Space marine second wave rumours coming next week.

[Sir Clausel]

8 hours ago, jimbo1701 said:

More valrak rumours today mentioning assault terminators, vanguard vets, outriders and a speeder variant. 

Sounds awesome. 

If the claws are cool on the terminators i will get them. If the vanguard are cool i might get them aswell. The speeder i dont really care about and the bikes... Well i might just change the weaponry on mine of they somewhat change.

 

Also hope they come soon!

Edited January 13 by Sir Clausel

[DemonGSides]

16 hours ago, Sir Clausel said:

Sounds awesome. 

If the claws are cool on the terminators i will get them. If the vanguard are cool i might get them aswell. The speeder i dont really care about and the bikes... Well i might just change the weaponry on mine of they somewhat change.

 

Also hope they come soon!

 

Yeah I'm hoping for some good Assault Terminators. I've got all the claws left over from the BA kit so I will probably be making a squad of those. I have a squad of TH/SS built out of those models and unless it's a no brainier, will probably hold back from disassembling then since they look so cool (and also contain at least one Space Hulk sculpt).

[Tacitus]

54 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah I'm hoping for some good Assault Terminators. I've got all the claws left over from the BA kit so I will probably be making a squad of those. I have a squad of TH/SS built out of those models and unless it's a no brainier, will probably hold back from disassembling then since they look so cool (and also contain at least one Space Hulk sculpt).

I'm curious to see what they'll look like, but the biggest problem with claws isn't their look, the current ones look fine and at most need to be upscaled.  The problem with claws is the rules/profile.  For a Net-Neutral option since all the upgrades are 0 Point supposedly-side grades the Lightning Claws fall behind the Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield - give the claws more attacks or more likely D2 it gets more even with S8 +1 Wound, especially on a unit that's going to care less about WS 3+/4+ on an OOM target.  Of course I'm hoping by the next edition they add a second profile to Fists, Hammers, etc for true Anti-tank  i.e. 4A at s9 -2 D2 2A at s12 -3 D4 or some such tested ratio for the new Toughness of Vehicles and Monsters - failing that a Anti-X for both on a 4+ might also work with a comensurate boost to 2LC - hopefully something that takes opportunity cost into the equation.  Shooting range is so much longer than Melee range, when melee only units get into melee they should get more activity when they are in melee.

[Karhedron]

I think for true anti-tank, Chainfists already exist. I think that GW want people to bring anti-tank guns and Tank Destroyers rather than relying on hordes of infantry with Fists/Hammers as happened in earlier editions. Massed power fists can finish off vehicles but aren't really a first solution.

[Sete]

I'm gonna be honest, I'm a sucker for bling sprues. Swords, Heads, weapons. Love it

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

I'm curious to see what they'll look like, but the biggest problem with claws isn't their look, the current ones look fine and at most need to be upscaled.  The problem with claws is the rules/profile.  For a Net-Neutral option since all the upgrades are 0 Point supposedly-side grades the Lightning Claws fall behind the Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield - give the claws more attacks or more likely D2 it gets more even with S8 +1 Wound, especially on a unit that's going to care less about WS 3+/4+ on an OOM target.  Of course I'm hoping by the next edition they add a second profile to Fists, Hammers, etc for true Anti-tank  i.e. 4A at s9 -2 D2 2A at s12 -3 D4 or some such tested ratio for the new Toughness of Vehicles and Monsters - failing that a Anti-X for both on a 4+ might also work with a comensurate boost to 2LC - hopefully something that takes opportunity cost into the equation.  Shooting range is so much longer than Melee range, when melee only units get into melee they should get more activity when they are in melee.

The last thing the game needs is more D2 weapons. 

 

Lightning Claws aren't actually bad into many targets (especially in detachments with offensive boosts), the problem is that they're niche. Armies already have easy access to just killing infantry, so the Claws themselves have less appeal. On top of that, the Shield gives immense durability to D1, D3, and Dd6 weapon varieties. 

[HeadlessCross]

39 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I think for true anti-tank, Chainfists already exist. I think that GW want people to bring anti-tank guns and Tank Destroyers rather than relying on hordes of infantry with Fists/Hammers as happened in earlier editions. Massed power fists can finish off vehicles but aren't really a first solution.

