Talk:Warhammer 40,000 8th edition

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Fluff Updates[edit]

  • Let's try and keep this section limited to actual new fluff. At the moment, everything in it except for the expanded Necron Empire and Cicatrix Maledictum refers to events that still technically fall under 7th Edition, not 8th.
  • In that case, best keep it blank since we don't even really know what the story is with those yet. No need to jump the gun quite this soon. --Newerfag (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

NuMarines[edit]

Just a thought: what if the NuMarines are to Guilliman what the Custodes are to the Emperor? It'd explain the whole new-sons-genetic-tampering thing pretty nicely, and explain why they're different than the old Astartes.

  • They'll probably be in between regular marines and Custodes. But I'm still betting that the new marines are gonna end up like how the Raven Guard raptors did. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Since 8th edition is taking a lot from AoS, and AoS started with Sigmarines, how about calling the NuMarines "Guillimarines"?

AoSification editwar[edit]

So apparently my remark on 40k offends someones feelings. Tell me where I'm wrong:

  • Everything moves only in the movement phase, including run which is renamed "advance". Just like in AoS.
  • Fixed to hit chance in melee and shootng, with modificators on top of it. Just like in AoS.
  • Manual wound allocation. Just like in AoS.
  • Blasts and flamers now deal random number of hits. Just like in AoS.
  • Powerful weapons now deal multiwounds. Just like in AoS.
  • Cover works as armour modifier. Just like rend in AoS.
  • AP is a negative save modifier. Just like in AoS.
  • Psychic power mechanic is word for word AoS magic.
  • Leadership Phase is word for word AoS battleshock.
  • Character rules are copy-pasted from AoS
  • Melee rules are copy-pasted from AoS
  • Even unit profiles contain the same information as AoS warscrolls, albeit in easier to read way without that bullshit statcircle (and with T&S stats)

What we get to keep from complete AoSification are T/S wounding and detachment force org. Entire level of tactics based on unit positioning is now gone, psychic phase resource management game is gone, leadership now forces shooty armies to go MSU, and melee rules force melee units to go full hordemode.

Sure, 6-7 e went RnG and rules bloat beyond reason, but this is not simplifying, it's dumbing down.

Sure, I'll tell you where you're wrong.
  • So no change then? Everyone I know did running in the movement phase anyway since there wasn't any point to wait until the shooting phase to do it, and this way they didn't forget to run these units later. Also AoS took running from 40k, which has been doing it since 3rd edition.
  • Fixed to hit for shooting? Oh no, so instead of Marines hitting on 3's, now they hit on 3's! Seriously there's no difference where BS is concerned, though melee actually is a little bit of a different story. That's one bit they did take from AoS.
  • "Manual wound allocation. Just like in AoS." I think you mean "Just like 3rd edition, 4th edition and 5th edition." 40k did this for what, nearly 12 years before they stopped? They just brought it back so it's not like you can claim it's from another game.
  • AoS never had blast or flamer templates as far as I'm aware (and if they never switched you can't say it's similar to them switching), as far as I'm concerned I'd actually call that something new rather than something borrowed.
  • "Powerful weapons now deal multiwounds. Just like in AoS." I think you mean "just like WHFB" since AoS was not the first game to do this and if you look up forum posts you'll see people have been asking for this change for literally years before AoS and the End Times were even thought about.
  • Cover and AP both work more like WHFB now, you can't claim it's like AoS unless AoS was the first one to do it. Also while we're at it 40k used to have armour modifiers, so in this sense it's not borrowing from another game, it's bringing back an old mechanic.
  • Psychic Power mechanics are modified mechanics from both the original Psychic Powers and the WHFB magic.
  • Now the Leadership bit actually is from AoS, so you've got two points correct now, with the exception that killing enemy models doesn't buff up your own leadership.
  • "Character rules are copy-pasted from AoS" Bullshit. I don't recall a core rule in AoS that allows characters to move out of sequence, nor do I remember a rule that effectively renders smaller dudes invisible.
  • "Melee rules are copy-pasted from AoS" You're kind of cheating with this one since you already brought up WS as a separate point, and I'm not going to give you points for it either since you're forgetting that WHFB existed and so did 2nd edition. With the exception that Initiative no longer exists it's more like those two, and with the use of command points screwing up what your opponent tries to do it's definitely a different system.
  • Unit profiles contain the same information as 40k datasheets with the exception of Initiative and the change to the To Hit rolls. Seriously are you aware that datasheets for various units existed before this point?
  • "Entire level of tactics based on unit positioning is now gone..." Bullshit. Positioning's now more important than ever because bad positioning leaves your characters in the open which causes them to get slaughtered. You can also use good positioning to chain combats, get extra attacks from pistols, prevent enemy squads from shooting, run away to leave the enemy vulnerable, there's so much you can do there. Also badly positioning your squad means it'll get charged which means it strikes LAST! Seriously how is that dumber? Before you could have a squad of Marines with Power weapons and not care if they could get charged, because they'd annihilate the enemy before they could attack! The bonuses to cover as well means that no matter what your save is you'll always benefit from taking cover so that's also key! I can't think of a single reason why positioning is less important now, because everything's showing me it's more important than ever.
  • "psychic phase resource management game is gone..." Thank the Lord! That was one of the worst additions to 7th, no edition before 7th used it and I'll be happy to go back to a time without it. Also the introduction of the Psychic Power Pool was more akin to the Wizards from WHFB anyway so I'd have thought you'd be happy to see this one go.
  • "leadership now forces shooty armies to go MSU..." Just like every other edition besides 7th.
  • "and melee rules force melee units to go full hordemode." No they don't. Nowhere does it say that having more models makes the unit inherently better the same way it does things like Skaven in AoS. Small charging units like termies still have a ridiculous number of attacks, still hit really well, really hard, and they're more than enough to crush enemy units.
So there you have it, for all your whining there's two points taken from AoS, while the rest aren't. -- Triacom (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually it was even wound allocation before saves, so while you can allocate low-ap wounds on some expendable guys if your squad got hit with a bucket of shots, sarges and special weapons would be n a risk too,
  • Yes, and this is only the slightest of changes. Also are you forgetting when you could look out sir unsaved wounds off of somebody? Like I said this isn't all that new.
WHFB did
And AoS isn't WHFB.

40k used to have armour modifiers in 2 ed. And it was a clusterfuck.

Hardly. At least you admit this isn't something created by AoS.

For the record, Triacom, trying to paint "mechanics from older editions of 40k/WHFB" that just so happen to be similar to or identical to AoS as being taken from that earlier edition instead of AoS is disingenuous as fuck when it's obvious from context that the changes are being made to harmonize the AoS and 40k rulesets. I think we're actually in violent agreement here, but trying to sugarcoat AoSification of 40k as some magical return to the old school to make it go down better instead of just acknowledging the similarities and taking note of the parts that indicate GW has actually learned from AoS's mistakes makes you look like you're being paid by GW or some shit like that. OriginalPrankster (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What I'm against is calling 'new' mechanics from AoS new, when AoS took most of its existing mechanics from 40k and fantasy. I don't doubt that GW are bringing in/back said mechanics because of their success in AoS, however if you're going to tell me that something like running is brought over from that game instead of adapted to the original one based on the success of another, then I'm going to have a problem with it. -- Triacom (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting all these comparisons to WHFB or which edition you're refering to. Most of the points that you called WHFB on are so completely out to lunch that it makes me wonder if you've ever played WHFB and if so which edition.\n No AoS does not count. It's not because WHFB and AoS both use 6-sided dice that everything else is the same.

Nope you are wrong[edit]

Yes we are getting a aos like game every boding that is denying that is blind, dumb or both. But a lot of the wrong / stupid rules are change for the better. Notes to every point you make

  • abeletys will make this different the already talked about this (plus do you want jump shoot jump units) Positive VS 7th and same as aos
  • fixed to hit on shooting no changes except name bs 4 or 3+ to hit (makes no difference) ws changes are huge butt is this positive or negative i do not know
  • true is bad agree (house rule it)
  • i will need to see if these are bad, the simplify but in a good or bad way i do not know (at least it will speed up the game)
  • Great changes (cover was a mess)
  • Great changes (melta now goes trough a thermenator and his tree)
  • 7th was a mess so any overhaul is nice
  • now i do not need to ignore that phase of the game (positive)
  • rule bloat reduction (great)
  • I cannot give a fair opinion ass a primary shooty army player
  • rule bloat reduction again great.

Summery most of these changes are great the only one that is not is wound allocation (which is easily fixable) for template weapon i need to see it for my self and the combat i cannot judge over so conclusion yes we get aos IN SPACE but it is going to by better then 7th (probably) (this is my first edit on this (talk)page so it was not me you offended) BibiFloris (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Skub General[edit]

Which was better, Marrowind or Skyrim? Marrowind gave more depth and more customization with a more vibrant world, but was obtuse to new players and relied on fundamentally broken game mechanics to reach any real success. There isn't a clear "better" or "worse", just different.

The change to 8th will be different. It's much more of a fundamental shift in how the game plays than the change from 6th to 7th. This isn't just a game, but a hobby. People have invested thousands of dollars and man-hours into their armies. A radical change in the nature of the game is... rightfully viewed through a lens of great caution for those who are so invested. We know, I hope, in our hearts that the game is best when we have an active, engaged community. Hopefully the new edition will give us that. For the moment, though, we hold reservation and baited breath as we watch our armies, and our game, about to change.

  • I'm all for change, but it's that we're getting mechanically AoS-clone is what's worrying me. If I some day lose my mind want to play AoS I'd play it. Let 40k be 40k with different rules and tactics, not AoS clone just with T/S instead of fixed to-wound in weapons and woundbloat on models. Also subscribibg to hope when it's GW we're talking about is probably not the smartest of ideas - they broke their promises more then enough. Mezmerro (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Men of Iron codex?[edit]

I don't believe this is true, Men of Iron would basically be mechanicum Necrons which is pretty pointless. However it is possible they're coming back as new units for the Chaos Forces like the old Chaos Androids. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Exciting, to be sure, but pics or it didn't happen.

