Valrak 2026 release rumours video

[Nephaston]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

The Fortis Kill Team proves it can be done if they want. 

 

Hellblasters + Desolators + Infernus => Support Intercessors

Infiltrators + Incursors + Reivers => Light Intercessors

 

This in turn will create enough space for a heavy assault intercessors squad of five gravis goobers with eviscerators, surely.

[Blindhamster]

2 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

Infiltrators + Incursors + Reivers => Light Intercessors

or just call it the phobos strike team, like the current kill team. They aren't intercessors, nor is their role to intercede. 

But yeah, I still hope that the actual codex update for intercessors does effectively make them tactical intercessors with at least some of the tactical squad style weapon options, just retaining bolt rifles, and access to grenade launchers. I know the launch box is "all bolters", but doesn't necessarily mean the actual codex has to be. 

[Nephaston]

6 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

or just call it the phobos strike team, like the current kill team. They aren't intercessors, nor is their role to intercede. 

Yeah, that would work, I just like the idea of contrasting "medium" and heavy intercessors by having a designated "light intercessor". And Intercession/interceding is kind of a broad term anyway so the phobos units would just pre-intercede behind enemy lines, stealthily. 

[ThePenitentOne]

13 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

or just call it the phobos strike team, like the current kill team. They aren't intercessors, nor is their role to intercede. 

But yeah, I still hope that the actual codex update for intercessors does effectively make them tactical intercessors with at least some of the tactical squad style weapon options, just retaining bolt rifles, and access to grenade launchers. I know the launch box is "all bolters", but doesn't necessarily mean the actual codex has to be. 

 

As I've said before, I do think that's a way forward that allows GW to fill the Firstborn Tactical void using formerly "Primaris" models... My only issue is that then the Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Deathwatch Teams basically become available to all Marine players, eroding the distinctiveness of Deathwatch Kill Teams.

 

If they have to do it to save the game, I suppose I get it... I just really like DW Kill Teams.

[Karhedron]

Here's the thing, I don't think that there is a Tactical squad shaped void. Back in 3rd-5th editions, a single lascannon could kill a tank so the firepower that a single Tactical squad could bring was significant. Now we are in a totally different paradigm and we can take (almost) unlimited squads of Helblasters or Ballistus Dreadnoughts. What this means is that there is little value in having a single special/heavy weapon embedded in a squad that is otherwise armed with anti-infantry weapons. Killteams work more by their special rules than because it is valuable to have ablative intercessors absorbing wounds.

 

If you increase the price of Intercessor squads by 10-20 points and allow one dude to take a Lascannon, it is a nice callback but I am not convinced it really increases the value of the squad, particularly when most marine players take 1 squad at most. 

[phandaal]

11 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Here's the thing, I don't think that there is a Tactical squad shaped void.

 

The void isn’t in the rules. It’s in our hearts.

[Bouargh]

6 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

The void isn’t in the rules. It’s in our hearts.

Shape of my heart song comes to my mind….

 

I tend to agree with @Karhedron: the sheer number of SM datasheet makes tactical squad configuration rather useless. A pity. So what? Well I play all my former first born SM as CSM. Legionnaires, Havocs… cover quite well the outlook of my models. This is the way… (My way song comes to my mind. I need a karaoke bar)

[HeadlessCross]

15 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Here's the thing, I don't think that there is a Tactical squad shaped void. Back in 3rd-5th editions, a single lascannon could kill a tank so the firepower that a single Tactical squad could bring was significant. Now we are in a totally different paradigm and we can take (almost) unlimited squads of Helblasters or Ballistus Dreadnoughts. What this means is that there is little value in having a single special/heavy weapon embedded in a squad that is otherwise armed with anti-infantry weapons. Killteams work more by their special rules than because it is valuable to have ablative intercessors absorbing wounds.

 

If you increase the price of Intercessor squads by 10-20 points and allow one dude to take a Lascannon, it is a nice callback but I am not convinced it really increases the value of the squad, particularly when most marine players take 1 squad at most. 

It absolutely increases the value of the squad, especially if you can take 2-3 in a max squad or something like that. It's a neat trade off of ablative bodies vs more concentration with Devastator equivalents. 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ultimately I think that for the modern 40K with the amount of units it has, the focused unit design where the unit has one or at most two different weapon profiles is better. Resolving all the different individual weapons just slows things down and achieves very little. So basically the eldar and marines have this right. It is just ironic that at the same time the over interpretation of "no model no rules" has lead to many units of various armies being littered with a bunch of different weapons because the box comes with just one of each and no points means you'll take them as they're free. It is just silly how for example the kabalites or the skitarii have this crazy collection of different weapons in every bloody troop unit. That is not good design.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

37 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

The void isn’t in the rules. It’s in our hearts.