Chainfists are pretty bad though, so you might as well just grab Assault Terminators and fish for Devastating Wounds. 

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Tacitus said:

I'm curious to see what they'll look like, but the biggest problem with claws isn't their look, the current ones look fine and at most need to be upscaled.  The problem with claws is the rules/profile.  For a Net-Neutral option since all the upgrades are 0 Point supposedly-side grades the Lightning Claws fall behind the Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield - give the claws more attacks or more likely D2 it gets more even with S8 +1 Wound, especially on a unit that's going to care less about WS 3+/4+ on an OOM target.  Of course I'm hoping by the next edition they add a second profile to Fists, Hammers, etc for true Anti-tank  i.e. 4A at s9 -2 D2 2A at s12 -3 D4 or some such tested ratio for the new Toughness of Vehicles and Monsters - failing that a Anti-X for both on a 4+ might also work with a comensurate boost to 2LC - hopefully something that takes opportunity cost into the equation.  Shooting range is so much longer than Melee range, when melee only units get into melee they should get more activity when they are in melee.

 

You mistake me, sir.

 

I only care about how cool they're gonna look. The models last between editions, whereas the rules change for like, no reason whatsoever half the time.

 

I'm happy to have a 10 man of LC terminators in case I wanna play them, not because I think they're good. 

[Tacitus]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

I think for true anti-tank, Chainfists already exist. I think that GW want people to bring anti-tank guns and Tank Destroyers rather than relying on hordes of infantry with Fists/Hammers as happened in earlier editions. Massed power fists can finish off vehicles but aren't really a first solution.

Chainfists only go on the Shootinators not the Hammernators - and the Shootinators in theory also have the Cyclone Krak shots which will hopefully up in S along with the rest of the ranged-yet-man-portable anti-tank, probably not to S12 or whatever the "practical" cap is on Toughness - which may also get a boost over current.  This is just the first pass, and GW's habits are showing.

[Tacitus]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Chainfists are pretty bad though, so you might as well just grab Assault Terminators and fish for Devastating Wounds. 

Chainfists are the same profile as Thunderhammers except tradiing Anti-Vehicle 3+ for Dev Wounds.  Fusilade is Ranged Weapons only so getting an increased crit profile on Thunderhammers is still difficult to impossible.  Someone else would have to do the math, but Wounding 4/6 as often vs wounding 1/6 regular + 1/6 Dev sounds pretty even for a -2 D2 melee.

[Tacitus]

45 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

You mistake me, sir.

 

I only care about how cool they're gonna look. The models last between editions, whereas the rules change for like, no reason whatsoever half the time.

 

I'm happy to have a 10 man of LC terminators in case I wanna play them, not because I think they're good. 

No I understood you. I'm also curious how they're going to look.  I don't expect much change, though some Chapter Badge options on the fists would be nice for more than just Wolves.  I've got a bunch of them built up, even getting to the point of magnetizing the arms to swap Hammers for Claws and vice versa.  I just have a minor OCD block when it comes to the fluff meeting the data sheet.  5 Terminators vs 100 deserter guardsmen rebelling in a museum or whatever it was on Ultramar was overkill.  Terminators are generally not SUPPOSED to be GEQ chaff mowers.  You've also got them opening up bulkheads with the claws.   Its like the princess and the pea.  Its not a major deal, but its always going to be poking me in the back of the neck.   It just doesn't fit the fluff.

[TheArtilleryman]

I will be excited to see new vanguard veterans and would love to see them with more melee options again, but seeing as the codex is now set, I doubt this will happen. A bit like Demon, how stuff looks drives my choices more. I kitbashed my primaris van vets with lightning claws and have left them that way despite the rules changing. They just look cool.

[DemonGSides]

48 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I will be excited to see new vanguard veterans and would love to see them with more melee options again, but seeing as the codex is now set, I doubt this will happen. A bit like Demon, how stuff looks drives my choices more. I kitbashed my primaris van vets with lightning claws and have left them that way despite the rules changing. They just look cool.

 

Yep this is how I collect space marines at least.  There's no reason to be precious about rules with the poster boy faction; their moon waxes and wanes constantly throughout EVERY edition, and making the guys look how you want is a way more attainable goal than "Be great with the most popular army available" ever will be.