We've sprung a leak[edit]

So apparently a few folks have gotten their hands on some of the rules for 8th edition, as well as a couple bits of fluff and datasheets. I'll link it right here so someone with a little more know-how can get it all sorted out.

http://natfka.blogspot.ie/2017/05/8th-edition-40k-huge-rules-leak.html http://imgur.com/a/J7jGO (Fluff on the Tyranid attack on Baal, as well as datasheet for Hellblasters and points appendix for the Primaris Marines in the starter set)

They seem to check out if you ask me. --Newerfag (talk)

  • We've got another leak, this time for a bunch of Chaos Space Marine rules.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/333990-leaked-chaos-space-marine-rules/

I've heard leaks for SM, Orks, IG, and Tau are out there too but I haven't seen them myself. --Newerfag (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

    • Strike that, found the ones for Tau, Blood Angels, and some Space Marines.

http://pintorjoakero.blogspot.com.es/2017/05/taus-8th-index-leaks.html http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334013-full-leaked-blood-angels-rules-other-space-marine-prices/ --Newerfag (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This one is a link to photos of every page in every index. You could practically start writing the tactics from it.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4IGo22sDo4zdEtrRmEyelg2TkU

Interesting to see how the nids have gained anti tank, lost most of what made them an obscene shooting army and now are brutally ruthless in close combat. It's a total pivot. Devourers with Brainleech guns are getting snapped off every flyrant around the country in a few weeks. -- Swarmlord

  • My, that was fast. At least that means we'll have tactics pages up quickly. --Newerfag (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • On that topic when do we spin them up, and who will do it? The only tactic pages created are all 7E. --Swarmlord

Started it a little. Lukash (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Same. Tyranids started. But since it's 1AM NOT finished. --Swarmlord 00:00, 01 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Added bits and pieces to both. Will get started on Space Marines soon as well.--Newerfag (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I could use some help working on the Space Marines tactics, there's way too many units for me to make writeups of on my own. --Newerfag (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


For those interested if you go to the Pre-order page of the Imperial armour books and look at (example) xenos then in the gallery of that book you will see the content of the book AKA we know what moddels are going to get FW rules BibiFloris (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


I'm just going to leave this here: new link for photoallcodexandrulrbook

https://yadi.sk/d/mmnWHT8k3JnLcA

Power weapons[edit]

Fight out your edit war here and when you are done post it BibiFloris (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't an editwar at all, that was a single undo. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and if you didn't touch it whatever happens here wouldn't need to happen. For my point though, power weapons cut through armour as much as the blade will allow, so something with a longer blade will be able to cut deeper than something with a shorter blade since they all cut through equally. On the flip side something like an axe, that you can put more leverage into, would be much harder to block and therefore would make it easier to wound the target (hence the strength bonus), so the new power weapon profiles actually do make sense in-universe, even if real-life weapons don't work like that. -- Triacom (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry should have sad (i wrote the above with the intension off) before it turns into a edit war

BibiFloris (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that it's leaked, thoughts?[edit]

So I just finished reading through the individual Indexes, and while I haven't had the time to analyze everything in them I am impressed by what I've read so far. A lot of the bullshit from 7th is fixed, most overpowered things got nerfed while still remaining powerful, there's less random factors in terms of powers and abilities and some armies have neat little twists thrown in that they can use. As a quick example, you can choose which Canticles of the Omnissiah you use, but you can only choose that particular one once per game. If you roll on the chart and get it again however, it comes into play as many times as you roll it. In addition to this armies that badly needed buffs got them (I'm looking forward to winning with Sisters now) though I'm not yet sure if GW's fixed the cross-army rules sharing (nothing seems broken but there's a number of buffs that are easy to gain), I guess time will tell. Overall I'm rather optimistic about the rules and am curious what other people think of them. -- Triacom (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As a Chaos player, I'm not really seeing anything to get me interested about 8th. The only real boon I'm seeing is that Sonic Blasters are now assault instead of Salvo, and they get a free round of shooting after they die. And Obliterators got the nerfbat so hard, they became a different unit. The core rules are 'functional' but horribly exploitable/gamey in the abstractions involved, and I'm really not seeing much incentive to switch editions just yet when Traitor Legions came out only 6 or so months ago. MagicJuggler (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah not too much has changed for Chaos (though in my opinion what has changed is pretty big), but a lot's been changed for the armies you're going to be fighting. Tau aren't going to just nullify your army anymore and Eldar aren't going to run right through everything with their own pile of bullshit. Of course you might not fight those but I've got a lot of Chaos players around me that I know are going to be happy the local Tau/Eldar players aren't going to have such a leg up on them. -- Triacom (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm used to playing underdog armies and enjoy attempting to make them work. Dark Eldar in 3rd, Orks in 5th, etc. I skipped out on 6th, so I never experienced the craziness of Heldrakes back then. I felt Traitor's Hate gave options to make a viable army while Traitor Legions rounded it all off. While most my issues with 8th are with core mechanics (see: the flamers as anti-aircraft meme), it doesn't help that it's so uninspiring: Other than the Obliterator nerf, Terminators are now minimum squad size 5 (I feared this would happen), Bikers can no longer do bolt Pistol and chainsword (one or the other), Death to the False Emperor is a melee-only boon (lacking ATSKNF wasn't as big of an issue when Ld 10 was easy to get), etc. And due to flamers being d6 hits on a unit, combined with Airborne rules, Heldrakes go from crowd control to being an ersatz sniper rifle for Chaos: Fly next to an enemy character so it's the closest model, then burn it. This doesn't strike me as extensively playtested. MagicJuggler (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I know how it feels to be the underdog (I play Sisters so I can guarantee that) however I'll disagree on it not feeling like it was playtested. If the other armies hadn't changed I feel that this would be a bad book, however they were changed and in some cases given massive reworks. While they can't easily get Ld 10 anymore, much like nearly every other army in the game (seriously, there's been a massive leadership nerf all across the board) it is still easy to make them Ld9 with the Icons, and Death to the False Emperor helps win melee even against Loyalist Marines. Honestly I'd argue that Ld9+DttFE is better than ATSKNF since that rule no longer stops Marine players from losing troops in Assault. Also provided the enemy is smart with bubble-wrapping their characters, Heldrakes are going to have a very tough time getting close enough to burn characters since they still need to land 1" away from enemy units to do so, and their own base is quite large. It might also be suicide since being that close exposes them to the full brunt of the enemy's retaliatory fire and given their cost, I don't think you're going to make their points back in that way. -- Triacom (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but the read I'm getting from the caps I've seen and the 8chan hivemind is that it's horribly, horribly bland and unfinished; no relics, no fluffiness, no fun. (Apparently fun costs extra. Welcome to New Games Workshop, it's exactly the same as the old Games Workshop but with more memes.) Also Orks got nerfed again (by AoS spread rules as well as the new datasheets) and that's a fucking war crime. I wouldn't be surprised if Warpath ends up taking off if the rest of the shit we get this edition is the same or GW starts jewing even harder than they already are (making numarine equivalents for every faction to redo the Knight cycle with infantry, squatting Slaanesh, playing DLC games with the rules again). Shame, I was actually interested in 8th edition's core rules, because even though it was obviously going to be a different beast from "old" 40k it seemed like they were actually designing. OriginalPrankster (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on that "read" of yours. On all fronts (specially the orcs being overall nerfed). -- Anon
Yeah there's no relics and it's based entirely around rules only, which is exactly what GW said it would be, however I highly disagree that it's unfinished and un-fun. They're doing the Ravening Hordes approach where everyone got a mini-book and will be getting proper books later. Also, the Orks got nerfed? How? Not having to spread them out to avoid blasts helps in crossing the board (as does not removing the closest model when you lose one), their boyz are really cheap with very large units, WAAAGH!'s happen every turn now, Weirdboyz get more and more powerful the more boyz are around them, mob rule has been buffed as it still has their unit size count as their Leadership with no cap anymore, so you can be up to Ld30 and they don't even have to have that many models in their own unit. A unit of Burna's still counts as Ld30 so long as a unit of 30 boyz is within 6", and this applies to everything except vehicles (so all normal units can be Ld30 with proper positioning and you can kiss moral losses goodbye). Orks no longer have to worry about terrible Initiative or not ignoring saves with anything but Unwieldy weapons (as most of their usual weapons either give more attacks or have negative AP traits). Even things that seem worse, like Painboy's providing a weaker save, have their use as while the bubble they give is small, their save allows Orks to ignore Mortal Wounds and more importantly, they can regenerate D3 Wounds of any Orks around them. You know what's also good? Ammo Runts aren't used up when the unit they're attached to fires, and are ignored for the purposes of moral, so you can use them to provide re-rolls and then use them later in the game as Wound sponges since the Orks don't care about the Grots that die. To finish this off, if you get a Nob with a banner, every Ork unit (not model) within 6" of him hits the enemy on 2+. There's a lot more I could get into but you get the point, I really don't see how they're weak. If anything this reminds me of people complaining that Imperial Guard are gutted since MechVets are a little too expensive, even though nearly everything else in the army is improved (Roughriders, Ogryns and Ratlings are actually usable now!). -- Triacom (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Have any of you already played the game?
If no then pleas don't judge a game on this core level before you have played it, especially on the part of nerfs and buffs (this is useless anyway because nerfs are relative and everything changed).
I personally have played 3 games 2 1500pts and 1 1000pts and all three where fun and 2 were balanced (dont go big monster against 4 hammerheads). The most inportent one tho this discussion is the 1500 pts battel orks vs tau short description: Fun , balanced , draw. Yes we played a draw I played my tau against a ork player, I almost lost but just barely scraped out a draw by getting line breaker. so nerf yep but not to orks. and please stop judging before you play it yourself. BibiFloris (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I have, the most recent two were Necrons vs Eldar (pro-tip, Necrons need vehicles against Eldar if the Eldar are bringing any sort of Wraiths) and Genestealer Cults vs Eldar. So far I'm liking how much faster the new system is and it doesn't feel as annoying to play. -- Triacom (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Having watched first-hand, I've seen...the opposite go down. At the LGS, one player ran a fairly vanilla Space Wolf list (a mix of mech, Razorbacks, Fangs, etc) and his opponent ran Tzeentch Daemons. What happened next wasn't an affair of tactics but attrition and hard countering: There was no point to either side staying in cover, since the Daemon player had better Invulnerable Saves than cover could give and could Smite into melee, while the Space Wolf player had no reason to stay in cover since the Tzeentch player was spamming Smite. The Razorbacks couldn't do enough damage for their points, since Horrors are so durable for their points and the entire source of the Daemon's dakka was on Characters...this left Assault, where the Space Wolf player whiffed on attacks, and the whole "charge a unit with transports" schtick didn't work since the Daemon player could just consolidate around the transports to prevent disembark, then reposition Smites to delete. This of course led to "meta discussion", "tournament organizers can't do basic math", "guess hordes are in this edition", etc. Between these games and others floating around (one player uses Hover Mode, charges his opponent's Russ turn 1 with a Valkyrie, Russ cannot retreat because it deployed in a corner so they spend the rest of the game playing Battlebots), I think I'll wait for an 8th Age project to come together. MagicJuggler (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I was afraid the rules simplification would lead to that. OriginalPrankster (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen/played against any Daemons yet, and given that Smite's available to everyone I guess I'm not too surprised that happened. I can't really think of any army besides Daemons and possibly Telepathica where that would happen that often though. On a side note, regular Marines would be able to counter Daemons that try this thanks to Null Zone. As for the other bits you mentioned, I don't think I can blame the game if the Space Wolf player whiffed that badly for attacks (after all, I've seen a game in a previous edition where a Khorne army lost in melee to Tau, and that was just bad luck) and as far as the tank goes, that's a very good reason not to deploy in a corner. -- Triacom (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Deploy a tank on your table edge, not in a corner. This does bring up the question though: why bother taking tanks if the game is penalizing you for trying to use them as tanks? Or mechanically speaking, what is even going on between the Russ and Valkyrie that prevents anything from just shooting the Valkyrie in the first place? As for the SW game, the thing was he didn't whiff that much. Although he used Blue Horrors, he could have easily done the tarpit more efficiently with Brimstone Horrors; they are 2 points per T3 model with 4++ save, and the Daemon player was able to basically "ignore" battleshock either with reserved command points or just sucking it up. One final issue with the implementation of Battleshock was that it's for "individual units" rather than in a "combat per combat" basis. At the end of 7th, I found that if you shot Blue Horrors with one unit, and set up a multicharge against them and the Brimstones, you could rack up extra combat resolution vs the Brimstones (since T1 and W2 = instant death), and force Instability (remember No Retreat in 5e?). In theory if you had the means to "connect" even more assaults together you could set up a chain reaction and do some real damage. Now...it was very much "paper beats rock". (Incidentally, Null Zone is only 6" so by itself is arguably not that practical, especially considering mass denial attempts and Psychic Focus). MagicJuggler (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New FAQ under Designers' Commentary[edit]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/17/new-edition-now-available-read-the-rules-get-the-t-shirtgw-homepage-post-1/

