavy weapons with 4 ablative wounds can go burn in a fire.

... you're conflating unit format with rules and blaming the models for that. If we had to throw out every unit that had bad rules interactions at some point in 40k there wouldn't be any units left.

 Hellebore wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'll be interested in primaris when they do a tactical squad. They can even do it with only 2 heavy and 2 special weapon options rather than the huge list they used to have. They can even make them unique heavies to that squad.

But the intercessor squad is the most boring marine unit in the game. And to make it competitive they need a op bolter.

They already have 2 grenade launchers per 10. But no thank you, msu special/heavy weapons with 4 ablative wounds can go burn in a fire.

... you're conflating unit format with rules and blaming the models for that. If we had to throw out every unit that had bad rules interactions at some point in 40k there wouldn't be any units left.

Your initial statement was that the unit is boring followed by stating it's not competitive. Your suggestion was to add in special heavy weapons. If the only thing making them interesting or competitive is the special/heavy weapon, then my assessment was correct.