 

Regarding Van Vets; the problem I run into with the idea of having their individualized weapons matter is... I just don't want to roll that way.  I like being able to do the gameplay stuff quicker, and if we go back to having Power Axe do different than Power Sword do different than Power Maul, it bogs the game down enough and makes the considerations worse, and as always, ends up with usually one or two obvious answers and the rest being bad.

The best thing that's happened with the consolidation of weaponry into smaller profiles (The actual profiles not-withstanding, and not all consolidations (Combi weapons should just be done differently than how they ended up.) to help speed up and ease of use (And not forget, very easy to forget when multiple weapon profiles are being rolled at the same time) in the way these squads play.

I just wish they were a lil stronger!  Or maybe consolidate the options into two ways; a light and a heavy, or something distinguishable like how Plague Marines have where the choice is meaningful; do you want more attacks or stronger attacks.  I don't think I want multi-model squads to start adopting too many multi-profile melee attacks as that just starts to fall back into "how many of each do I shoot at what" which slows the game down, but I think the choice at the list level of "Do I want this squad to have one, the other, or a healthy mix?" is fun: i also dont' want them to be an all or nothing squad and can choose to mix and match between heavy and light as well.

And also don't lose the storm shield.  Please GW I beg of you.  And give me back Sanguinary priest with Jump Pack if we're just making wishlists :P (Not that I wouldn't run it if I wanted to with the Legends datasheet, but c'mon, make him mainline.  Silliest deletion in the BA codex.).

Edited January 14 by DemonGSides

[Dr. Clock]

Definitely feels like the part they get wrong on older dual-build units is that the loadouts shouldn't be polar opposites, but just on either sides of the 'general melee hammer unit' role so that we don't feel foolish whenever we take one or the other option.

 

If they can make the difference between lightning claws and TH/SS closer to the difference between Inceptor loadouts, I might be impressed. I like the daring and potential of

 

I think TH/SS terminators are basically fine as-is, so the main thing for claw variant is to make it an actual conversation over which you pick. To me this means actually giving them a proper Dmg 2 profile like bolt inceptors have. I'd love to live in a world where you take a few TH/SS for the 4W, but you still include a couple claws because they are baseline actually killing everything faster. Claws have been a fail for a few editions, so hopefully Marines Codex 10.2 gets them a glow-up.

 

I'll probably go for an updated Outrider kit at this point if they add just one or two weapon options. I am willing to take a third unit AND sink another 10-15 points per 3-man to put a power weapon or fist in each... But if it's just 'new kit with old rules', I'm okay to pass.

 

More speeders though will certainly be more money leaving my wallet as long as they're not ATV bad, seeing as my Primaris are Storm Lords.

 

Fingers crossed these lies become true!

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Helias_Tancred]

For my Black Templar collection definitely a squad of assault terminators with hammer and shield. Maybe an updated outrider kit along with a chaplain on bike to go with them?

 

 

Edited January 15 by Helias_Tancred

[Karhedron]

11 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

And also don't lose the storm shield.  Please GW I beg of you.

 

Agreed. Right now VanVets are pretty marginal over JAIs and the Storm Shields are one of their few solid advantages. 

[Karhedron]

12 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I will be excited to see new vanguard veterans and would love to see them with more melee options again, but seeing as the codex is now set, I doubt this will happen.

 

I am not quite giving up hope yet. The fact that there is a new Speeder variant apparently coming means at least one new datasheet. If they can do that they can give VanVets and Outriders a few tasty options as well. Most units that have moved from monopose to MPK have gained a least a few options in the process so I would be surprised if VanVets and Outriders are both left as mono-loadout.

[Sir Clausel]

If vanguard vets get either pistols(with a few special ones) or shield in one hand and then either power weapon or powerfist in the other i would be very happy :)

Outriders i dont see any new wargear except sergeant weapons 

[Tacitus]

16 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

Definitely feels like the part they get wrong on older dual-build units is that the loadouts shouldn't be polar opposites,

It depends on the unit - Devs technically have more than an either/or option but they have a wider range in the fluff - so 4HBs to 4 Lascannon make sense - extremes and a middle

Terminators are more elite and don't usually get spent on chaff so not having a weapon aimed at the GEQ statline makes sense.