Fuck your denial[edit]

It's the first stage of grief, and a natural one, but stop trying to pretend this edition is anything close to good, especially for narrative campaigns. It's an affront to Your Dudes; suddenly, all the rules that made your army interesting and unique are gone, not to mention that alternate deployment and positioning tactics are now effectively irrelevant. I get wishing that even codices could make this good, but we need to take 8E as is for now. EatTheRich (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally in the same boat, but people got pissy whenever I pointed out the bad shit. I'd also like to point out that even if the codices fix it, that's still a massive bait and switch on GW's part since we were told that we'd be getting complete (or at least complete-ish) rules for free and the fluff would cost money instead. OriginalPrankster (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relax. If it's anything like what happened in AoS, those rules will be restored with the codexes. Of course it isn't perfect, but honestly anything would be better than the bloated clusterfuck of formations, entire books' worth of USRs, and cheese that was 7th edition. And with the way you keep accentuating the negative and whitewashing 7e, I can hardly say you're taking 8e as it is. In fact, it seems more like you're trying to shut it down before it can even get started. Get some perspective instead of immediately assuming this edition is ruined not a month after its release. --Newerfag (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, I'm starting to think you're a GW store manager or something. Yes, 7e is a clusterfuck, but what we're seeing here is way too far in the opposite direction. Yes, I'm possibly being a little hard on 8e, but me and the other guy are at least trying to qualify our claims to reflect that we don't have the final cut yet. Can't we just leave it as "it's not looking good but there's a chance the codices could make it better?" OriginalPrankster (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Age of Sigmar was characterful from the outset, even before it had points. 8E is just boring. In AoS, Dwarf Lords stand their ground to inspire their men while Scourge Privateers order their underlings to kill shit and Sorceresses sacrifice their allies. In 8E? Reroll 1s to hit within 6 inches of your commander, fewer than 5 exceptions. EatTheRich (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Better to just shut the fuck up and wait first. So far, those qualifications have just sounded like hysterics about how everything is horrible just because the special snowflake rules for every other weapon have been replaced by something that doesn't take 10 minutes to look up. Plus, I remind you that the AoS warscroll compendiums were just as skeletal and boring as the current indexes if not even more so, but those too were resolved by the battletomes. What makes you think this will be different?
Additionally, Your Dudes is a phenomenon primarily powered by fluff- how you paint them, what their backstories are, all that stuff. The rules should have absolutely no bearing on your ability to use your imagination about things like leadership styles. If you want my opinion, there's nothing to quantify because it hasn't been around long enough for that to happen. Just wait and see, that's all you have to say and do. If I'm Polyanna, you two must obviously be the crazy man on the sidewalk with the big sign saying "THE END IS NEAR".--Newerfag (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think that my Iron Hands should be tougher and more disciplined but less agile than White Scars. It's not "your dudes" when your Imperial Fists who are supposed to be disciplined are no less likely to run away than Raven Guard. Furthermore, let me spell it out for you. The. Warscroll. Compendiums. Were. Shit. But. They. Were. Not. Boring. Or. Skeletal. Different armies and models had *gasp* rules that were significantly different from each other, giving you powerful and complex options beyond a small reroll bubble. 8E doesn't even have that depth. EatTheRich (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE STOP LIKING THINGS THAT I LIKE" -Most of the people above this line

Yea cute, nobody cares about your bitching. Literally everyone I talk to and have games with is pretty much unanimously agreeing that 8th edition is a huge improvement over 7th. People are actually having fun now that the game is significantly more balanced, and the changes to shooting+assault caused a marked increase to the level of tactical depth presented in this game.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, I've seen the opposite, alongside enough "violation of common sense" rules coming up in basic play ("this character is the only visible target, but is not the closest target so cannot be shot", "Inferno Cannons are better at anti-aircraft than crowd control", etc), while the system is favoring skew even more than mixed armies. Not to mention there are quite a bit of wonky point costs (2 points to switch out a Jetbike's Shuriken Catapults for Cannons), and buggy rules (Overcharged Plasma is twice as likely to kill you at nighttime), that while 7e was broken by certain combinations of units or tacked-on charts (D, Stomp. etc), 8e is broken due to its own core rules. MagicJuggler (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Behold, real hands-on experience from an ordinary human being who isn't trying to sell you minis. OriginalPrankster (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Behold, a spergo who whined through multiple threads that he couldn't have an army lead by a fucking Crabthedral!
Behold, someone followed me from Dakka, with a chip on their shoulder. I am upset about losing a good deal of the Chaos part of Chaos Space Marines (had that talk with Gav awhile back), but that's another thing altogether. I had numerous reservations about 8th before the Indexes came out. Removal of vehicle facings/LOS, tank shock, AOEs, withdrawing from melee (since killing stuff wasn't the challenge, but being stranded in the open was), etc. I have my reservations and have witnessed the game break on itself. So...if that makes me a spergo, by all means yell at me for not buying into the hype train. GW doesn't need internet white knights. MagicJuggler (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Behold, someone who's forgotten these rules will be getting consistent updates specifically to address shit like that. --Newerfag (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Seeing is believing, and GW has a questionable track record. "Wait for 8th" has become "wait for the codex", "wait for the FAQ" has become "wait for the FAQ to the FAQ". Point adjustments are one thing, but the system as a whole needs a rewrite. 2 years of playtesting, indeed. MagicJuggler (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Houseruling is a thing. Use it instead of having to ask GeeDubs for clarification. If it seems off to you, houserule it- they aren't going to break down your door and arrest you because you made some small tweaks here and there. Why weren't you doing that already?--Newerfag (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
House ruling is one thing, but not a universal thing. Hell, you could argue that 7e didn't even have a stable meta since different tournament formats basically Calvinballed the shit out of the game, but I digress). A tight ruleset benefits everyone, while ambiguously written rules or illogical rules give ammo to That Guy. MagicJuggler (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Remember, GW is a miniatures company that dabbles in rules- they have zero interest in making such a tight ruleset, and if that's what you want then you should consider playing another wargame. They gave every indication that they weren't going to make that tight ruleset, and most of the people who didn't like it just shrugged their shoulders and stayed with 7e. And as long as they find they attract more players with simple rules than complex ones, it's not going to change.--Newerfag (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop liking things I like? Where the fuck does that come from? Good for your group, but Age of Sigmar literally has more characterful rules and tactical depth than 40k. I can't believe I'm saying that, but it's unfortuantely true. EatTheRich (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Commissar reducing morale penalties from a Guard Squad? That's him BLAM-ing a coward. Tau using For the Greater Good? They're looking out for their allies on the battlefield. Heck, the FW preview for the next Index suggests the Death Korps of Krieg is getting their wown set of orders, rules, and so on, so in this case it was a matter of GW rushing to get something playable out in time for the new models to be released. As for all those powerful and complex rules? They were what made deathstars possible, and I can see why they didn't trust the players not to exploit them again. It's far more likely when the Codexes come out, they'll be returned in a far more balanced form; if that's not enough, just go and join the other grognards.--Newerfag (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But what about Ultramarines being as deadly in melee as World Eaters, or Magnus and Ahriman being equal in psychic power? Or Imperial Fists being as sneaky as Night Lords? EatTheRich (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You use Berserkers, Mark of Khorne, and Death to the False Emperor for World Eaters, obviously. Psychic powers are a bit of a setback, but it's still a step forward from 7e's mess. And Night Lords weren't even sneaky until the Traitor Legions supplement.--Newerfag (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see now you meant Blood Angels, not World Eaters. In that case, them being better at CC was represented in large part by their having Assault Squads as troops, and since now troops aren't mandatory that part is irrelevant. The other parts were a mix of unique units, characters, and access to hand flamers and inferno pistols (and given the changes to pistols, they're actually better in CC now than they were before), and army-wide Furious Charge which now is rendered meaningless thanks to the removal of USRs. If you even bothered to look at the game, you'd find that most of your arguments are shakier than they seem.--Newerfag (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So my Hammerheads having the exact same range as a Leman Russ Basic isn't something to be questioned, despite every bit of fluff saying that Leman Russ's couldn't match them for range? There were multiple examples of what you're describing in the old editions as well. The Greater Meh (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There were isolated examples, but this whole edition is riddled with it. Furthermore, the range of 2 guns is different from something as key to an army's identity as force-wide charge bonuses or Daemonic Instability. EatTheRich (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And I'm fairly certain if you go back to the old Editions and track the way they progressed to 7th, you'll see much more of that. It's a predictable pattern of development. Honestly, I'm waiting for the next edition to escape this whole everything looks and feels the same plague. Development of these games usually happens slowly, so as to not scare away masses of fanbases with massive sweeping changes until they become neccesary. The Greater Meh (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Given the reactions so far, the average player would apparently prefer absolutely zero changes beyond the ones they hand-picked, and since they act as if they have no clue what they actually want that just gets you a big mess like 7e.--Newerfag (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd say there's a pretty good consensus of "what they actually want": not this. OriginalPrankster (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
While there are some disagreements abount some things (Templates, and scatter come to mind), there is still a large consesus on most things, with the answer being, this is kinda shit.
You and your group of friends does not count as "a pretty good consensus", let alone have a claim to speak for the entire fanbase. I can look on /tg/ now and see just as many people saying that this is what they wanted. What gives you the right to say your opinion counts for more than theirs? --Newerfag (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you even read your own writing? The removal of Rage, Furious Charge, USRs in general did more to take flavor from the game than any other single change. It's WHY Blood Angels and World Eaters aren't better than Ultras in assault, dumbass. EatTheRich (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
They were universal, which meant they applied to everyone and therefore only added flavor if you could convince yourself that this guy's FC was somehow different from the other guy's. Just look at Khorne Berzerkers (I.E. World Eaters) now and tell me they aren't objectively better than they were in 7e. FC vs. fighting twice in the fight phase? It's no contest. --Newerfag (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Blood Angels assault marines don't hit any harder than Ultramarine assault marines barring situational wargear. Until that changes, we have a massive problem with characterfulness. Until an Iron Warriors Chaos Lord buffs his army differently from a Wolf Lord, until a thousand other little changes make the game more fun, I'm not letting this drop. EatTheRich (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And how do you propose that will happen when you can't even wait for the Codexes? Think of what you have now as a public playtest- their priority is to make sure the game is playable and out in stores, with fluffy stuff coming afterwards. The only reason this wasn't obvious before is because every other edition was derived from 3e in a way that the old ones could fill in for missing fluff. And even then that wasn't always untouched, as CSM players who went through Gav Thorpe's codex can attest. --Newerfag (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's a public playtest then why do we have to pay for it? OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Because this is GeeDubs, stupid. Did you earnestly believe they'd give out the core rules for free without any strings attached?--Newerfag (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think EatTheRich and others are overreacting, if they weren't already. They don't like it, I get that. But they're just as dense as the people saying 8e is flawless given how many things it did fix, and right now the metagame is far too new to make sweeping generalizations, let alone assume that there will be absolutely no changes made in the future. How about stopping the hysterics and keeping the predictions of doom and gloom to yourselves?--Newerfag (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

