Jump to content

New codex coming this year...

Leonaides

By Leonaides
in + BLOOD ANGELS +

 Share

Recommended Posts

BloodTzar Battle-Brother

BloodTzar

Posted
Posted (edited)

What do you think, will GW abuse the fluff and come back with the "brand-new-fluffy-Xmas-toy" primaris Sanquinius ? 

 

Primaris primarch created from the geene seed of emperor him self and former Sanguinius? 

Edited by BloodTzar
Frater Cornelius Venerable Brother

Frater Cornelius

Posted
Posted

What do you think, will GW abuse the fluff and come back with the "brand-new-fluffy-Xmas-toy" primaris Sanquinius ? 

 

Primaris primarch created from the geene seed of emperor him self and former Sanguinius? 

 

I'd buy it if the Sanguinor surged with psychic energy and became Sanguinius incarnated. Primaris Primarch would jump the Miral Land Shark, if you ask me.

Panzer Veteran

Panzer

Posted
Posted

What do you think, will GW abuse the fluff and come back with the "brand-new-fluffy-Xmas-toy" primaris Sanquinius ? 

 

Primaris primarch created from the geene seed of emperor him self and former Sanguinius? 

No. Old Codex cover indicates no new toys and Gav already said no Sanguinius for 40k in a reddit AMA iirc.

Panzer Veteran

Panzer

Posted
Posted

The codex image is a placeholder. All the previewed codexes have used the existing codex artwork and have then been released with a new design.

Uhm no? Only vanilla Marines and Death Guard got a new cover so far. And the limited editions of course.

LordCommanderSamirus Veteran

LordCommanderSamirus

Posted
Posted (edited)

^false. The Astra Militarum, Craftworlds, Adeptus Mechanicus, Grey Knights, CSM, Tyranids, all used cover artwork from the previous books cover. The only new ones have been Space Marines (Primaris Marine) and Death Guard.

 

Ninja'd by Panzer

Edited by LordCommanderSamirus
Panzer Veteran

Panzer

Posted
Posted

^false. The Astra Militarum, Craftworlds, Adeptus Mechanicus, Grey Knights, CSM, Tyranids, all used cover artwork from the previous books cover. The only new ones have been Space Marines (Primaris Marine) and Death Guard.

 

Ninja'd by Panzer

Ninja'd by 16 minutes. xD

BluejayJunior Veteran

BluejayJunior

Posted
Posted

 

Meh, really not interested in Assault Marines or Deathcompany being troops and I think it wouldn't be healthy for the internal balance either. If I wanted to field a Deathcompany army I'd just take a Vanguard Detachment. Same for Assault Marines and the Outrider Detachment.

 

Exactly this.

 

SO many people are like "We need X units as troops for this faction!!!"

 

No, you just take a different detatchment if you want to spam them. You then gain the power of spamming a good unit but give up more command points and Obj Sec.

 

This is true. But making Assault Marines troops would give them objective secured, making them more useful at holding objectives compared to regular marine chapters. I think that's where a lot of that wish is coming from (at least personally).

Alternatively, GW could leave them as fast attack and write the rule so that Troops and Assault Marines get objective secured. Which, as I've thought more about it, is probably the more likely scenario. 

Bartali Battle-Brother

Bartali

Posted
Posted

Echoing some trepidation here, 

 

my biggest concerns are that they'll give the BA combat based bonuses that are viewed in a vacuum.  What i mean by this harks back to my long response a few months back about the inherent issues of combat in 8th edition. 

 

+1" will be all but useless.  There is no real reward for being in combat.  BA need something ground-breaking, new and innovative to make them viable.   3rd ed had solid pros/cons and (i believe) was the best set of rules in relation to the system that BA have had.  

 

Following that, I think the PDF was also very good, but tied us to character bubbles- BUT, because of the system, this was incredibly powerful.  

 

We're going to need something that fundamentally alters how we engage with the system, otherwise we risk having fluffy, but dinky and perfunctory bonuses that dig us yet another bit deeper into obscurity.

 

Pretty much. BA needed improvements to the way assault and jump packs work from the core 8th ed rules. In the end assault got worse, whilst jump packs got better for shooting units only.

The new codex rules have not only got to overcome these problems, they've also got to drop points and/or increase the durability of BA units whilst also increasing attack power. The codex needs to be more revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

 

Sick and tired of being out assaulted by Space Wolves to be honest.

Fahlnor Battle-Brother

Fahlnor

Posted
Posted

 

The codex image is a placeholder. All the previewed codexes have used the existing codex artwork and have then been released with a new design.

 

Uhm no? Only vanilla Marines and Death Guard got a new cover so far. And the limited editions of course.

Oops.

Pendent Battle-Brother

Pendent

Posted
Posted

Grey Knights did get "new" units. No actual new models but the Grandmaster NDK and Stormtalon/Stormhawk Interceptor are both new for their book.

I feel like we can be reasonably certain we'll be getting at the very least Stormtalons and Cataphractii/Tartaros pattern armor. Vanilla marines can keep the rest of their toys but we definitely need those.

 

My suspicion since the annoucement is that they're going to use this new space marine release window to put out some new Primaris models that will work in all marine codices. That range obviously needs a bit more love before it's really fleshed out and it would give a bit more impact if they put the models out alongside a marine codex.

 

At the end of the day it's not new units that will fix us though- it's the rules.

Frater Cornelius Venerable Brother

Frater Cornelius

Posted
Posted

Hm, what if they release DA first. BA would be the last codex of this year and Chaos Daemons the first of next year. Would they take this opportunity to expand on the conflict between the BA and Ka'Bandha they so readily teased in the 8ed rulebook?

NTaW Veteran

NTaW

Posted
Posted (edited)

People keep saying that people keep saying they heard of from a (friend-of-a-) friend that 11/21 is BA and 12/09 is DA. I have no idea where these rumors first came from or any citations whatsoever.

 

It makes sense, given that Necromunda will likely be a two week release. BA, DA, Chapter Approved, two holiday weekends.

 

...though 11/21 is a Tuesday.

Edited by NTaW
Panzer Veteran

Panzer

Posted
Posted

Hm, what if they release DA first. BA would be the last codex of this year and Chaos Daemons the first of next year. Would they take this opportunity to expand on the conflict between the BA and Ka'Bandha they so readily teased in the 8ed rulebook?

I definitely expect one or two fluff blurbs about what happened at Baal.

swordofmandulis Battle-Brother

swordofmandulis

Posted
Posted
I know the last thing we need is more characters, but Sepharan would be cool, it would be super easy freebie like the Grandmaster Dreadknight was, just make him out of a Sanguinary Guard. I'm not going to speculate on rules anymore as it's driving me insane.
brother_b Veteran

brother_b

Posted
Posted

I'm at a loss for what kind of new units we could get. It seems we've got a lot of redundancy is DC/SG; IE they both are melee-centric units. What other units could we even get? Is there something in the fluff I'm not aware of that would give us a non-CC unit?

Indefragable Venerable Brother

Indefragable

Posted
Posted

I know the last thing we need is more characters, but Sepharan would be cool, it would be super easy freebie like the Grandmaster Dreadknight was, just make him out of a Sanguinary Guard. I'm not going to speculate on rules anymore as it's driving me insane.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept