Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is an odd distinction, as is the armour Keywords to be honest.

 

Reminds me back in 8th/9th when we get multiple keywords for tanks and units and different datasheets for each wargear item of characters, Land Speeders and tanks, with the justification that rules can reference specific datasheets in future.... only for this to never be utilised.

43 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

It is an odd distinction, as is the armour Keywords to be honest.

 

Reminds me back in 8th/9th when we get multiple keywords for tanks and units and different datasheets for each wargear item of characters, Land Speeders and tanks, with the justification that rules can reference specific datasheets in future.... only for this to never be utilised.

GW does have a history of not really utilizing their keyword system as well as they could/should.  Every unit should have some universal keywords - biological, mechanical, etc in addition to their Infantry/Monster/Character/etc ones.  Hayway hits Mechanical, Poison his Biological or biological but not monster etc.  keywords and USR's should be created hand in hand from the ground up. 

On 6/4/2023 at 11:31 AM, Captain Idaho said:

Legends being referenced by non-Legends specifically is an odd distinction. One is getting updates, the other not.

 

Might just be GW messing up as they can be prone too. Already seen some issues like to hit scores on auto-hit weapons and DG's invulnerable to damage one attacks.

The more concerning thing is what lacking proofreading/consideration in the index portends, for some factions they'll be running off their index for 2 years, that index is hardly temporary for them so it needs to be quality.

 

That and for Legends, you are stuck with the index so if it was poorly done you are outta luck.

1 hour ago, spessmarine said:

 

Might just be GW messing up as they can be prone too. Already seen some issues like to hit scores on auto-hit weapons and DG's invulnerable to damage one attacks.

The more concerning thing is what lacking proofreading/consideration in the index portends, for some factions they'll be running off their index for 2 years, that index is hardly temporary for them so it needs to be quality.

 

That and for Legends, you are stuck with the index so if it was poorly done you are outta luck.

We're going to be seeing an FAQ rushed out pretty quick.  I bet they already have a sizable chunk of it written based on what we post in these forums.  It didn't take long for the Heavy Intercessor FAQ to land remember, because we all made fun of them for the versioning error on the bolter names. 

Well I'm not impressed Sternguard can't go in a Rhino. That's lame, kills the unit outside of Drop Pods really. 6 men isn't enough to take advantage of Devastating Wounds really.

3 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Well I'm not impressed Sternguard can't go in a Rhino. That's lame, kills the unit outside of Drop Pods really. 6 men isn't enough to take advantage of Devastating Wounds really.

They're now Primaris - even the old models I guess are just short Primaris.  So they can go in a Landraider/Repulsor/Stormraven.   Stormraven carrying 10 Sternguard, and a Brutalis feels pretty beefy.

5 hours ago, Tacitus said:

They're now Primaris - even the old models I guess are just short Primaris.  So they can go in a Landraider/Repulsor/Stormraven.   Stormraven carrying 10 Sternguard, and a Brutalis feels pretty beefy.

 

10 in a Raven with a Brutalis hitching a ride as well seems like a great option.

12 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

10 in a Raven with a Brutalis hitching a ride as well seems like a great option.

Nah I think he's right, 10 probably goes in a Pod, the Raven can carry "better".  Hellblasters, 4x Grav Devs, BGV, Gravis... 

 

I'm thinking 6 BGV, Primaris Apothecary, Primaris Ancient, Primaris Champion, and a Captain/Chaplain along with a Brutalis is one heck of a Payload to Raven on top of someone. 

Seems like expensive options for a Sternguard squad. After all, you want the Land Raider for the Bladeguard or Terminators.

 

Drop Pods, 8-9 probably with a character... seems like a more efficient and common approach. 

Edited by Captain Idaho
3 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Seems like expensive options for a Sternguard squad. After all, you want the Land Raider for the Bladeguard or Terminators.

 

Drop Pods, 8-9 probably with a character... seems like a more efficient and common approach. 

If they're not worth a Land Raider I'm not sure they're worth a character either.  Of course I'm more Meh on them than others. 

10 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Drop Pods, 8-9 probably with a character... seems like a more efficient and common approach. 

 

You are probably right. Definitely some room for experimentation though. I am trying to work out what character works best with them. Not an Lt as Lethal hits would actually reduce their Devastating Wounds. An Ancient maybe? 

 

Or a Libby with Mental Fortress. A 4++ on them would be pretty decent. 

Edited by Karhedron
10 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

You are probably right. Definitely some room for experimentation though. I am trying to work out what character works best with them. Not an Lt as Lethal hits would actually reduce their Devastating Wounds. An Ancient maybe? 

I think they may actually be better without a character, since most characters don't do much for them. If you are going to give them one, a Captain for the free strat, Librarian for the 4++, or Ancient for the extra OC seem like the ones that benefit Sternguard most. If you're playing Crimson Fists, Pedro, appropriately, seems like the best option.