> How about stopping the hysterics and keeping the predictions of doom and gloom to yourselves?
> acknowledgement of glaring flaws in the initial ruleset without ignoring the chance of codices fixing everything
> predictions of doom and gloom
> disappointment in GW's handling of "the best edition ever" so far
> hysterics
o i am kekkin OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Funny, disappointment doesn't normally involve making mountains out of molehills- just look at the page now and you'll see I did exactly what you did with less than half of the whining. And where did I personally call it the best edition ever? All I said is that it was better than 7e. --Newerfag (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And it turns out the pre-edit war state of the article said everything you wanted to and then some. I reverted it to that. --Newerfag (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. The thing is the stuff you edited out because you were butthurt was more specific, more evocative, and simply made the article better. Moreover, you still haven't provided a rational argument for why 8th edition is good or why we shouldn't write about the parts that aren't so good at this point beyond "wait for the codex." (Remember, edits are free, so when the meta shifts it can just get edited to reflect that. Oh, and since I know it was you bitching about the AoS page being out of date while you were logged out, recognize that 40k seems just a little bit more popular than AoS around these parts, and therefore the 40k page is more likely to be updated by people who know what needs updated.) And I don't appreciate being called a liar when I simply reverted it to the point where I noticed you were editwarring while a talkpage discussion was underway and added the editwar template. OriginalPrankster (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. What was there specifically mentioned the loss of unique mechanics and wargear, but since it wasn't in the narrative section you clearly overlooked it. Either that or fluffy rules no longer count as "unique mechanics" anymore, and I doubt that was your intention. 8e being "good" or not has nothing to do with this, since if anything that would just be another hasty judgment which I would rather discourage. What part of "too early to tell" is so objectionable? And I never even touched the AoS page since I couldn't care less about it, that had to be some other anon, and I say he should update it himself if that's how he feels.--Newerfag (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
> And I never even touched the AoS page since I couldn't care less about it, that had to be some other anon, and I say he should update it himself if that's how he feels.
It sure looks a lot like you, what with Special:Contributions/81.32.107.200 blending seamlessly with your edit history on this page and all. Are you editing on a mobile broadband network or something? OriginalPrankster (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I always stay logged in to edit even when I am editing on a mobile network. Sure I might agree with some of his opinions, but that doesn't make him me. Besides, I'd rather update shit myself instead of asking others to do it for me. --02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hell, some of these may get better once codices are out, but we'll need faction-specific warlord traits, psychic powers, and relics. And Chapter Tactics/Legion rules will have to come back in a fluffy way. Night Lords have been sneaky at least since ADB, Blood Angels need a buff, etc. Then I'll consider claims that it's not that bad, but you had rules like Skaven killing each other from day one in AoS. We might make a note of that. Also, EvilExecutive, you're utterly pathetic. Clogging up the page and throwing around insults that make no sense without actual contributions? Classy.
I act on the assumption that the indexes are a stopgap, and should not be viewed as indicative of the armies in their final state. However, I do believe they may have been rushed to meet deadlines and could have benefitted from at least a few more months of development. As for fluff, I find there's always been a divorce between fluff and crunch; forget the difference in combat effectiveness, think more about how practically all the gene-seed organs have absolutely no effects in-game.--Newerfag (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Same here, but I know from my own halting forays into homebrewing (and how fucking lazy GW can get) that while they may not represent the armies in their final state, there's a good chance that they do set the tone for what will follow simply because of how hard it can be to change the course of a major project once you've put significant effort into it. Moreover, while the indices may be a stopgap, that certainly doesn't stop us from writing without weasel words about the state of the game as it is now with a "codex may change this" footnote. Again, edits are free. OriginalPrankster (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, I insist that we not jump to that conclusion without getting evidence that this shall be the rule for how things will go first. Better to keep a neutral (not positive mind you, just neutral) stance long enough to see the metagame stabilize and full codexes come our, and even then state our opinions under the condition that we know them to be subjective. As has been noted on /the/ itself more than once, this website does not always share the same opinions as the board; I could list quite a few examples of that I'd you are so inclined to hear them, some of which involved at least a few of us directly. --Newerfag (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Woah, people overreacted the hell out of this section. Well I'd like to throw in my two cents here, starting by saying that removing certain 'tactical' decisions isn't a bad thing, so long as it makes the game run smoother. Let's take an exaggerated example, and say that every weapon had a differing profile depending on how far away you were from the target. Think of them like a Frag Cannon, only instead of 2 profiles, we had 10 or more profiles per each weapon, some of them getting worse the closer you were, some getting worse the farther away you were. Additionally, let's say that each model had an armour facing, with different save modifiers being applied depending on which side was shot, based entirely on how the firing model was positioned in relation to them. If we had these and got rid of them, would that make the game less 'tactically' challenging? Yes. Would it make the game smoother and (for the majority of people) more fun? Yes, and it was for this reason that they got rid of a lot of wacky mechanics when they moved from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. They changed how the game played, and overall it was better for it. Just like back then, significantly trimming down rules that mostly wasted time and killed the flow of the game isn't a bad thing, even if it makes the game simpler in the long run.
Next up, there are still a lot of unique rules, even in the trimmed down Indexes. I don't see Necrons playing like Marines or Eldar for example. Also if you're really that upset over similar armies being the same for now, then you really should have read GW's community page when they talked about these rules and told us exactly what we were getting. 3rd ed did the exact same thing for crying out loud, it's not like this is going to be permanent especially when they stated it was not.
Next is the complaint that this is less friendly to your dudes. Sorry, but what? All the faction keywords were done in a way to make this more friendly to your dudes since this allows you to say exactly where you are from and receive bonuses from that, not to mention your dudes was always a headcanon thing to the player and that hasn't changed now.
Second to last, let's look at the complaint that the removal of USR's removed flavour from the game. No, this is simply and utterly wrong as USR's as a whole were just a checklist of what you had/didn't have. USR's were one of the most complained about things because you could have a whole list from multiple books to flip through and keep track of, and now you have the same rules but with very defined names. Different names can give the same effects, not because they're from the same source, but because the armies use different means to get to the same end which actually gives more flavour to the various armies.
Finally you can't call edits the main article that you do, 'making the article better' if all you're doing is inserting your opinion into it, most of which consists of whining. -- Triacom (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
USRs themselves aren't the issue though; I seriously doubt people complained that 4th/5th had too many USRs. What has been GW's issue has generally been that they're...inconsistent in applying USRs, either "making up" rules that should be Universal (Necron Tesla Weapons, Space Wolf Living Lightning, and Admech Taser weapons all had "6s to-hit result in 2 extra hits", all under different names), copy-pasting the same USR (see: "Stealth", "Shrouded", "This power gives Stealth, unless you have Stealth in which case it's replaced with Shrouded", rather than having "Stealth (X)"), or having some USRs which frankly were pointless (Hi "Soul Blaze"). Adding a universal Movement Stat? I'm for that. It helps remove rules like Fleet, Supersonic, Fast, Slow & Purposeful, Heavy, etc. Moving all other rules onto respective datacards, and giving them faction-specific names? Eh, not so much. Look at vehicle explosions for one: Some vehicles do D3 mortal wounds on 6, some do 1 on 6, some do 1 on 4+, some do D3 on 6 (+2 to this roll if a Hellhound), etc. Maybe I'm feeling crotchety because I remember the early days of 5th edition when Dark Angels and Black Templar used "4th edition" Storm Shields/Nartheciums/Typhoon Missile Launchers, or maybe because I'm used to seeing them used in a concise matter (look at how they're used in, say, Kings of War), but "Universal Rules" help protect against unintended bugs. As a notable example of this: Grey Hunters can take a Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor. This does NOT give the unit the Terminator Keyword, letting said WG Leader hop in a Rhino. Deathwatch that take a Terminator DO gain the Terminator Keyword, meaning not only can they NOT take a Rhino, but EVERYONE in the unit (Power Armor guys, etc) is treated as a Terminator for purposes of transport space, etc. (On another note, "Bulky(X)", where X is how many spaces you take in a transport, would have been far better than how 6th had Bulky, Very Bulky, and Extremely Bulky. Ah well).
Anyway, other than "loss of flavor", a general complaint that does come up is the game is...buggy. For all the bloat 7th had, the core rules at least "made sense". If you shot at a unit, the closest models died first, while models that weren't in Line of Sight were safe. If you tried to melee a tank, it would attempt to run you over or get out of the way, as opposed to being walled in by a space midget! Aircraft would "get the drop" on you, but didn't shoot lasers from their engines, and Plasma weapons were not more likely to blow up at nighttime. Likewise, spreading your forces out would render you vulnerable to Deep Strike, rather than creating a giant bubble to deny it, while it's possible for Kharn the Betrayer to betray his fellow Khorne Berzerkers by failing a Charge Roll and taking a smoke break while they do the killing! RAW vs RAI remains spotty in areas too ("Can a squad split up into 2-man units with the buddy system?"); for all the idiosyncracies of 7th (and obvious balance issues), the game did get FAQ'd to hell and back, and answered most "game-breaker" issues (The most notable one being "Do Drop Pod Doors have any impact on the game?"). I see why 8th does allow certain tricks that weren't possible in 7th (Easier to take advantage of AT in large squads, and being able to charge a different unit than the ones you shot is cheeky), but the game feels like we're paying to playtest their alpha before we buy the "finished version" again. MagicJuggler (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Furious Charge on Blood Angels gave them a whole hell of a lot more flavor, and saying that being able to give your dudes a "Red Corsairs" keyword that makes no difference outside of Huron's buff is more friendly to your dudes is like saying that painting racing stripes on your Prius makes it fit for Nascar. But removing armor facings and Salvo-type weapons were good calls. Save modifiers? Great. Separate damage mechanic? Great. Vehicles becoming less effective as they take damage. Fluffy as hell AND gives the game a different tactical dimension. Movement values, also great. But the Space Marine commander buff auras all being the same is fucking lazy. Not to mention that Chaplains become much less useful. Lasguns being able to hurt Baneblades and Imperial Knights combined with the removal of templates shifts the meta in favor of hordes, which take forever to deal with in terms of setup and how many dice you roll. Like I've been saying to you retards, the Warscroll Compendiums gave each faction interesting and unique, if silly, rules. And in Age of Sigmar, poimts are broad yet appropriate barring some edgecases like the Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon costing more than the Abhorrant while having a worse spell amd command ability, worse rend on the breath weapon, and fewer attacks, but I digress. Point values in 8th, as granular and irregular as they are, are a real pain in the ass, while even some narrative players think power levels are poorly balanced. The article sounds like GW's fucking Warhammer Community site. I was gonna let this sit, but if you insist on coming late to the party and calling everyone children for participating in a discussion that needed to happen is just bad form. I was gonna let this sit. EatTheRich (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit, last I checked the flawa were pointed out in several places. Hardly worth calling it an equivalent to the Warhammer community page unless you want it to read as being completely negative. Haven't we just gone through this? --Newerfag (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
We did go through it, then Triacom had to shoot his mouth off. EatTheRich (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
We're probably going to keep going through this as long as EatTheRich wants to call people with different opinions retards. Also EatTheRich, don't pretend as if you were done here and had no plans to modify the main page to reflect how much you don't like 8th ed. At no point did I call anyone childish for thinking differently, unlike you who are upset enough to call others retards, and when that's the case you should really take a step back to cool off for a while so you don't do something stupid. -- Triacom (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
4th/5th had next to no universal rules compared to 6th/7th so it wasn't enough of an issue to complain about. Yes sometimes USR's protect against oversights, but seeing as how 7th ed got a ridiculous amount of FAQ's, it's clear that approach didn't work, and you cannot compare 7th ed with all of its FAQ's to 8th ed with only the designers commentary. That's just not a fair comparison. As for rules that 'make sense' go I'd agree, if they made the game more fun as a whole. It might make sense for each weapon to have varying profiles depending on the various ranges they're fired at too, but that wouldn't make the game fun, it would only make it more annoying to play. What most of the changes in 8th have done is remove the more annoying parts of the game, even if it does remove some tactical aspects of it, which in my opinion (and nearly everyone else in my group) makes the game more fun as a whole. As for you EatTheRich, your dudes was always a headcanon thing that was never represented in the rules, ever. You could make a Space Marine chapter that was founded from one of the traitor legions for example, but they still needed a loyalist chapter tactic, and yes, having a keyword to the faction your playing as actually does more to make it your own faction than before, considering that in all previous editions you just had your word for it and nothing else. Finally you shouldn't pretend as if you were done or have some sort of superiority when you made this section called 'Fuck Your Denial' specifically to argue with people. -- Triacom (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, 4th did have IG Doctrines and Chapter Traits, which I still miss, even if the internal balance was awry. ("Oh no, I have to give up Ratlings and Ogryns in order to give my Guard Deep Strike for free? Woe is meeee"). While it is not fair to compare "new" 8e with "FAQ'd" 7e, it is fair to ask why they bothered FAQing the system if they were going to tear it up and start anew, bringing up problems that didn't exist previously. "If it ain't broke" and all that. As for USRs, as mentioned they can fix things...if used right. Bringing up the "Bulky" USR, remember 5th? "Rhinos cannot transport models in Terminator Armor". This led to a case where one Rule Lawyer/That Guy argued you could transport Njal in a Rhino, because he was wearing Runic Terminator Armor, which didn't actually say it "counted as Terminator Armor", but repeated all the rules associated with it! Better to have a single "Bulky" USR rather than having one Rhino say "cannot transport models with the Centurion Keyword", another saying "cannot transport models with the Cult of Destruction Keyword", etc, or asking "can an Ordo Malleus Terminator embark upon a Custodes Land Raider" or other fringe cases where the game breaks. MagicJuggler (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed in the FW Astra Militarum index, both Death Korps and Elysian Drop Troops had entirely different order lists and unit types available to them. I assume this is likely how further differentiation will occur. However, Your Dudes must ultimately depend on the player's fluff. As for USRs, I suppose they were more concerned with ensuring a player only needed to know what was on his own data sheets instead of constant reference to USR lists; the intent from the beginning was increased convenience. (If you want my opinion, That Guy will.just find new loopholes to exploit so it's better to fall back on Rule Zero.)--Newerfag (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
They did have those, however you could never create your own, you always had to base your own models off of rules exemplified by other factions, which is what I was talking about. "...it is fair to ask why they bothered FAQing the system if they were going to tear it up and start anew..." Sorry but I don't understand this. If you're talking about FAQ'ing 7th ed, well there actually are people at GW who do care on some level about their consumers, so they want to help make their system work as well as they can so their players aren't shafted as much before they put out the new edition. I would actually disagree with your point on Bulky, I'd rather a list state within itself if there's limitations to the models that it cannot transport, within its own list (for example rhino's saying which unit types they can't transport) or failing that, having it state which unit types it can transport instead. In any case the keywords fix this issue without having to worry about further special rules on top of them since you can no longer claim that 'X Terminator Armour' isn't Terminator Armour. -- Triacom (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless you're a Wolf Guard in a Grey Hunter unit. Snark aside, the reason I asked "why a FAQ" is because answering those types of questions should give groundwork for what to include in your next edition. I doubt anyone asked about squad coherency in 7th for example, for even though the RAW was loopy ("a single unbroken chain"), the RAI was clear thanks to some basic diagrams. Anyway, I'll keep up with 8th, stick either with 5th/7th/homebrew (and work on oldhammer tactics) and hold off more reservations until I see how the rule updates get handled. Cheers mate. MagicJuggler (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the one who's claiming superiority, Triacom, and you calling someone combative is rich. This was titled Fuck Your Denial to get people's attention. Age of Sigmar is a better game than 8th edition 40k. Hell, 7th was preferable to this bland, dumbed down turd. And I was done arguing. Newerfag, who's been very reasonable in terms of intelligently debating the issue instead of pretending he's the arbiter of the wiki, and I reached a compromise in noting that the simplified crunch costs some armies their character. And let me spell this out for you: however you decided to choose your Chapter tactic, you could make your dudes tougher, or better bikers, or more disciplined, or whatever. The actual crunch could reflect the reason you chose your Marine army. Say you wanted a Loyalist Death Guard/Dusk Raiders force. You could pick Iron Hands to reflect the toughness of the Death Guard, Ultramarines to represent a Chapter that's very codex-adherent to avoid suspicion, whatever, but you could make why you like your marines show up on the table with no homebrew necessary! This is no longer true. No excuses about headcanon (the point is that 7th, for all its flaws, allowed headcanon to influence your army) or this being early and stripped down like the warscroll compendiums (the warscroll compendiums were at least characterful) will change that. More importantly, you've been a productive user for a long time. I've backed you up in an edit war or two. Yet now that I want our article to reflect a broader array of opinions about the flaws of 8th, (where did all this "better" and "superiority" stuff come from, anyway?) you declare me wrong because.. why? Digging through a rulebook for some USRs isn't that bad. I'm calling people who argue that AoS wasn't characterful from the outset morons. Retards was a bit too far, but I've had enough of this. You are productive, but you are not the arbiter of this wiki. I'm not saying a thing about superiority; it's not me who swooped in after the other involved parties declared "good enough" and decided to rant about other people overreacting because they wanted to point out 8th's many flaws. Look at the main page edit history if you don't believe me, or do you not even do your homework before pretending you can divine another user's true intensions over the Internet? EatTheRich (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I thank you for the vote of confidence. That said, EatTheRich, I noticed in the Forge World Index for the IG that both the Death Korps and the Elysian Drop Troops not only had their own sets of Orders that replaced the standard ones, but had exclusive special rules and entirely different units for their army lists compared to that of the standard Imperial Guard. While this may be premature of me to assert, I believe that they may be an example of what to expect in future codexes/indexes/what have you. So for now, let's let the subject rest there and hope for the best. What else is there to do now? --03:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't picked up the Forge World IG Index, but I think you're probably right about the future direction, at least with Forge World. And all this keyword business wouldn't have been so elaborate if they didn't plan to do at least something with it. They already gave my Death Guard our own psychic discipline, and my Wulfen can still do the same job they did before. I really do appreciate your patience in dealing with my nerdrage, and I think you've earned my vote of confidence. I'm not gonna edit this page for a while, if Triacom wants to have a debate over my conduct he's free to head to my talk page. EatTheRich (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
You came in saying that it's poor form to call others children (even though I never did it) as if you're above that, and then called everyone who disagreed with you a retard. That tends to rub people the wrong way even if they agree with you, and in this case I don't. I'm also not claiming that I'm not combative (if I wasn't I wouldn't have posted here) and yes, you called it Fuck Your Denial to get people's attention while knowing full well the kind of response it was going to get. If you were really done arguing you wouldn't be here.
Now onto your points, yes you could make your guys better bikers, because they're White Scars successors. You could give them mutable tactics, because they're Ultramarines successors. You could make them be tougher, because they're Iron Hands successors. What if I wanted to make a chapter like the Excoriators? Lorewise they'd have to have the Imperial Fists chapter tactic, even when Iron Hands suits them far better, so I'm not allowed to make my dudes how I want. That's only one small example and I could make others, but the point is that in every edition, your dudes are always tied to things somebody else did, and this is how it always was. You can claim that you're proxying in other rules to represent a loyalist traitor legion force, but as far as the rulebooks are concerned, those Death Guard are just Iron Hands that decided to paint themselves differently, and this is why your dudes has always been a headcanon thing and always will be.
I'm not against having opposing opinions on the main page, I'm against having the main page become little more than "They changed it, now it sucks." If they remove something that was tactical then the page should reflect on whether or not this was a good decision. Does the game speed up more because of this, was that previous addition to the game not fun, would it have been a good idea to keep now that everything else has been modified? Those questions would be worth asking before complaining about it on the main page. "Digging through a rulebook for some USRs isn't that bad." Strange, considering that's one of the most complained about things with the game I'd say that is pretty bad. This is one that isn't even hard to see, and I've seen plenty of new players who were interested in the game turn away just because of the amount of rulebook flipping they've had to do before they can memorize the important bits.
For the record I'm not trying to be the arbiter of the wiki and if you payed attention to the history tab of this page you should know this. I've stayed out of what's happening on here for the most part, which is why the last time I edited the page was June 2nd, and I do read every single edit people make to the page (as I'm usually lurking on the recent changes page). That being said I wanted to argue these points on here before they found a way back to the main page again, and if you really want to talk about the flaws of 8th edition, you should just add a new topic called something like 'flaws and issues' to make the rest of the page flow better. -- Triacom (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Triacom, feel free to head over to my talk page if you want to debate more. Clear? EatTheRich (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Auras[edit]

