[40k] new codex Space Marine Sighting
estarriol
as its a one off and I am sorry I paid full retail I shall get the
kneepads.........
And they had the new SM codex, sadly they were too busy talking to mates,
holding on to it and making a Demon conversion using Rackham parts to
actually let me get my mitts on it.
But this being the case other may get a chance for a browse and I have a
question if you do, can you look up the Razorback armament options please,
one of the other staff had flicked through it but hadn't checked to see is
the las/plas option was still legal.
I only ask this out of a spirit of friendliness and so I can firebomb them
all if its not, as I run between 6 and 9 razors so equipped in my Marine
force.
--
estarriol
a very very worried person, orks to build, IG to paint and I am buying Eldar
stuff, shooooooooot me please.........
tahrikmili
> I was in GW's shop in uxbridge today to purchase something
...
> And they had the new SM codex,
<snip>
Apparently all GW shops got a store copy this weekend.. We have no GW
shops in Turkey, so.. Hey, someone go look at the damn thing and tell
us if Assault Cannons are indeed Heavy 4 Rending so I can order my Baal
Predator! :P
Yalaz Ozkanli
Rafale
> shops in Turkey, so.. Hey, someone go look at the damn thing and tell
> us if Assault Cannons are indeed Heavy 4 Rending so I can order my Baal
> Predator! :P
Yep, they are *drool*
Robert Williams
> But this being the case other may get a chance for a browse and I have a
> question if you do, can you look up the Razorback armament options please,
> one of the other staff had flicked through it but hadn't checked to see is
> the las/plas option was still legal.
>
> I only ask this out of a spirit of friendliness and so I can firebomb them
> all if its not, as I run between 6 and 9 razors so equipped in my Marine
> force.
Unfortunately for you, the las/plas option has been removed. So has the
multi-melta option.
Rob
P Bowles
<nou...@notmydomain.se> writes:
>No multi-melta either? I guess it was a good thing that I never had
>the time to convert that multi-melta turret...
And to think it's only a few months since FW released a multimelta Razorback
turret. Without las/plas it's hard to see a huge amount of use for the
Razorback - its firepower with twin heavy bolter is far less than it should be
for 25pts over the storm bolter-armed Rhino and twin-linked lascannon are
hardly rare on Marine vehicles. The only reason I'd take a Razorback now is to
free up HS slots by getting Pred Annihilator substitutes in Troops choices.
Philip Bowles
Torak
You mean the Assault Cannon is finally back to its true power? YAY!
Craig Little
news:slrncmsuj1...@onsight.id.gu.se...
> through the new codex. Razorbacks only get twin HB or twin LC. I also
> took a look at the chapter traits for Salamanders.
>
> Cleanse and purify : Tac squads may exchange their missile launcher
> for a flamer, or their lascannon for a melta gun or a plasma gun.
> Looks like I was wrong when I said that I didn't think sallies would
> be able to get two plasma guns in their tactical squads.
>
> Never despair: Option of getting an extra turn on a 4+
>
> Eye to eye: 0-1 in total for bikes, attack bikes and landspeeders.
>
Is that 0-1 for 'speeders or for speeder squadrons?
P Bowles
<ironman...@ridgenet.net> writes:
>> It's possible that the variant turrets will turn up in one of the
>> imperial armour books.
>>
>BUt it's cheaper to buy two new razors than to buy one of those. Is the
>las/plas turret available fron FW still? (I thought the made one)
>
No, they made all the variants but that. The old las/plas turret from the
original Razorback was available from Mail Order at least until the new
Razorback kit appeared.
Philip Bowles
Desert Lurker
jockelinde
> In article <slrncmqtrf...@onsight.id.gu.se>, jockelinde
><nou...@notmydomain.se> writes:
>
>>In article <ckjnp5$dt0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robert Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> But this being the case other may get a chance for a browse and I have a
>>>> question if you do, can you look up the Razorback armament options please,
>>>> one of the other staff had flicked through it but hadn't checked to see is
>>>> the las/plas option was still legal.
>>>>
>>>> I only ask this out of a spirit of friendliness and so I can firebomb them
>>>> all if its not, as I run between 6 and 9 razors so equipped in my Marine
>>>> force.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you, the las/plas option has been removed. So has the
>>> multi-melta option.
>>
>>No multi-melta either? I guess it was a good thing that I never had
>>the time to convert that multi-melta turret...
>
> And to think it's only a few months since FW released a multimelta Razorback
> turret.
It's possible that the variant turrets will turn up in one of the
imperial armour books.
--
Joakim
jockelinde
Speeder squadrons.
--
Joakim
estarriol
"P Bowles" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041013170632...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Horde armies, the heavy Bolter was always ok, but never better than that,
and in a lot of cases the 4 extra marines will now be much more use than the
Razor.
Well it has saved me from buying the codex, unless its in the faq that they
are still allowed, just not shown in the codex.
--
estarriol
tahrikmili
>>Just wondering if the useless Biker Scout Squad unit is still in the
>>army list?..
>
>
> Still there - in an FAQ Pete Haines stated that no units have been dropped from
> the list. With turbo-boosters and a lower cost than normal bikes, they might
> not be so useless either.
>
> Philip Bowles
I actually forgot about turbo boosters when re-doing my army list.. I
actually might take a 3 bike bike squadron - but scout bikes? Why would
anyone take them, unless they are now substantially cheaper than regular
bikes, which I doubt..
Yalaz Ozkanli
P Bowles
<nou...@notmydomain.se> writes:
>Cleanse and purify : Tac squads may exchange their missile launcher
>for a flamer, or their lascannon for a melta gun or a plasma gun.
>Looks like I was wrong when I said that I didn't think sallies would
>be able to get two plasma guns in their tactical squads.
>
>Never despair: Option of getting an extra turn on a 4+
>
>Eye to eye: 0-1 in total for bikes, attack bikes and landspeeders.
>
That's it? No Predator heavy flamer sponsons? No thunder hammer-wielding
Chaplains? No multimelta in Tac squads? Yes, this is a better list - Tac squads
get lascannon back or two melta/plasma, I4's back for those situations where it
matters (which I still say aren't many, since this isn't a list that excels in
close combat with I4 either), but like the IG regiments based on Doctrines
they've lost character.
Philip Bowles
Craig Little
news:ckjnp5$dt0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
jockelinde
> "Robert Williams" <ma...@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Its just a minor complaint for Salamanders though. Its the White Scars
>> who have lost out the worst.
>>
> Could you Elaborate? I have a pile of Bikes, Attack Bikes, Speeders etc.
> from E-bay and am debating the eternal Ravenwing or White Scars choice (I'll
> likely go Raven as I like DA fluff better)
There is a thread in the rumour section of portent, which appear to
contain all chapter traits. Portent isn't responding now, so you
will have to dig up the llink yourself later.
--
Joakim
Chipacabra
news:8sAbd.1168049$yk.1...@news.easynews.com:
> I actually forgot about turbo boosters when re-doing my army list.. I
> actually might take a 3 bike bike squadron - but scout bikes? Why
> would anyone take them, unless they are now substantially cheaper than
> regular bikes, which I doubt..
25 points, according to the GW webpage.
P Bowles
<nou...@notmydomain.se> writes:
>> No Predator heavy flamer sponsons?
>
>Nope. HF sponsons never appealed to me anyway.
Nice fluffily, though.
>> No multimelta in Tac squads?
>
>Sure, but then again everybody can get multi-meltas (and plasma
>cannons) in their tac squads (MMs for 10 points and PCs for 20
>points).
Everyone gets plasma cannon access in Tac squads? This I like, but doesn't it
marginalise DA again? IIRC that was the revision's main selling point.
Philip Bowles
tahrikmili
Yeah but they can't take assault weapons.. I like my bike squads with
double meltaguns or plasmaguns :)
Yalaz Ozkanli
Torak
> the time to convert that multi-melta turret...
So they invalidate the traditional weapons fit.... can we say "YOU MUST
BUY THE NEW RAZORBACK! GIVE US YOUR MONEY!" ?
Ancient Gamer
said...
