Valrak 2026 release rumours video

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

3rd-7th as a minimum the hunter killer was a krak missile.

Yeah I don’t remember that far back lol, but a true modern ATGM style missile I’d have its stats at least close to the modern HKM rather than the krak missile’s

[Orion]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yeah I don’t remember that far back lol, but a true modern ATGM style missile I’d have its stats at least close to the modern HKM rather than the krak missile’s

-Pulls out 2nd edition HK missile

-Can't remember 5 editions of 40k rules for it.

lol

 

I'm the opposite, I stopped keeping up with the current rules so assumed it was just a standard krak missile.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Orion said:

-Pulls out 2nd edition HK missile

-Can't remember 5 editions of 40k rules for it.

lol

 

I'm the opposite, I stopped keeping up with the current rules so assumed it was just a standard krak missile.

I mean i remember what they look like because i have one lol

 

yeah its currently S14 AP-3 Dd6

vs

krak missiles S8/9 AP-2 Dd6

Edited May 27 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Orange Knight]

13 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The main value of the Razorback is its ability to use those lascannons to support the infantry it carries.

 

a combat squad of 4 marines with bolters and one with a missile launcher or a lascannon creates a significant AT threat that an impulsor simply doesn’t from both an in universe and in game perspective.

 

in game the krak missile gets 1 shot, S8 AP-2 Dd6

lascannon gets 1 shot S12 AP-3 Dd6+1 and rerolls wounds.

 

so both get the same number of shots but the lascannon has a much higher chance to have a successful wound roll, has a better chance of forcing a failed save, and will do more damage on average.

 

on top of that, the Razorback gets an HKM so you have a significantly higher AT threat out of the Razorback than the impulsor could hope for even on table top, and not just in lore.

 

It's a single Lascannon shot, albeit a reliable one.

But having a fast moving Impulsor in which a full squad can fire from in safety is a much more reliable way of speeding firepower around the board. There is no value in a combat squad of Marines with a single missile and las cannon when compared to other threats in the game.

 

This point has come up before, but the old Marine unit design has become outdated in the modern 40k tabletop wargame.

You also dismiss the extra durability the Impulsor can offer, and the greater mobility, and the superior units it's able to transport.

[MoriyaSchism]

30 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

This point has come up before, but the old Marine unit design has become outdated in the modern 40k tabletop wargame.

You also dismiss the extra durability the Impulsor can offer, and the greater mobility, and the superior units it's able to transport.

This is all entirely debatable. If someone wants a Razorback or a combat squad with special weapons in their list they should have the option. If they start cutting units based on what's more viable or superior we'd end up with army lists that all end up doing the same thing. 

[01RTB01]

Considering marines for ages (narratively and model base) had been tactical, assault or devastator squads, terminators, vanguard/ sternguard (a more modern inclusion of vets), scouts, bikes plus legion specific stuff I really don't understand the roster bloat.

 

Eradicators with melta, eradicators with heavy bolters, heavy intercessors, gravis, terminators all overlap in function (and with devastator squads). Regardless of the semantics of 'specific roles' they're all heavier marines.

 

Hellblasters, infernus, intercessors, nerf gun marines are just heresy style organisation brought back and applied to marines. 

 

It's nice for marine players to be able to pick and choose but I really don't understand why we've got to this point. (I know it's $$$$ driven but that doesn't feel sufficient for justifications).

 

As for the impulsor/ Razorback debate. Why can't people just take what they want? Both exist. 

 

 

[jaxom]

45 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

Considering marines for ages (narratively and model base) had been tactical, assault or devastator squads, terminators, vanguard/ sternguard (a more modern inclusion of vets), scouts, bikes plus legion specific stuff I really don't understand the roster bloat.

 

Eradicators with melta, eradicators with heavy bolters, heavy intercessors, gravis, terminators all overlap in function (and with devastator squads). Regardless of the semantics of 'specific roles' they're all heavier marines.

 

Hellblasters, infernus, intercessors, nerf gun marines are just heresy style organisation brought back and applied to marines. 

 

It's nice for marine players to be able to pick and choose but I really don't understand why we've got to this point. (I know it's $$$$ driven but that doesn't feel sufficient for justifications).

 

As for the impulsor/ Razorback debate. Why can't people just take what they want? Both exist. 

 

 

My headcannon is Tactical, Assault, and Devastator were interpreted/translated wrong or retroactively re-interpreted. Each is a squad type and everything else is equipment packages.  Devastator squad with hellblaster loadout, Assault Squad with Outrider loadout, etc.