I've seen some confusion even on unit analysis on tactics pages. Does an aura effect the character that it comes from if it says models and units or just models?--Fourthy (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • If it has the right Keywords to affect the character than it affects them, so If an infantry character has an aura that effects Infantry keywords and the Character has the Infantry Keyword they gain the bonus provided by the aura. Atleast this is how I interpret it to work, I don't think GW have given any Info one way or the other on it Spider (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks that's how I thought it worked as the rulebook doesn't make a distinction between units and models but wasn't sure.--Fourthy (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As the Characters themselves are a unit and a model I think the distinction between the two doesn't matter Spider (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Roboute Guilliman, Helbrecht, Seth and others[edit]

I'm so tired of people thinking Robby G is talking about Numarines from gene-seed of the Traitors, which is a fact he doesn't know about as he forbid Cawl to do it. For the love of god, he's talking about his own sons. Here is the direct quote from the book (with a whole paragraph, so I won't be accused of using things out of context, italics by me):

He (Guilliman) understood. He knew what his father wanted to achieve, and why. Facing things like Qaramar brought it home to him, time and again. Knowing what opposed mankind made him see the utility of lies. Could Guiliman honestly say he loved all the men who called himself his sons? He barely knew them, especially now - Cawl's blasphemous hordes in particular. They, too, were a means to and end. He and his "father" had this in common. The mantle of rulership was weighty, and moulded the man that bore it.
Acknowledged, but I still question the use of "blasphemous" there, inasmuch as it makes no sense. It could be most unpleasant, but since (as far as Guilliman can tell) the Emperor is not himself divine, it can't be blasphemy at all. GW needs to consider their word choice more carefully, among other things. (Never mind the more important question of how you even know Seth's opinion on the matter; the only place I know of which might have some information on it is Devastation of Baal, which I do not have.)--Newerfag (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Remember how Tarwitz was freaked out by the idea of Fabious "improving" the EC to reach the perfection? It was unthinkable - trying to improve the Emperor's work (or even meddling with it) means one think himself smarter than the big E. The fact Cawl succeeded means either that he indeed is (which is HERESY) or that there will be some consequences in future (so Primaris Death Company, Primaris Wulven or whatnot). Seth's opinion is indeed from Devastation of Baal. He even goes as far as saying "if he is regent, why not Emperor?" Don't know why the guy has such a raging hateboner, but his words indeed have some merit. About Emperor not being a god - I don't remember where, but Fulgrim tells Roboute basically the following: if a being has a power of a god, why isn't it one? - and that question leaves Guilliman in reflections. --Flutist (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Seth is probably still just pissed about having to run away from Ka'Bandha, and he's always been a bit of a dick to those who haven't gained his respect. Remember how he suggested the Blood Angels should be disbanded into their successors to Dante's face? Regarding Cawl, he did help with the original Gene-seed, so he's not just a random chucklefuck messing with it.

--Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Emps is is held as paragon of Humanity by everybody in the Imperium up to and including Primachs. No matter who you are, saying "I'm smarter than him" is... well, sub-optimal. Cawl did exactly that and proved that, either making him a Mary Sue of astronomical proportions or foreshadowing some really, really epic fail with Primaris Marines in the future. In-universe, however, he needed protection of Regent and Lord Commander of the Imperium simply not to be lynched right after showing Numarines to wider Imperium for this very reason: they are a blasphemy against the Emperor's work personified (also, remember what happened to Magoses who worked on 21st founding). --Flutist (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