Blade Guard Vets are more of an anvil than a hammer - so no/negligible options makes sense - they've got pistols to thin, and anti-elite-ish swords to defend.

 

Stern Guard and especially Vanguard are in a bad spot.  They're hammers, and didn't really get a hammer option.  The combi-weapon works against TEQ and GravisEQ sure but not for their traditional Anti-Vehicle/Anti-Monster role   Vanguard have it even worse with a -1 D1 sword while the theoretically "Anvil role" BGV have an MC -2 D2 sword.   Both units would have been better served with a Strike/Sweep/And-Pick-One style weapon profile on their iconic weapons (melee or combi weapon battle rifle) 

 

I'd like to see Strike/Sweep style profiles show up even more on things like Fist, Thunder hammers, Melta, etc.    Turn up the power for slower and harder, normal power for TEQ etc. 

[Dr. Clock]

22 hours ago, Tacitus said:

It depends on the unit - Devs technically have more than an either/or option but they have a wider range in the fluff - so 4HBs to 4 Lascannon make sense - extremes and a middle

Sure, yea... though Devastators have kinda 'become' just a long series of discrete mono-kit units: Hellblasters, Desolators, Eradicators and (maybe) Heavy Intercessors and Suppressors. My wording was awkward enough above that I should clarify: I think this is something they got wrong mostly in the transition to this 'all wargear is free for a unit' paradigm, though from memory the supremacy of TH/SS has been an issue for much longer.

 

It's only where everything costs the same that you should be striving for every choice to be near parity in effect, and it's certainly in melee where these hangover discrepancies seem most common. I do think that they've done a decent job making the 'classic special and heavy weapons' closer to parity than the melee armory. So for something like Devs the choice doesn't hugely matter as long as you actually specialize your loadouts. A buddy takes 2 Havoc units in plenty of games - 4 las and 4 HB - and I respect both... I take 2x5 MM devs in razors still, and they do work!. But who seriously thinks that a marine sgt power weapon and power fist are comparable? Power weapon needs +1 on at least one of its stats to my way of thinking.

 

I do think this new paradigm overall is strongly connected to box locking and the decision to generally reduce wargear diversity within units. I like this new paradigm overall, to be clear, but there are pretty glaring legacy problems where options that ARE available are clearly not near parity in terms of utility (assault terminators, sgt melee weapons) and/or where there's little or no good reason to take diverse wargear even though you're technically allowed (Devastators, Vanguard).

 

It's also fair to point out that the TH/SS vs lightning claw 'binary choice unit' was not that common back in the day - you're right that most of those choices where more than binary options, like in sternguard and vanguard... Personally I don't want to return to the days of weird unit builds that aren't even represented in the kits, like when all sternguard had storm bolters and storm shields or something despite the kit containing just a couple storm bolters and no storm shields...

 

23 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Stern Guard and especially Vanguard are in a bad spot.  They're hammers, and didn't really get a hammer option.  The combi-weapon works against TEQ and GravisEQ sure but not for their traditional Anti-Vehicle/Anti-Monster role   Vanguard have it even worse with a -1 D1 sword while the theoretically "Anvil role" BGV have an MC -2 D2 sword.   Both units would have been better served with a Strike/Sweep/And-Pick-One style weapon profile on their iconic weapons (melee or combi weapon battle rifle) 

 

I'd like to see Strike/Sweep style profiles show up even more on things like Fist, Thunder hammers, Melta, etc.    Turn up the power for slower and harder, normal power for TEQ etc. 

No disagreement here! I'd love a return to form of Stern/Van actually being effective hammers instead of 'mostly sidegrades' from their less-veteran Intercessor brethren.

 

Strike/Sweep 'wargear agnostic' profiles are certainly a potential fix for many of these issues, but I think at some point we need to be asking ourselves why not just make all specialist wargear like that? Thinking about it, I'd probably be fine with special and heavy weapons ALL getting the 'frag/krak' treatment, and just make the differences relevant between the data-sheets themselves (e.g. Kasrkin special weapon profile is 'just better' than Cadian squad). This would completely circumvent the 'problem of choice' for the modeler... The idea of replacing all special and heavy weapons with essentially their grenade or missile equivalents is kinda neat, though not particularly likely to happen I should think, and it'd become hard to know where to draw the lines on which units should or should not have that level of flexibility built in when it also potentially makes unit choices less meaningful if basically Hellblasters, Infernus squads and heavy Intercessors all do pretty much the exact same thing.