Like I said before I generally am liking it, but I just cannot shake the fact that tactic wise, ever since the return of Guilliman, the Space Marines regressed tactically. Tactical squads were one of the advancements made to the space marines. With smaller numbers, they had to be more tactically flexible. It makes far more tactical sense to take a single flamer for clearing bunkers than an entire squad of flamers. I mean there is only so much fire that can be applied at once before you aren't doing anything anymore.

 

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the pyroblaster squad, and will get a squad of them for sure, but they don't make sense as a full squad (tactically).

 

Honestly, I think I'm just going to start mixing my primaris together to form tactical squads. I'll use a hellblaster for the plasma, a pyroblaster for the flamer, etc.

One of the things I like is that in 9th edition, it was clear pretty early on what the winners and losers were in the codex. While there are still some obvious combos and some units that got beaten round the head with a nerf bat (RIP VanVets) there are a lot of combinations that look fun and interesting to play. I think Marine armies are going to look more varied and interesting in 10th.

 

Although points may make or break that assumption.

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

One of the things I like is that in 9th edition, it was clear pretty early on what the winners and losers were in the codex. While there are still some obvious combos and some units that got beaten round the head with a nerf bat (RIP VanVets) there are a lot of combinations that look fun and interesting to play. I think Marine armies are going to look more varied and interesting in 10th.

 

Although points may make or break that assumption.

Points are going to have more to do with it than the datasheet, but I agree there's a lot more potential for variety here. 

Not so fond of how many things are doing mortal wounds just cause in some phase.

That, the trying for special rules on everything, statline shifts and so forth really feels another step closer to AoS. Some of that is nice, some of that not so nice.

I’m a big fan of everything getting special rules, I think many of the special rule choices feel weird or off and in some cases just feel straight up bad though. Too many of those things could have been USRs too.

Overall im happy with 10th.

As have been said before some rules should have been USR and maybe not every single unit should have a special rule. But i see why they did.

There are some cases with mortal wounds where things might be getting out of hand which i think and believe will be nerfed.

 

But holy crap am i disappointed with the quality of proofreading and such in the indexes. They are filled with soooo many mistakes its insane. The datacards we can buy will so not be worth the money as many of them needs fixing. 

7 hours ago, spessmarine said:

Not so fond of how many things are doing mortal wounds just cause in some phase.

That, the trying for special rules on everything, statline shifts and so forth really feels another step closer to AoS. Some of that is nice, some of that not so nice.

I agree about MWs it seems to counter their claim that this edition will be less lethal.

doesn’t matter much that my 10 man RAS w/ chappy don’t have any S10 weapons if I can charge a leman Russ and take half its wounds away on the charge and first round of fighting.

 

doesn’t matter if AP is less prevalent on weapon stat lines if there are a million strats and special rules to increase AP.

Devastating Wounds seems to be quite abusable.

 

And with the massive discrepancies and mistakes on the datasheets (bare in mind the Codex copies are already printed) then it looks like the edition will need FAQ and Errata from day one and basically be groaning under the strain of more book keeping already.

 

We can add to that with multiple special rules per unit, multiple weapons with special rules... the game is immense.

 

I'm only being a little facetious when I say I think GW needs to do a hard reset already. :facepalm:

Edited by Captain Idaho

Im still trying to figure out what to do with my First born force. Prior to this I was running an ironclad in a dreadnought pod, 2 dev squads, 2 sternguard, 2 tactical squads, 2 razorbacks and a stormraven +plus some other odds and ends that dont matter here. I typically would have one tac squad in a razor, one stern in a razor and a multi-melta dev squad and a melta sternguard in the raven. I am wondering what to do here now since Tacticals cannot ride in their iconic transport and fielding 10 of them is a PITA. I dont want to have to print up and paint a new rhino for them. Then the sternguard issue since they arent near as useful as they used to be and I will drop my melta-sterns as they are a pointless unit now. Maybe I will build a contemptor  and have the Raven cruise around with it with the dev squads(typically multi-melta and heavy grav). Maybe put an apothecary in the spare razorback. I have Howling Griffins so I really dont like having to paint new models for them. 

Sooooo Bullgryns have a -1 damage to a minimum of one! So GW have not forgotten that. What that means though is the other units that have it are immune to D1 weapons since they dont have the "(to a minimum of 1)" thing added.

"Consistent but not consistent" is the mantra of these indexes :P :P :P

32 minutes ago, Sir Clausel said:

Sooooo Bullgryns have a -1 damage to a minimum of one! So GW have not forgotten that. What that means though is the other units that have it are immune to D1 weapons since they dont have the "(to a minimum of 1)" thing added.

"Consistent but not consistent" is the mantra of these indexes :P :P :P

You mean "consistently inconsistent"?

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
  • 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.