About Helbrecht, Yarrick and their fellow Black Templars - while I misread the Ghazkull's journey through space to be the one through space and time, all the facts about the great vision of the Orkkind united and Gork and Mork personally helping him are vialable (see his supplement, chapter Green Beyond, p. 26). While you, Newerfag, are right that GW would never allow him to be the Big Bad, Yarrick and Helbrecht simply can't know that. To them, he is the biggest threat the Imperium is facing right know even with all that shit that's going on in new 41st millennium (just like the Tyranids are still Kryptman's primary concern). The scene of Robby G, who wasn't there during the Siege of Terra, explaining Helbrecht that the mission of his life is a waste using Dorn (who was) as an example of failed duty is therefore horribly, tremendously stupid (and the most stubborn warrior-monk from the chapter of stubborn warrior-monks agrees).--Flutist (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, but Helbrecht couldn't possibly miss how Chaos had fucked up the galaxy far worse than it had ever been since the Horus Heresy, to the point where daemons had manifested right on Terra itself. And might I be so kind to ask how you got Helbrecht's opinion on the subject when all we have to work from is the Codex, which said Helbrecht did in fact agree with Guilliman in the end? His "mission" is to defend the Imperium, while his pursuit of Ghazghkull was beginning to adopt the elements of a personal vendetta (See also: Darnath Lysander regarding Shon'Tu). Additionally, the recent HH books have confirmed Guilliman was fending off Traitor fleets around Terra so Sanguinius could make it there, so while he may not have been physically present there he nonetheless had a significant impact. --Newerfag (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as I remember, Terra has seen invasions before, from Orks and Eldar, at least. Helbrecht's opinion is stated both in "Waaagh! Ghazkull" and in series about Grimaldus by ADB, however briefly he appears there. The fact Guilliman is able to persuade Helbrecht with nothing but a strange story is a thing that makes this episode horrible. Apparently, it takes a Sigismund to say "Fuck you, I'm not convinced" to a Primach. Yarrick's thoughts on the matter is pretty self-explanatory - he is Yarrick, after all, and indeed, Ghazkull is more like frenemy to him. In last HH book Guilliman send Sanguinius and the rest of his legion to their deaths (which Sanguinius knew about from his visions) in cold blood. While, yeah, it is stated he and his boys in blue fended off Traitors from Terra, the fact is still a fact: he missed the Siege of Terra, but arrived at the place shortly after the fighting was done, and doesn't seem to suffer from his decisions as much as Dorn did about not being able to save the Emperor (which is not his fault). --Flutist (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
While I recall from Dark Imperium that his insistence on leading the Scouring was overcompensation for said regret that he was unable to protect the emperor (along with his guilt over the whole Imperium Secundus thing), I will not try to convince you further. As for Helbrecht, do remember that what was said there happened before the Great Rift happened. Circumstances have changed since then. Any fault with the matter is more GW's slacking off in regards to filling in the blanks than anything else. We must wait for the Ork Codex to see if anything has actually come of Ghazghkull.--Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, why is it ironic that Seth of all people is the one to raise his voice in protest against Cawl's creation? The answer is quite simple and consists of two parts. First, there are oh so many other Chapters who should have done it instead of him, from paranoid Dark Angels, who already have Primaris Marines in the Inner Circle as of "now", to purity-obsessed Red Scorpions, the guys who outright refused to fight with "tainted" Chapters in the past have no problem of accepting something that shatters their whole doctrine. Yes, I understand, GW has to sell this new models, and I've personally bought guys in Mk X, because they look awesome aside from that Sigmarines kneepads, but the amount of in-Universe bias towards Guilliman is reaching Wardian levels. Second, Seth is utterly ruthless pragmatist with a dying and degenerating chapter on his hands: one can be sure he would welcome any chance to save them, but he isn't. He is not a traditionalist nor does he hate his brothers despite accepting they all are a bunch of barbaric monsters, but still prefers honest death to guillimanofication. Such suicidal tendencies are not something you'd expect from a person who outright refuses to die and survives thanks to sheer force of will in situation where even another Astartes would have fallen because he has a Chapter to redeem. --Flutist (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Dark Angels haven't accepted any Primaris Marines into the Inner Circle, though, the GW previews said as much. There's even going to be a book about the tensions between the Primarises and the regular Marines of the Dark Angels coming out. Second, Seth does have a death wish inasmuch as he's accepted his chapter is beyond saving and only wants to take out as many enemies of the Imperium as he can with him. He is indeed a pragmatist, but his goal is ultimately self-sacrifice in the same vein as the Blood Angels themselves.
I get it, you don't like Girlyman or GW's boner for him, but for someone complaining about bias you seem to have a problem controlling yours in this respect. On a related note, it seems that the Inquisition was responsible for sending that Eversor to kill Seth, not Guilliman. --Newerfag (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
All Librarians are part of the Inner Circle, DA have Primaris Librarians in the codex. Assasins are not some murderhobos like Inquisition's Acolytes (even the famous Ork snipers were not Vindicares, as far as I know), they require sanction from Lords of Terra, no ifs or buts there. While, yeah, it's possible (and this is likely going to be GW's position) one of them decided to play his own game and remove Seth from the picture, we also know Guilliman replaced anyone deemed unworthy upon his return and taking mantle of the Regent. Seth's wish of having blaze of glory run is justified in Codex as trying to leave a worthy legacy for Flesh Tearers, so they would be remembered as defenders of humanity worthy of their father. After all, every Marine can be accused of having a death wish - none of them has died from old age, and they know it. With Primaris Marines the Chapter can be saved.
Hey, my bias towards Girlyman doesn't matter compared to GW's, I do not write the fluff. Having no problems with it also - I do not invent any facts out of my head nor do I cry GIRLYMAN SUCKS LOLOLOLOL. Trying my best to look on facts from different perspective.
Also, why the fuck did you delete a part about Lieutenant wearing a robe? It was always a mark of DA Company Veteran. They are not a part of the Inner Circle and therefore do not know about the Hunt.--Flutist (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It's premature, we should at least wait for the Codex to actually come out before jumping to conclusions. And your forget that the Inquisition has a High Lord of their own, who could easily have been the one to order it (and indeed gave the rationale that "Seth was leading his Chapter into ruin"). Besides, you're acting as if Guilliman killed those Lords instead of simply removing them from their posts. So instead of speculating about unlikely possibilities, work with what we know for a fact instead. --Newerfag (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, here is direct quote from Lexicanum: "assassinations could only be performed after receiving a 2/3 vote from the Senatorum Imperialis of the High Lords of Terra". Guilliman is there as chairman and, if I remember correctly from Dark Imperium, has the right to veto their decision as Regent. Do you see any speculation there or any facts twisted? Me neither. Also never said Guilliman killed any of the Lords he fired, not that it matters. --Flutist (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall anything about him having veto rights, and I remember that several of the High Lords disliked him enough to conspire to depose him. We also know that Guilliman doesn't do assassinations, he'd be more likely to just send an ultimatum instead. --Newerfag (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Guilliman doesn't do assassinations, lolwut? He had a special secret police back in 30k called "Vigil Opertii", and it's function was to keep order in Ultramar, including making dissidents "disappear". Once again: two thirds of the Council, with Guilliman being both it's chairman and Regent (therefore controlling it). No way he didn't know about that. --Flutist (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Just pointing out that a lot gets made about the requirement for a 2/3rds vote on the kill-order. Though this is not always the case, as in Codex: Inquisition and the previous Inquisitor RPG it points out that the Ordo Sicarius often forges kill-orders as a matter of expediency. Guilliman and the High Lords may not necessarily have known about Seth's assassination attempt and it might just be the Inquisition doing some cleaning. Bearing in mind that the Captain who double-crossed Seth used an Inquisitorial seal as his justification. Both points are plausibly valid though, and "who wants Seth dead?" might just be one of those intriguing mysteries. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
New fluff > old fluff, no? In Dataslate: Officio Assassinorum, War Zone Damocles: Mont'ka and 8th Edition Rulebook (those are the most up-to-date sources, as far as I know) this whole "only by Lords' of Terra command" thing is stated quite clearly, not a single word about any exceptions. Dark Heresy allowed Acolyte to turn into Vindicare, but, well, don't think it's very fluffy. --Flutist (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Recall GW's stance on canon as well as its long history of self-contradiction. Or do you think the High Lords also approved of other questionable assassinations like the near-destruction of the Celestial Lions, or the massive clusterfuck the Officio Assassinorum itself caused to cover up the Maerorus incident (which I remind you involved them openly selling out a world to the World Eaters- see Seventh Retribution)? Point is, the two-thirds thing is the "official" way of getting a kill order but is far from the only way of getting it. --Newerfag (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
See what you did there? “Not a single word about any exceptions”. How many of those sources discuss what the Ordo Sicarius ‘’actually’’ does? Remember that no source is 100% authoritative, they are often biased and conflicted. The canon largely has to be pieced together, and GW even says the canon is what you make of it”. So unless something is explicitly ‘’(not implicitly)’’ contradicts something, newer does not automatically mean more valid because it overlooks something older, I’ve had discussions on here regarding conflicting accounts that are released concurrently. From a purely narrative point of view, Seth was presented an Inquisitorial rosette, not a writ or decree, so we can only state with certainty that the Inquisition had something to do with it. Personally I’m willing to believe either version, though if Guilliman and two thirds of the high lords wanted Seth out of the picture, I reckon they’d use a much less messy method than putting two brute force death machines in the same room to duke it out until one pasted the walls or the other exploded. As to the Vindicare thing, renember that Beast Krule/Esad Wire got made into an Eversor long after he was an established professional, so I wouldn’t rule out anything. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
To Newerfag: there are contradictions due to authors mistakes (for example, in Thousand Sons Codex IG near Cadian Gates are "butchered" while GW announces campaign where it is stated Black Crusade is stopped in its tracks and Imperials plan to retake Cadia) and there is old fluff (female Space Marines, Necrons serving C'Tans, Chaos Androids etc). Celestial Lions were dealt with without any known assassins involved (they were also mentioned previously in this discussion). Can't say a thing about Maerorus incident, but anyways, Lords of Terra are dicks enough for pretty much anything.