DA pay 15 points for their Tac squad PC, unless that changes in the new
codex as well...
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 4061st of September 1993
"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
P Bowles
>http://forums.portent.net/archive/index.php/t-134355484.html
>
>There they are, a concentrated list of new things in the codex, and a
>list of the traits.
>
>Traits mostly seem to make it easier to be a screaming horde of close
>combat twits, but that's OK, I guess.
Let's see...
Blood Ravens? Who's surprised? Are they suddenly one of the missing First
Founding Chapters now they're in a successful computer game? And given the
sheer number of SM sublists having only 7 here (compared with 20 IG regiments)
is a bit of a cheat - though I suppose Flesh Tearers and 13th Company will be
sublists of their respective founder Chapters.
Anyway:
"Suffer not the work of Heretics": My, don't these have overblown names? Like
this one a lot - points I'd hope would be +3 per model in line with Codex CSM.
"Purity Above All": Every Marine squad gets to ignore its first wound? Quite
like the idea, I must say, and it's more original than some.
"Suffer Not the Alien To Live": Not keen on Preferred Enemy as a rule. Okay
when most close combat aliens have WS4, but still not interested.
"Blessed Be the Warrior": How many people need 4+ Assault Squads? Though I
suppose this could free slots for, say, Speeders or Bikes.
"Uphold the Honour of the Emperor": As it's only going to affect a few models
in expensive but otherwise seemingly not special squads, plus it's a very minor
bonus, I'd ignore this one.
"Take the Fight To Them": Nice to have the option, but unremarkable and wholly
expected. A better option than "Blessed Be the Warrior" IMO (not least because
Assault Squads don't get to take a flamer or two...).
"Never Despair": Nice fluffily for Sallies, but otherwise I'm not convinced -
it's just too unpredictable as an advantage, works only 50% and then at the end
of the game, so it's just not attractive compared to other options.
"No Mercy, No Respite": Another one that's better than "Blessed Be The
Warrior", and works well with the BP/CCW Tac squads with two flamers apiece.
"Honour Your Wargear": Up to 6 Dev squads - up to 6 Dev squads with infiltrate
- up to 6 Dev squads with +1 armour pen? Right, if I ever do start a Marine
army with my own Chapter, I know what my first Chapter Trait will be. Now to
work it into the fluff... Okay, in general this isn't as good as, say, "Suffer
not the Work of Heretics" as it increases the cost of an expensive squad and
works best when you're using either a lot of said expensive squads or a full
complement of support vehicles, but I like it.
"Heed the Wisdom of the Ancients": Don't know what it does anyway, and again
how often do you want 4+ Dreads? To me this looks like a way of eating HS
choices while forcing you to pay more on Elite Dreads, so I'd pass.
"Scion of Mars": Techmarine bonus uninteresting (I presume they're available as
Elites otherwise). Termie armour for Vet Sergeants could be interesting, but
probably not worth it. A nice option, but another pass.
"See, But Don't Be Seen": Really bad name. Who gets to purchase infiltrate?
Everyone? (hey, infiltrating Dreadnoughts - who'd have thought it? Those bikes
are pretty silent too...) Otherwise a nice option.
"Be Swift as the Wind": Too much force shuffling, forces you to pay more for
bikes and restricts Dreadnought/Terminator access - all bad to my mind.
"Trust Your Battle Brothers": Designed solely for stand-in Space Wolves until
their new Codex arrives, near as I can see. Not interested.
"Cleanse and Purify": Right, that's my second Chapter Trait taken care of...
The "minor" and "major" disadvantages are very clearly the wrong way round
aside from "Flesh over Steel" (which could be crippling) - the 0-1 restrictions
are very obviously minor and no disincentive at all to taking the maximum 2
traits. I can't see anyone who isn't forced to taking the no infiltration or -1
Elite, FA and HS options.