 

I think I'd focus on adding more strike/sweep to the melee units right now, and so I'd have absolutely no problem with Assault Terminators having 'Assault Terminator melee weapons' on the sheet, not 'Thunder hammers' or 'lightning claws'. I don't think that's what's going to happen though... I will be a bit surprised if their rules do change much if they're released before 11th, though the recent changes to combat knives and the AdMech armory glow-up show there is an appetite for improving notably bad profiles between codex releases/editions.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Tacitus]

55 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

Sure, yea... though Devastators have kinda 'become' just a long series of discrete mono-kit units: Hellblasters, Desolators, Eradicators and (maybe) Heavy Intercessors and Suppressors. My wording was awkward enough above that I should clarify: I think this is something they got wrong mostly in the transition to this 'all wargear is free for a unit' paradigm, though from memory the supremacy of TH/SS has been an issue for much longer.

 

It's only where everything costs the same that you should be striving for every choice to be near parity in effect, and it's certainly in melee where these hangover discrepancies seem most common. I do think that they've done a decent job making the 'classic special and heavy weapons' closer to parity than the melee armory. So for something like Devs the choice doesn't hugely matter as long as you actually specialize your loadouts. A buddy takes 2 Havoc units in plenty of games - 4 las and 4 HB - and I respect both... I take 2x5 MM devs in razors still, and they do work!. But who seriously thinks that a marine sgt power weapon and power fist are comparable? Power weapon needs +1 on at least one of its stats to my way of thinking.

The Power Weapon isn't in bad shape compared to the fist compared to the chainsword - its basically a 4/3/2 ratio.  4 "Chaff", 3 "Elite", 2 "Tank/Super Elite" - its rolling somewhat out of balance because of the T changes

 

Quote

I do think this new paradigm overall is strongly connected to box locking and the decision to generally reduce wargear diversity within units. I like this new paradigm overall, to be clear, but there are pretty glaring legacy problems where options that ARE available are clearly not near parity in terms of utility (assault terminators, sgt melee weapons) and/or where there's little or no good reason to take diverse wargear even though you're technically allowed (Devastators, Vanguard).

 

It's also fair to point out that the TH/SS vs lightning claw 'binary choice unit' was not that common back in the day - you're right that most of those choices where more than binary options, like in sternguard and vanguard... Personally I don't want to return to the days of weird unit builds that aren't even represented in the kits, like when all sternguard had storm bolters and storm shields or something despite the kit containing just a couple storm bolters and no storm shields...

 

No disagreement here! I'd love a return to form of Stern/Van actually being effective hammers instead of 'mostly sidegrades' from their less-veteran Intercessor brethren.

"Glaring Legacy Problems" is one of the biggest issues they've got to deal with in 11th.  Units and entire Armies that were built on the 1-10 stat bands can be struggling with the new 1-20 but mostly 1-12 stat band.  Sisters don't have near enough access to S12.  S4 vs S5 S6 is not the plateau trigger that it once was.  i.e. I think Vanguard Vets got S5 because it was 5's or better on everything but T10 - only we're not capped at T10 anymore.  S6 is the new S5 due to all the T12. But that's what I call a Tertiary Level Change - and GW really sucks at those.  They don't seem to think 2-3+ steps out on their changes.  You can see it when so many of their fixes break something else.  And that's before you get to my primary issue with the THSS/2LC problem.  2LC Assault Terminators are not "optimized" for their fluffy "preferred enemy".

 

Mono-choice Devs are a thing for two reasons - the Missile Launcher Dual Purpose AP3 era, and the Entire Company in 2K Points we've been hanging out in - First we got used to 4ML Devs, then the PPM started approaching and sometimes was 2K for an entire company - so fluffy you'd have 2 Dev Squads - one all tank, one all infantry.