 

That is my LEAST vulnerable spot!

[jaxom]

I disagree for heavy weapons. 3-4 MSU Intercessor Squads with a lascannon or rocket launcher each would be quite nice… prior to Intercessors getting their new special rule.

[Mmmmm Napalm]

26 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

Ultimately I think that for the modern 40K with the amount of units it has, the focused unit design where the unit has one or at most two different weapon profiles is better. Resolving all the different individual weapons just slows things down and achieves very little. So basically the eldar and marines have this right. It is just ironic that at the same time the over interpretation of "no model no rules" has lead to many units of various armies being littered with a bunch of different weapons because the box comes with just one of each and no points means you'll take them as they're free. It is just silly how for example the kabalites or the skitarii have this crazy collection of different weapons in every bloody troop unit. That is not good design.

I say options are cooler than what you call "good" design. Minmaxing is boring. The focus on tournament play and the restriction of wargear options that has ensued are anathema to the creative spirit of the game. I don't care that it's not efficient to have a guy with a meltagun in a squad otherwise filled with bolter wielding marines. 

 

"It's just silly that your army's units have access to a varied selection of weapons. That should be taken away so they all have the same gun, because that's better design."

[Crimson Longinus]

10 minutes ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

I say options are cooler than what you call "good" design. Minmaxing is boring. The focus on tournament play and the restriction of wargear options that has ensued are anathema to the creative spirit of the game. I don't care that it's not efficient to have a guy with a meltagun in a squad otherwise filled with bolter wielding marines. 

 

"It's just silly that your army's units have access to a varied selection of weapons. That should be taken away so they all have the same gun, because that's better design."

 

But now there often is no choice either. What weapons will I take on my skitarii rangers? One of each, as that the only option and they are free!

 

Yes, having some options is nice, but they should be a real options, not just one forced optimal loadout. (I dislike how now on marines there is never reason to have chainsword or power sword if there is an option to take a fist or hammer.) 

 

And ultimately the game has changed. It is now more a game about units rather than individuals in those units. And that is not necessarily a direction I prefer, but I don't think we are going back to time when army if composed of three infantry units, a character and a tank. There must be some concessions towards the playability.

 

 

[SvenIronhand]

Thought experiment for you lot: How many weapon options does your average Bolt Action infantry squad have? 1-2, most likely, maybe 3 if it's something weird like a VB Launcher.

[NovemberIX]

9 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

Yes, having some options is nice, but they should be a real options, not just one forced optimal loadout. (I dislike how now on marines there is never reason to have chainsword or power sword if there is an option to take a fist or hammer.) 

 

There is a reason, rule of cool. My Sgt.s are built to a theme, not what's optimal.

[Crimson Longinus]

Just now, NovemberIX said:

 

There is a reason, rule of cool. My Sgt.s are built to a theme, not what's optimal.

 

Sure, mine as well. I just feel the game performance should not be punished because we think chainsword looks cooler on this model rather than a fist. 

[Mogger351]

23 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Sure, mine as well. I just feel the game performance should not be punished because we think chainsword looks cooler on this model rather than a fist. 

Honestly this is a hard one to tackle, it's possible to balance them out in theory. I just also don't feel that a powerfist is arbitrarily of equivalent value to an extra body in the squad etc. so would prefer to see an attempt at better parity before simply slapping points on it and declaring it the best.

[MoriyaSchism]

47 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Thought experiment for you lot: How many weapon options does your average Bolt Action infantry squad have? 1-2, most likely, maybe 3 if it's something weird like a VB Launcher.

What if you build something weird like late war Germans? 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Here's the thing, I don't think that there is a Tactical squad shaped void. Back in 3rd-5th editions, a single lascannon could kill a tank so the firepower that a single Tactical squad could bring was significant. Now we are in a totally different paradigm and we can take (almost) unlimited squads of Helblasters or Ballistus Dreadnoughts. What this means is that there is little value in having a single special/heavy weapon embedded in a squad that is otherwise armed with anti-infantry weapons. Killteams work more by their special rules than because it is valuable to have ablative intercessors absorbing wounds.

 

If you increase the price of Intercessor squads by 10-20 points and allow one dude to take a Lascannon, it is a nice callback but I am not convinced it really increases the value of the squad, particularly when most marine players take 1 squad at most. 

 

I'd agree with this. Tacticals have been considered a troop tax for as long as I can remember (I started in 3rd). I think you can make an argument that what hurt them in prior editions wasn't the limited upgrades not having a big impact but that the bolter was bad. Regardless people wouldn't have used them in a lot of editions if they didn't have too.

 

 

[01RTB01]

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

Thought experiment for you lot: How many weapon options does your average Bolt Action infantry squad have? 1-2, most likely, maybe 3 if it's something weird like a VB Launcher.