Okay, let's see what I can do fluffwise with my new Chapter:
Jade Hawks
Chapter Traits
"Honour Your Wargear" (Dutiful)
"Cleanse and Purify" (Sombre)
"Aspire to Glory" (major disadvantage)
"Have Faith in Suspicion" (minor disadvantage)
Aside from the inability to take Terminator Armour as wargear (for vague fluffy
reasons), I quite like this - the 0-1 limitation on existing Elites choices
nicely complements the ability to take Elite Devastators. "Have Faith in
Suspicion" isn't quite as minor as, say, "We Stand Alone", but in the little
backstory I've thought up for this Chapter its Librarium was recently
destroyed, or nearly so, so the absence of pyskers is more fitting. Then
there's the ever-lovely two special weapon per Tac squad thing just to round
things out.
Philip Bowles
P Bowles
>
>jockelinde wrote:
>> In article <hM-dnTkEDsD...@comcast.com>, Craig Little wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert Williams" <ma...@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>Its just a minor complaint for Salamanders though. Its the White Scars
>>>>who have lost out the worst.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Could you Elaborate? I have a pile of Bikes, Attack Bikes, Speeders etc.
>>>from E-bay and am debating the eternal Ravenwing or White Scars choice
>(I'll
>>>likely go Raven as I like DA fluff better)
>>
>>
>> There is a thread in the rumour section of portent, which appear to
>> contain all chapter traits. Portent isn't responding now, so you
>> will have to dig up the llink yourself later.
>>
>>
>
>http://forums.portent.net/archive/index.php/t-134355614.html
>http://forums.portent.net/archive/index.php/t-134355484.html
>
>There they are, a concentrated list of new things in the codex, and a
>list of the traits.
As for other news:
Armoury: 0-1 iron halo still? That's bad, now that most Codices have gone in
the direction of removing restrictions on 4+ inv saves. IIRC this means that an
IG army can now have more 4+ inv saves than a Marine one?
Terminators: Bleh. Too expensive to use as missile launcher squads with tank
hunters, and if the assault cannon rumours are true no one'll use that option
anyway. So no veteran skills worth taking for these (only 3 skills in the whole
list is a let-down).
Dreadnought: Again, nice way to make some of the more popular FW kits obsolete
- GW's obviously 'tidying up' the Codex options to tie in with the plastic
model range. Boo hiss. Still, aside from the twin autocannon the important
options are here, and who else quite fancies a tank hunting assault cannon/ML
Dread?
Assault cannon: Still think the change has gone too far. Assault 4 should have
been enough on its own.
Veterans: So, what exactly does this mean? Veterans get to take one of plasma,
melta, flamer or power sword, plus one of lascannon, HB, missile launcher,
power fist or pair of lightning claws, right? Nice increase in versatility and
actually gives them an ability Tac squads don't have. Presumably they can take
a Vet Skill as well?
Tac squad: Nothing new except that the heavy weapon access has been upgraded.
Right... PC more expensive than LC is fine - works for Devastators and it's
nice to have a true high-powered weapon option for the squad that's a better
all-rounder than the lascannon.
Drop pod: This thing's actually going to be represented in-game? I'm betting
the model will be pricey, though. The Deathwind seems somewhat unnecessary,
even though it does have a long-standing Epic precedent.
Bike squadron: Massively improved in 4th to the point that Marine players are
already putting them in their planned armies at the current cost - and they get
a points cut?
Attack Bikes: Given turbo-booster rules, this is just as well.
Assault Squad: 0-2 flamers? Ouch. Scratch what I said about those traits
earlier...
LR Crusader: Why no restriction? That was bad fluffwise in Daemonhunters and
it's bad fluffwise now.
Okay, I must be blind. I say this because, while the Marines were very clearly
anything but weak in the last edition and the 4th Ed. rules benefit them more
than anyone else, I still can't see anything in this book other than upgrades
the army *really* doesn't need. Virtually no downgrades other than a couple of
reduced options. Overall the changes aren't huge, but I'd say they're more
extensive than those in the IG Codex and so this book was more deserving of
revision. On the other hand, there's not much here other than a couple of
Chapter Traits (which seem better-balanced and thought-out than the mostly
marginal or worse IG Doctrines) and the revised assault cannon which actually
adds much to the army's power level.
tahrikmili
> Terminators: Bleh. Too expensive to use as missile launcher squads with tank
> hunters, and if the assault cannon rumours are true no one'll use that option
> anyway. So no veteran skills worth taking for these (only 3 skills in the whole
> list is a let-down).