 

Quote

Strike/Sweep 'wargear agnostic' profiles are certainly a potential fix for many of these issues, but I think at some point we need to be asking ourselves why not just make all specialist wargear like that? Thinking about it, I'd probably be fine with special and heavy weapons ALL getting the 'frag/krak' treatment, and just make the differences relevant between the data-sheets themselves (e.g. Kasrkin special weapon profile is 'just better' than Cadian squad). This would completely circumvent the 'problem of choice' for the modeler... The idea of replacing all special and heavy weapons with essentially their grenade or missile equivalents is kinda neat, though not particularly likely to happen I should think, and it'd become hard to know where to draw the lines on which units should or should not have that level of flexibility built in when it also potentially makes unit choices less meaningful if basically Hellblasters, Infernus squads and heavy Intercessors all do pretty much the exact same thing.

 

I think I'd focus on adding more strike/sweep to the melee units right now, and so I'd have absolutely no problem with Assault Terminators having 'Assault Terminator melee weapons' on the sheet, not 'Thunder hammers' or 'lightning claws'. I don't think that's what's going to happen though... I will be a bit surprised if their rules do change much if they're released before 11th, though the recent changes to combat knives and the AdMech armory glow-up show there is an appetite for improving notably bad profiles between codex releases/editions.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

I think Strike/Sweep style are the "best" fix available with the way they're currently designing - but I don't think everything should get it - or at least not strictly frag/krak versions.  A Heavy Bolter shouldn't get a Krak round - but the Anti-Monster Hellfire round isn't horrible.  And yes, it should be implemented as soon as possible for the melee units.  But GW has historically treated 40K melee as an afterthought and that's the last thing that gets cleaned up. 

[TheArtilleryman]

5 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

Sure, yea... though Devastators have kinda 'become' just a long series of discrete mono-kit units: Hellblasters, Desolators, Eradicators and (maybe) Heavy Intercessors and Suppressors. My wording was awkward enough above that I should clarify: I think this is something they got wrong mostly in the transition to this 'all wargear is free for a unit' paradigm, though from memory the supremacy of TH/SS has been an issue for much longer.

 

It's only where everything costs the same that you should be striving for every choice to be near parity in effect, and it's certainly in melee where these hangover discrepancies seem most common. I do think that they've done a decent job making the 'classic special and heavy weapons' closer to parity than the melee armory. So for something like Devs the choice doesn't hugely matter as long as you actually specialize your loadouts. A buddy takes 2 Havoc units in plenty of games - 4 las and 4 HB - and I respect both... I take 2x5 MM devs in razors still, and they do work!. But who seriously thinks that a marine sgt power weapon and power fist are comparable? Power weapon needs +1 on at least one of its stats to my way of thinking.

 

I do think this new paradigm overall is strongly connected to box locking and the decision to generally reduce wargear diversity within units. I like this new paradigm overall, to be clear, but there are pretty glaring legacy problems where options that ARE available are clearly not near parity in terms of utility (assault terminators, sgt melee weapons) and/or where there's little or no good reason to take diverse wargear even though you're technically allowed (Devastators, Vanguard).

 

It's also fair to point out that the TH/SS vs lightning claw 'binary choice unit' was not that common back in the day - you're right that most of those choices where more than binary options, like in sternguard and vanguard... Personally I don't want to return to the days of weird unit builds that aren't even represented in the kits, like when all sternguard had storm bolters and storm shields or something despite the kit containing just a couple storm bolters and no storm shields...

 

No disagreement here! I'd love a return to form of Stern/Van actually being effective hammers instead of 'mostly sidegrades' from their less-veteran Intercessor brethren.

 

Strike/Sweep 'wargear agnostic' profiles are certainly a potential fix for many of these issues, but I think at some point we need to be asking ourselves why not just make all specialist wargear like that? Thinking about it, I'd probably be fine with special and heavy weapons ALL getting the 'frag/krak' treatment, and just make the differences relevant between the data-sheets themselves (e.g. Kasrkin special weapon profile is 'just better' than Cadian squad). This would completely circumvent the 'problem of choice' for the modeler... The idea of replacing all special and heavy weapons with essentially their grenade or missile equivalents is kinda neat, though not particularly likely to happen I should think, and it'd become hard to know where to draw the lines on which units should or should not have that level of flexibility built in when it also potentially makes unit choices less meaningful if basically Hellblasters, Infernus squads and heavy Intercessors all do pretty much the exact same thing.