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

12 minutes ago, jaxom said:

My headcannon is Tactical, Assault, and Devastator were interpreted/translated wrong or retroactively re-interpreted. Each is a squad type and everything else is equipment packages.  Devastator squad with hellblaster loadout, Assault Squad with Outrider loadout, etc.

I know it's probably contrary to modern lore but I do exactly the same. Tactical, Assault and Devastator are squad-level designations and Intercessor/Hellblaster/Desolator etc are names for mission-specific configurations.

I wish GW would just go with that! Feels a bit closer to verisimilitude (a tricky word in 40k I realise).

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, MoriyaSchism said:

This is all entirely debatable. If someone wants a Razorback or a combat squad with special weapons in their list they should have the option. If they start cutting units based on what's more viable or superior we'd end up with army lists that all end up doing the same thing. 

 

Also, what is viable or not (or what fits the current design or not) can and does change with the push of a button. How many times over the years has the "best" design changed overnight due to a new set of rules? Not just for individual units, but whole playstyles that incorporate units from all across different release dates.

 

(My Spidey-Sense is tingling now BTW. A certain someone is baiting this conversation back into the PvF topic. Do not fall for it. )

 

Edited May 27 by phandaal

[Orange Knight]

17 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Also, what is viable or not (or what fits the current design or not) can and does change with the push of a button. How many times over the years has the "best" design changed overnight due to a new set of rules? Not just for individual units, but whole playstyles that incorporate units from all across different release dates.

 

(My Spidey-Sense is tingling now BTW. A certain someone is baiting this conversation back into the PvF topic. Do not fall for it. )

 

 

It can change... if Games Workshop re-design every unit in the game.

40k started out as a more narrative expeirence, and then it was a small-scale wargame more akin to a skirmish. Since then armies have gradually become bigger, tables have become more crowded, specialist units have replaced generalists. 

[phandaal]

12 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

It can change... if Games Workshop re-design every unit in the game.

40k started out as a more narrative expeirence, and then it was a small-scale wargame more akin to a skirmish. Since then armies have gradually become bigger, tables have become more crowded, specialist units have replaced generalists. 

 

Spoiler

[Evil Eye]

34 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Also, what is viable or not (or what fits the current design or not) can and does change with the push of a button. How many times over the years has the "best" design changed overnight due to a new set of rules? Not just for individual units, but whole playstyles that incorporate units from all across different release dates.

 

My thoughts precisely. Attempts to make Centurions look less ridiculous (or coping that they don't) and "I have always loved the Iron Hands!" spring to mind.

 

As they say, rules are temporary. Models are forever.

[Orange Knight]

38 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

As they say, rules are temporary. Models are forever.

 

Your personal models are forever. Not the models that are sold or supported.

[phandaal]

12 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Your personal models are forever. Not the models that are sold or supported.

 

Spoiler

 

[Orange Knight]

Lol it's the truth. I'm not sure why you feel it's some outlandish statement.

There is no obligation for a product to last forever or remain in an unchanged state.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

My thoughts precisely. Attempts to make Centurions look less ridiculous (or coping that they don't) and "I have always loved the Iron Hands!" spring to mind.

 

As they say, rules are temporary. Models are forever.

 

As a Centurion Enjoyer, I accept that not all people's sensibilities are as refined as mine. 

 

The rules thing is especially pertinent nowadays. It almost seems like there is a demand for things to be updated and tweaked, or at least there is among the people who prefer to play with the latest ruleset. Obviously everyone knows how what is good or not can swing very quickly in the current setup.

 

I expect these new terrain rules to make those changes even more impactful as different army compositions rise and fall depending on how well they do whatever is needed for the latest DLC.

[Robbienw]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Your personal models are forever. Not the models that are sold or supported.

 

Like the ATV?

[Jukkiz]

34 minutes ago, Robbienw said:

 

Like the ATV?

Suppressors? 

[Antarius]

5 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

It's nice for marine players to be able to pick and choose but I really don't understand why we've got to this point. (I know it's $$$$ driven but that doesn't feel sufficient for justifications).

It's that and that people keep wanting new things. Which mostly* translates into "new marine units".
 

* But, to be fair, not exclusively. I was pretty gobsmacked when I got the 10th edition Tyranid codex and compared the amount of entries to my 5th ed. (I think it was) codex. The number of datasheets has really exploded over the last couple of editions, it's just more even pronounced with marines.