True but they are excellent for arming with two ACs and letting rip :D
What's the new points cost for them? 35 a piece?
>
> Dreadnought: Again, nice way to make some of the more popular FW kits obsolete
> - GW's obviously 'tidying up' the Codex options to tie in with the plastic
> model range. Boo hiss. Still, aside from the twin autocannon the important
> options are here, and who else quite fancies a tank hunting assault cannon/ML
> Dread?
AC + CCW still sounds like a more flexible and useful choice to me..
But then, I sold off my dreadnought :)
> Assault cannon: Still think the change has gone too far. Assault 4 should have
> been enough on its own.
Isn't this Heavy 4?.. If it's Assault 4 it can be fired on the move and
would make Terminator squads with 2 ACs more dangerous than I relized O_O
> Veterans: So, what exactly does this mean? Veterans get to take one of plasma,
> melta, flamer or power sword, plus one of lascannon, HB, missile launcher,
> power fist or pair of lightning claws, right? Nice increase in versatility and
> actually gives them an ability Tac squads don't have. Presumably they can take
> a Vet Skill as well?
Agreed, they are actually worth fielding now..
> Tac squad: Nothing new except that the heavy weapon access has been upgraded.
> Right... PC more expensive than LC is fine - works for Devastators and it's
> nice to have a true high-powered weapon option for the squad that's a better
> all-rounder than the lascannon.
I think the Plasma Cannon option really should be left exclusively for DAs..
> Drop pod: This thing's actually going to be represented in-game? I'm betting
> the model will be pricey, though. The Deathwind seems somewhat unnecessary,
> even though it does have a long-standing Epic precedent.
>
> Bike squadron: Massively improved in 4th to the point that Marine players are
> already putting them in their planned armies at the current cost - and they get
> a points cut?
I'm definitely getting one squad of these, though I think most of the
hype is useless as they can't do anything if they move 24" no?.. I
thought only the scout bike prices were cut down to 25 and normal bikes
stayed at 35? It soudns reasonable with the turbo option.
> Attack Bikes: Given turbo-booster rules, this is just as well.
Never liked the model :P
> Assault Squad: 0-2 flamers? Ouch. Scratch what I said about those traits
> earlier...
I don't really know.. if you fire the flamers you lose +1 attacks for
all your other assault marines :/ I might add these to my own army but
I'm just not sure yet. Can we debate this, I'll bow to higher wisdom on
this issue, is it worth taking 2 flamers in a 10 man assault squad as
you'll be losing 10 attacks at WS4 S4 and very probably one of them will
be from a PW/PF..
> LR Crusader: Why no restriction? That was bad fluffwise in Daemonhunters and
> it's bad fluffwise now.
>
> Okay, I must be blind. I say this because, while the Marines were very clearly
> anything but weak in the last edition and the 4th Ed. rules benefit them more
> than anyone else, I still can't see anything in this book other than upgrades
> the army *really* doesn't need. Virtually no downgrades other than a couple of
> reduced options. Overall the changes aren't huge, but I'd say they're more
> extensive than those in the IG Codex and so this book was more deserving of
> revision. On the other hand, there's not much here other than a couple of
> Chapter Traits (which seem better-balanced and thought-out than the mostly
> marginal or worse IG Doctrines) and the revised assault cannon which actually
> adds much to the army's power level.
I also think they became a very complicated army to play O_O all those
traits would probably be intimidating for newbies coming up with their
own armies..
Yalaz Ozkanli
Maka
> Armoury: 0-1 iron halo still? That's bad, now that most Codices have gone in
> the direction of removing restrictions on 4+ inv saves. IIRC this means that an
> IG army can now have more 4+ inv saves than a Marine one?
IG gets ZERO 4+ invul saves. They can get tons of 5+ invul.
> Terminators: Bleh.
> Assault cannon: Still think the change has gone too far. Assault 4 should have been enough on its own.