 

I think I'd focus on adding more strike/sweep to the melee units right now, and so I'd have absolutely no problem with Assault Terminators having 'Assault Terminator melee weapons' on the sheet, not 'Thunder hammers' or 'lightning claws'. I don't think that's what's going to happen though... I will be a bit surprised if their rules do change much if they're released before 11th, though the recent changes to combat knives and the AdMech armory glow-up show there is an appetite for improving notably bad profiles between codex releases/editions.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

Strike/sweep sounds good and would make termies extremely versatile if it’s literally both TH and LC profiles in one weapon. Not ok with “terminator CC weapon” if they do what they did with VV this edition though.

[Tacitus]

4 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Strike/sweep sounds good and would make termies extremely versatile if it’s literally both TH and LC profiles in one weapon. Not ok with “terminator CC weapon” if they do what they did with VV this edition though.

I don't think they should do Strike/sweep to give them both LC and TH profiles - I think each choice could/should have Strike/Sweep Profiles.   I'd prefer 2LC just get an extra Damage, maybe an extra attack.  The Thunder Hammers should get a High Power Mode that gives them something like  2A, S12, D3 or similar for vs Vehicles and Monsters.  

 

Part of it is close combat vs Anti-Tank is lagging even further behind than man portable shooting, but also the melee weapons are falling out of pace when you look at the fluff.  As mentioned there's the point where Calgar has to send Terminators against rogue Planetary Guard or some sort of GEQ rebels - and he says its overkill - meaning Lightning Claws should be ineffecient vs GEQ - but even beyond that look at the S/T comparisons of Hammernators vs "Original" Nid Monsters like Hive Tyrants, Carnifex, and Screamer-Killers then think about the Polar Fortress defense of Macragge.  Its just out of whack.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 1/14/2025 at 6:07 PM, DemonGSides said:

 

Yep this is how I collect space marines at least.  There's no reason to be precious about rules with the poster boy faction; their moon waxes and wanes constantly throughout EVERY edition, and making the guys look how you want is a way more attainable goal than "Be great with the most popular army available" ever will be.

 

Regarding Van Vets; the problem I run into with the idea of having their individualized weapons matter is... I just don't want to roll that way.  I like being able to do the gameplay stuff quicker, and if we go back to having Power Axe do different than Power Sword do different than Power Maul, it bogs the game down enough and makes the considerations worse, and as always, ends up with usually one or two obvious answers and the rest being bad.

The best thing that's happened with the consolidation of weaponry into smaller profiles (The actual profiles not-withstanding, and not all consolidations (Combi weapons should just be done differently than how they ended up.) to help speed up and ease of use (And not forget, very easy to forget when multiple weapon profiles are being rolled at the same time) in the way these squads play.

I just wish they were a lil stronger!  Or maybe consolidate the options into two ways; a light and a heavy, or something distinguishable like how Plague Marines have where the choice is meaningful; do you want more attacks or stronger attacks.  I don't think I want multi-model squads to start adopting too many multi-profile melee attacks as that just starts to fall back into "how many of each do I shoot at what" which slows the game down, but I think the choice at the list level of "Do I want this squad to have one, the other, or a healthy mix?" is fun: i also dont' want them to be an all or nothing squad and can choose to mix and match between heavy and light as well.

And also don't lose the storm shield.  Please GW I beg of you.  And give me back Sanguinary priest with Jump Pack if we're just making wishlists :P (Not that I wouldn't run it if I wanted to with the Legends datasheet, but c'mon, make him mainline.  Silliest deletion in the BA codex.).

For new VGVs, I would expect 4 power swords and 1 eviscerator per 5, and a sgt with a special pistol, maybe a second special pistol on another dude as well.

[HeadlessCross]

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

For new VGVs, I would expect 4 power swords and 1 eviscerator per 5, and a sgt with a special pistol, maybe a second special pistol on another dude as well.

It's gonna be like the Sword Brethren kit where you have a bunch of unnecessary differences in the options.