Winter fallschirmjager starter kit had tons as do basically any late war Germans. Maybe not the best example to pick.

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

Winter fallschirmjager starter kit had tons as do basically any late war Germans. Maybe not the best example to pick.

Not to mention that last time I checked, there were no augmented power armoured super soldiers or green fungus ape men in WW2 (I am sure the History Channel will be trying to tell us otherwise soon...) yet the more grounded historical game has more options...

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

 

I'd agree with this. Tacticals have been considered a troop tax for as long as I can remember (I started in 3rd). I think you can make an argument that what hurt them in prior editions wasn't the limited upgrades not having a big impact but that the bolter was bad. Regardless people wouldn't have used them in a lot of editions if they didn't have too.

 

 

The Bolt Rifle fixes those issues of basic Bolter thanks to Assault/Heavy and having AP-1. All.standard Marines, loyalist scum or heretics, should be using this profile. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Before Guilliman had a nap, he composed a Chapter structure that was flexible enough to be used across the Galaxy.

He thought big, he knew that in the vast distance of space there was no guarantee a Marine squad would have dedicated anti tank weapons units attached and available.

He left knowing that a single Lascannon could make all the difference. 

 

But when he awoke, the Rift had warped reality, now tanks have wounds like infantry, single Lascannons are a waste of time and the Galaxy had shrunk to only 4' ×5' .

 

So he adjusted his scope and Chapter structure from dealing with the entire Galaxy down to the size of a tabletop to suit the new reality.

He realized specialist units perform better in game than flexible ones, he no longer thought about the big picture, and focused on gameplay.

 

There's a not very hidden message there.

Just my 2c.

[Mogger351]

7 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

The Bolt Rifle fixes those issues of basic Bolter thanks to Assault/Heavy and having AP-1. All.standard Marines, loyalist scum or heretics, should be using this profile. 

Fixed it so well they had to double the shots and still considered a poor choice afaik?

[Moonstalker]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Here's the thing, I don't think that there is a Tactical squad shaped void. Back in 3rd-5th editions, a single lascannon could kill a tank so the firepower that a single Tactical squad could bring was significant. Now we are in a totally different paradigm and we can take (almost) unlimited squads of Helblasters or Ballistus Dreadnoughts. What this means is that there is little value in having a single special/heavy weapon embedded in a squad that is otherwise armed with anti-infantry weapons. Killteams work more by their special rules than because it is valuable to have ablative intercessors absorbing wounds.

 

If you increase the price of Intercessor squads by 10-20 points and allow one dude to take a Lascannon, it is a nice callback but I am not convinced it really increases the value of the squad, particularly when most marine players take 1 squad at most. 

 

I agree, we're not currently in a game/codex that requires a tactical squad.  But I think there is an argument here for the squad providing some flexibility and ability to shore up a weakness in your army (whether momentary or from list building).  A single lascannon is not going to kill most vehicles these days, but it could be what pushes you over the hill for taking out a target that your dedicated AT squads didn't quite get enough damage on (whether because you didn't bring enough of them, they weren't in position, or they're dead).  This is not necessarily what Tactical Squads did, but it is something that they could do if given some room to breathe.

 

Talkin like holistic view, what make Space Marines a unique army, and it could be that their troops are always able to help out their dedicated squads.  Vanguard Vets charging into a big unit, you've got Tac Marines following them in and adding weight of attacks.  Hordes, you've got bolters to back up your Heavy Bolter gravis.  Elite infantry, you've got a plasma gun to back up your Redemptor.  Vehicle, you've got a lascannon to back up your Gladiator.

 

It's probably a kind of design where you have to slightly overcost a lot of these dedicated units and then heavily discount the tactical squad.  When used together, you get something that's got an overall point efficiency edge (just in the above example, say each of those squads the Tac Squad is helping out is an extra 5 points, but the tac squad gets a 40 point discount, so you come out 20 points ahead) and gets a lot of marine bodies on the board.  Or maybe you give the tac squad a special rule that actually does something instead of combat squads, like they get +1 BS/+1WS for attacking a target that has already been attacked by one of those dedicated squads.

 

Just spitballing, I think they could make Tac Squads work if they wanted to, but that is not the direction they have taken marines.  To an extent, I like the legion-style dedicated squads, but I think they've taken it too far in some areas.  Like I think Hellblasters and Infernus marines could be the same kit with a gun swap, and the same datasheet with points for different weapons.  I think Eradicators and these new Heavy Bolter gravis could be the same kit and same datasheet, but with different points for their weapons.  And it wouldn't be too much to ask for a Devastator squad replacement that squats the Desolation squad with missile launchers and lascannons on a single datasheet, even if it's not the full weapon suite we've got now.