Edited May 27 by Antarius

[Interrogator Stobz]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

It can change... if Games Workshop re-design every unit in the game.

40k started out as a more narrative expeirence, and then it was a small-scale wargame more akin to a skirmish. Since then armies have gradually become bigger, tables have become more crowded, specialist units have replaced generalists. 

Generalist like 4 Las cannon Dev Squads in Las backs, or Generalists like 5 Melta Veteran Squads in Drop pods?

Nah, both Generalist and Specialist units have always existed.

Also, we've been playing huge games with them since the 1990s, and table sizes got trimmed in 8th(?) Crowding is relative. 

[Orange Knight]

20 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Generalist like 4 Las cannon Dev Squads in Las backs, or Generalists like 5 Melta Veteran Squads in Drop pods?

Nah, both Generalist and Specialist units have always existed.

 

You're making my point for me. Doubling down on a particular wargear is the superior option and people in the know have always tried to do it. Now, instead of just doubling down on the weapon, why not also add armour variations that mesh with the purpose of the unit? Melta Eradicators - a short range high impact unit - are also more durable and tough. This is just one example.

 

And why not create unique wargear for the units that really sets them apart and makes them excell in a particular role, rather than taking from a pool of generalist options? Those options were always terribly balanced - a Tactical Marine taking a Power Fist should not pay the same as a model with more attacks.

 

The current editions of 40k are more competitive than ever, so people would be going down this path more and more. You mentioned the old Dev Squad - it doesn't come with 4 Las Cannons in the box, so you have to spend more money to build the unit in it's optimum configuration. Plenty of downsides to these old squads that people gloss over. A devastator squad punishes players that assemble it to match the box art.
 

Edited May 27 by Orange Knight

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

or supported.

See here's the thing- if GW sells a model as a game piece it's pretty scummy for them to arbitrarily stop supporting that model and render it unplayable. People spend money, time and effort on their models and for them to have in-game "expiration dates" is incredibly anti-consumer. Especially as it costs them nothing to keep the model supported even if they stop making it. Of course I don't expect them to produce the same kit for eternity (though I would prefer the replacement is a proper equivalent and a direct upgrade rather than something completely different) but I DO expect them to keep the models playable given I've given them my money for them.

19 minutes ago, Antarius said:

* But, to be fair, not exclusively. I was pretty gobsmacked when I got the 10th edition Tyranid codex and compared the amount of entries to my 5th ed. (I think it was) codex. The number of datasheets has really exploded over the last couple of editions, it's just more even pronounced with marines.

It's particularly baffling considering the decrease in options. Like, we now have two separate Warrior datasheets, and the only options for one are which guns you give them whilst the other has no options at all. Compare that to 4th where the Warrior entry had a dizzyingly awesome array of options and could be HQ, Elites or Fast Attack!

[Robbienw]

Dev squad box comes with loads of heavy weapons, 2 boxes and you have 4 of each and a load of other weapons for tactical squads, hardly bank breaking 

[Orange Knight]

I don't think it's scummy given the time periods these models had support over.

They aren't taking your models alway, and they aren't stopping you from using them. You have access to older rules, you can write your own, you can arrange games with like-minded people.

I also think it's unrealistic to expect something to be supported forever. It's also extremely limiting and restrictive to any artists at the company.

 

[phandaal]

31 minutes ago, Antarius said:

It's that and that people keep wanting new things. Which mostly* translates into "new marine units".
 

* But, to be fair, not exclusively. I was pretty gobsmacked when I got the 10th edition Tyranid codex and compared the amount of entries to my 5th ed. (I think it was) codex. The number of datasheets has really exploded over the last couple of editions, it's just more even pronounced with marines.

 

Yeah, Marines are just the biggest one thanks to the non-stop expansion of the range. (It was funny to look at their giant stack of datasheet cards compared to Leagues of Votann.)

 

Since Tau are getting a mini refresh or unit expansion or something along those lines, I expect they will get a little bit of "datasheet shock" too. It really doesn't help either that GW created so many more profiles with shift to Power Level in 10th Edition.

 

Off topic:

Spoiler

@Evil Eye @Robbienw @Interrogator Stobz I know you guys know that your attempt to "win" in the argument is exactly what Orange Knight wants, so he can turn this into another Primaris vs Firstborn argument thread for his own reasons. You are never going to get him to acknowledge your points. By all means keep going, but it will for sure get the thread locked.