It averages about the same as a plasmacannon used to; only now it is
great against armour.
> Tac squad: Nothing new except that the heavy weapon access has been upgraded.
> Right... PC more expensive than LC is fine - works for Devastators and it's
> nice to have a true high-powered weapon option for the squad that's a better
> all-rounder than the lascannon.
The blast must be centered on a model. If you space your guys 1 inch
apart, the plasma cannon gets 1 hit and ZERO partials. I'd rather
have lascannons. If I want to kill infantry, I'll take pairs of
plasmaguns or power fists on vets.
> Bike squadron: Massively improved in 4th to the point that Marine players are
> already putting them in their planned armies at the current cost - and they get a points cut?
Compared to the chaos version they were way over-priced.
> Assault Squad: 0-2 flamers? Ouch. Scratch what I said about those traits
> earlier...
With how flamers are worked now, each flamer after the first gets less
effective.
> Okay, I must be blind. I say this because, while the Marines were very clearly
> anything but weak in the last edition and the 4th Ed. rules benefit them more
> than anyone else,
With the rhino rush having its balls cut off, and the loss of Las/plas
razorbacks, the two most common marine armies are way less effective.
On the other hand, infantry based armies did get a hell of a lot
better. Orks, Tyranids, and IG infantry are all awesome. Don't
believe me? I can fit 58 Deep Striking plasmaguns into a 2000 point
IG army.
-Maka
Maka
> >
> >Sure, but then again everybody can get multi-meltas (and plasma
> >cannons) in their tac squads (MMs for 10 points and PCs for 20
> >points).
>
> Everyone gets plasma cannon access in Tac squads? This I like, but doesn't it
> marginalise DA again? IIRC that was the revision's main selling point.
>
> Philip Bowles
I've said this so many times I am going to shout it now.
BLACK TEMPLAR GET PLASMA CANNONS IN THEIR TACTICAL SQUADS. They
always have. DA got plasma in the buy more DA re-release.
Whenever DA players bitch about them losing the uniqueness of the
plasma cannon, hit them upside the head with a rolled up codex
armagedon.
-Maka
P Bowles
M_St...@hotmail.com (Maka) writes:
>pbo...@aol.com (P Bowles)
>
>> Armoury: 0-1 iron halo still? That's bad, now that most Codices have gone
>in
>> the direction of removing restrictions on 4+ inv saves. IIRC this means
>that an
>> IG army can now have more 4+ inv saves than a Marine one?
>
>IG gets ZERO 4+ invul saves. They can get tons of 5+ invul.
Thought they had a rosarius option, or am I confusing them with Daemonhunters?
>> Terminators: Bleh.
>
>
>> Assault cannon: Still think the change has gone too far. Assault 4 should
>have been enough on its own.
>
>It averages about the same as a plasmacannon used to; only now it is
>great against armour.
The assault cannon shouldn't be as good as a plasma cannon, and certainly not
against the same targets. Heavy 4 without rending would be fine and makes it
the anti-light/medium infantry weapon it's supposed to be.
>> Bike squadron: Massively improved in 4th to the point that Marine players
>are
>> already putting them in their planned armies at the current cost - and they
>get a points cut?
>
>Compared to the chaos version they were way over-priced.
Under the new rules the Chaos version is blatantly underpriced, though.
Philip Bowles
John Hwang
>M_St...@hotmail.com (Maka) writes:
>>> IG army can now have more 4+ inv saves than a Marine one?
>>
>>IG gets ZERO 4+ invul saves. They can get tons of 5+ invul.
IIRC, 0-5 IG Priests can *each* take a Rosarius. Not that I can see why
anybody would ever do this...
>Thought they had a rosarius option, or am I confusing them with
>Daemonhunters?
Daemonhunters and Witchhunters can take Rosarius, at the full 25pt cost, along
with some other Inv Save options. The DH have better options overall.
>The assault cannon shouldn't be as good as a plasma cannon, and certainly not
>against the same targets. Heavy 4 without rending would be fine and makes it
>the anti-light/medium infantry weapon it's supposed to be.
The Plasma Cannon has 36" range and is a bit better against Open vehicles. The
Assault Cannon is better against semi-dispersed hordes due to the hole rule.
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Anti Strunt
> In article <786bada8.04101...@posting.google.com>,
> M_St...@hotmail.com (Maka) writes:
>
> >pbo...@aol.com (P Bowles)
> >
> >> Armoury: 0-1 iron halo still? That's bad, now that most Codices have gone
> in
> >> the direction of removing restrictions on 4+ inv saves. IIRC this means
> that an
> >> IG army can now have more 4+ inv saves than a Marine one?
> >
> >IG gets ZERO 4+ invul saves. They can get tons of 5+ invul.
>
> Thought they had a rosarius option, or am I confusing them with Daemonhunters?
Only priests can have rosariuses (rosarii?). Officers have to make do
with Ref. fields.
Robert Williams
> "Take the Fight To Them": Nice to have the option, but unremarkable and
> wholly
> expected. A better option than "Blessed Be the Warrior" IMO (not least
> because
> Assault Squads don't get to take a flamer or two...).
Assault squads can have flamers now, up to two in fact.
> "Trust Your Battle Brothers": Designed solely for stand-in Space Wolves
> until
> their new Codex arrives, near as I can see.
That is wrong. The Space Wolves Codex will get a FAQ (as will the DA and BA
codices, and the BT list) detailing how it works with the new sm codex. All
of the chapter sub-codices will be valid until they are replaced by new
versions later on in this edition.
Rob
Robert Williams
> Dreadnought: Again, nice way to make some of the more popular FW kits
> obsolete
> - GW's obviously 'tidying up' the Codex options to tie in with the plastic
> model range. Boo hiss.
Its a shame, but you can still use the rules in IA 2 for dreads with
non-codex weapons.
Presumably they can take
> a Vet Skill as well?
Considering they are Veterans, yes of course they do.
> Drop pod: This thing's actually going to be represented in-game? I'm
> betting
> the model will be pricey, though.
There isn't a model being developed yet, however, so it'll be at least 18
months until it comes out. Unless you want to get the FW of course.
Rob
Robert Williams
>
>> Assault cannon: Still think the change has gone too far. Assault 4 should
>> have
>> been enough on its own.
>
> Isn't this Heavy 4?.. If it's Assault 4 it can be fired on the move and
> would make Terminator squads with 2 ACs more dangerous than I relized O_O
It is Heavy 4. However, terminators can fire their heavy weapons on the
move, so it might as well have been Assault 4.
Rob
smithdoerr
> > Drop pod: This thing's actually going to be represented in-game? I'm
> > betting
> > the model will be pricey, though.
>
> There isn't a model being developed yet, however, so it'll be at least 18
> months until it comes out. Unless you want to get the FW of course.
I think a pineapple would make a good proxy drop pod.
Until it got too ripe and then it could be a proxy for the Great Unclean
One.
--
-smithdoerr
jockelinde
No, no, no - the smell is just the proxy's way of representing the
death wind upgrade.
--
Joakim
Ecke
"smithdoerr" <askmef...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2tf1r7F...@uni-berlin.de...
Or a drop pod for the 'Nids.
tahrikmili
> "Robert Williams" <ma...@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cks0g6$urg$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
>>>Drop pod: This thing's actually going to be represented in-game? I'm
>>>betting
>>>the model will be pricey, though.
>>
>>There isn't a model being developed yet, however, so it'll be at least 18
>>months until it comes out. Unless you want to get the FW of course.
>
>
> I think a pineapple would make a good proxy drop pod.
>
I was thinking of drybrushing pears with boltgun metal..
Yalaz Ozkanli
Ancient Gamer
said...
>
I don't know, this just strikes me as being too good to pass up...
--
Jim M
posted on this day, the 4064th of September 1993
Ancient Gamer
said...
> smithdoerr wrote:
Go to a craft shop and get a few ceramic pears...
Doctor Rock
"smithdoerr" <askmef...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tf1r7F...@uni-berlin.de...
you could drop it from the top of the stairs and claim it's a mycetic spore
carrying a Tyranid Abortion.