To Dark Anger 2020: per Dataslate: Officio Assassinorum the main reason of Ordo Sicarius existing is keeping the whole "two-thirds rule" alive and kicking. Yeah, per Codex: Inquisition, sometimes it forges decrees, so anything is possible, but still - to sanction death of Chapter Master and give an ally from this Chapter your own Rosette (which is a highly sophisticated device unique to each Inquisitor, so basically writing "Yeap, I kill loyal Adeptus Astartes" over your head with big neon letters) without sanction so your ass wouldn't be instantly fried if something backfires is an act of complete and absolute stupidity. Are Black Library writers that bad? --Flutist (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the Inquisition is just that full of shitheads and nutjobs. There's an alarming number of Inquisitors who've actually tried to unplug the Emperor from the Golden Throne, for fuck's sake (seriously, it's mentioned in the Custodes codex)- assassinating a Chapter Master is probably one of the least horrid things they've done. To quote Gabriel Angelos regarding the average view of an Inquisitor, "They suspect everyone of heresy". Whether Seth actually did anything to justify it is irrelevant as long as the right paranoid fuck in charge is convinced he's a traitor. --Newerfag (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to reference the Dataslate Officio Assassinorum as your source, at least get it right. "The Ordo Sicarius, that branch of the Inquisition that is specifically tasked with ensuring the Officio Assassinorum remains as true to the goals of the High Lords as humanly possible." is the exact quote; and that's all the information you get, a single sentence. That's just a mission statement that still doesn't actually mention how the Ordo Sicarius actually functions (my original question). It doesn't actually mention the two-thirds rule at all, provides no mention of any exceptions, no mention of how radicals/puritans divide themselves within the Ordo, gives no mention of what resources they have access to, and provides no mention of discretionary powers to fulfill their mission. All of these things are provided elsewhere. Even the phraseology of "Specifically tasked with" does not mean that's what it actually does and "true to the goals of" can be open to a huge amount of abuse, in fact the sorts of abuses that radical Inquisitors are famous for. (Fighting Daemons with Daemons springs to mind) Even references to the two-thirds rule in the same source only talk about the "sanction" of the High Lords... so what about unsanctioned missions either by the Inquisition or the Assassinorum itself? The Warhammer universe is not inflexible and so-called rules are always broken for the sake of the narrative. (the Codex Astartes alone is repeatedly referred to as the rule yet has a HUGE number of exceptions)
As an additional point. Your argument works both ways... assuming the High Lords sanctioned the assassination of Gabriel Seth, does that now plant a "We kill loyalist Adeptus Astartes" neon sign over their heads? The Celestial Lions couldn't prove it, but Seth is living evidence of a plot against him. Are the Flesh Tearers supposed to take that lying down and not go renegade? What about other Blood Angels successors? or other loyalists in general if they heard about it? Isn't it much easier for a single (as yet unknown) Inquisitor to have a beef with Seth and fails to get him killed, setting up a future plot where Seth hunts him down and kills him? Rather than Guilliman failing to do and placing him and Gabriel directly at odds with one another? Let me reiterate, I'm not saying that this might not be possible, but it's too early to say. At the moment all you know is that the Inquisition had something to do with it, anything else can only be conjecture. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, Inquisition is a collection of... interesting people to say the least, and a small number of them trying to kill the physical body of the Emperor is no new fluff, it was mentioned years ago along with the whole "Star Child" theory. To be honest, despite all my love for Seth as a character, he has earned death mark at least after that story with Corvin Herrold, even if we won't take the battle with Space Wolves in account. About Ordos being good at their jobs - I always had a feeling lesser ones are actually quite efficient due to the narrowness of their goals. Take Ordo Chronos, for example, that disappeared without a trace in a single day - that's one hell of cooperation right here. Codex Astartes was not a rule, and there was almost no Chapters that followed it to a letter (even Ultramarines had their Tyrannic War Veterans that are not part of it) bar Imperial Fists and some successors. >assuming the High Lords sanctioned the assassination of Gabriel Seth, does that now plant a "We kill loyalist Adeptus Astartes" neon sign over their heads? Well, I could start with real life examples of terrible, terrible things sanctioned by guys in charge with little to no consequences to them or the ones who did those things hiding behind "it's an order", but you get the idea. --Flutist (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The High Lords did try to overthrow Guilliman right before the Second Siege of Terra and at least a couple of them still hate his guts, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did it behind the Primarch's back. He can't watch over them constantly, and the Inquisition has been known to have quite a bit of influence among their number even if you don't count the Inquisitorial Representative.--Newerfag (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I dislike bringing this up yet again, but why even call it blasphemous if either (A) The Emperor is not a god but is just a stupidly powerful human, or (B) neither Seth nor Guilliman have any way of proving that the Primaris Marines were not part of the Emperor's plan the whole time. Seeing that more recent HH novels strongly suggest the Emperor foresaw Guilliman's wounding and revival as well as his acts as Lord Commander of the Imperium, it's an odd sort of blasphemy which is explicitly planned for by the god it's supposed to be blaspheming against. And there's also ignoring the context (i.e. of how the Emperor could love mankind in general but nobody in particular), which has nothing to do with the status of the Primaris Marines or their sanctioning by the Emperor. --Newerfag (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(A) If a being has a power of a god, it is therefore a god, and Custodes Codex confirmed it, no matter how you may feel about it (it may be, of course, because it's fluff is horrible, but who cares, it's canon now) (B) Yeah, sure, that's the reason he didn't do them instead of the first marines. I didn't see any proofs of Emperor foreseeing all that stuff that's going on in 41st millenium, otherwise he wouldn't task Vulcan with the doom device beneath the Palace. Once again - Cawl outdid the Emperor. The idea of meddling in His work is a blasphemy by definition, especially by Mechanicum and their Omnissiah creed. Try imagining someone rewriting the Bible/Coran/whatever holy book you may have in mind today, changing the words of Jesus/Muhhammad/<insert name here> because he claims to know better, and you'll get the idea. --Flutist (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (A) Cawl helped make the original Space Marines, and it all but says he was just cribbing from the Emperor's own designs in the Space Marine codex and the AdMech codex- the Sangprimum Portus which he used as a template was made by the Emperor, not him. Second, if you hadn't noticed he never followed the hidebound creed of the orthodox AdMech, and I'm sure the Emperor would have done something if he found that to be an issue. The foresight thing was added in newer books, which you'd have noticed if you read them. And don't you find it the slightest bit odd that the beings the Emperor directly communicates with on a regular basis not only allowed this '"blasphemy", but compelled other Chapters to do so too? Finally, you never remember that Guilliman spoke to the Emperor too. If He had any objections to the Primaris,he would have voiced them there and then. Now unless you can give a direct, in-universe source for the NuMarines being blasphemous in reality rather than in opinion, I suggest you drop this. The evidence is not on your side. --Newerfag (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? Custodes have to enforce Primarises' use threatening to declare Chapters rejecting them Excommunicate Traitoris is the evidence not being on my side(by the way, Custodes think they communicate with the Emperor, but so do Black Templars)? Yeah, sure, everything's alright with them. "Direct, in-universe source" is hilariously enough given at the beginning of this discussion. The Emperor as a person has lesser meaning to the universe of 40k than Imperial Creed built around supposedly his wishes for humanity. Primarises are an affront to that creed, the reason why they weren't sent is combat the moment they were created, and that is outright stated too - Cawl needed the authority of Lord-Commander backing him not to be torn to pieces. --Flutist (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, you're ignoring the context of your own quote, which has nothing to do with the Primaris Marines' actual status in the eyes of the Emperor. The Imperial Creed in its current state is in itself blasphemy against the Imperial Truth both he and Guilliman know for a fact exists. The Custodes in question were threatening the Hammers of Dorn, known to be a bunch of stubborn pricks at the best of times, and nothing I read specifically said anything about Cawl being torn to pieces if he used the NuMarines without Guilliman's approval. Much more importantly, you avoid the key point: do you earnestly believe Emps would have allowed Guilliman to unleash the Primaris Marines if he didn't approve of them? They spent a whole fucking day talking, for crying out loud. There's no way he could have possibly not been aware of the matter. --Newerfag (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Know what? Okay, you're right. Guilliman doesn't know his stuff therefore we don't count him as an adequate person perfectly aware what tech-heresy Primarises are, the latter aren't means to an end despite explicitly being called so, Fabius Bile did nothing wrong as did Magoses responsible for 21st founding, Cawl wasn't bullshiting anyone despite he appears as lowly Tech-Acolytum in Wolfsbane, it's ok to outsmart the Emperor (you know, the best mind in human history) and certainly isn't C.S. Goto's level bullshit. No problems. A-okay. --Flutist (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Sarcasm is unbecoming of you, and recall that "Tech-heresy" only exists because the AdMech is nearly incapable of inventing anything new without an STC's help. The Emperor certainly didn't care about it when he made the first Space Marines. If anything, he'd approve of the "means to an end" mentality since it was the basis of almost everything he has ever done. We have a whole section about it on his page, for fuck's sake.
There is no reason to question the Codexes' (which have always taken priority over any BL fluff) depiction of events, and it's not "outsmarting the Emperor" when He specifically gave you the stuff to do it with and the instructions to do so. I acknowledge that it sounds ham-fisted and contradicts existing fluff, but your approval is not needed to make it canon and GW has always changed the fluff when it suits them to do so. And Bile+the magoses in the 21st Founding didn't err by improving it, they erred by not using the Emperor's own plans for it and by doing an overall shitty job. Where the heck did you think the Sangprimum Portus came from if not from the Emperor's own gene-labs? And again: if the Emperor had a problem with it, he would have told Guilliman as much. How is that simple fact yet to sink in- do you think the Emperor is so weak and powerless he can only watch slack-jawed as his Avenging Son defies his orders? --Newerfag (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the Emperor in his current state is literally powerless, or was until Custodes codex came up (that's why I'm so butthurt about it). Every other manifestation of his powers like Sisters' Acts of Faith, Legion of the Damned, visions Black Templars get before becoming an Emperor's Champion etc can very well have other explanations. Fabius failed the moment he presumed he can improve the Emperor's work, once again, remember the reaction of Tarvitz. Perhaps it's my fault, but I didn't notice Sangprimum Portus was designed to make bigger, better marines, nor that it was given to Cawl with this mission by the Emperor (as I remember, he got it from Guilliman). That begs the question: why weren't first Marines like Numarines if that was the Emps plan all along? I mean, he had a time to create Custodes before those, and they differ much more from marines compared to Primarises from marines? We all know the answer to that question, but it doesn't lay in-universe. And Custodes codex literally says that during Great Crusade Custodes had best Land Raiders available which is akin to saying "King's own knights got the shiniest pitchforks". All the information about the past in Codexes is blurred and shown through a veil of time, therefore BL can make things like The Beast Arises while not breaking canon, and GW has stated it with with their "everything is canon, not everything is truth" attitude. --Flutist (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I can only assume it was because he needed to make them quickly and that implementing the new organs would have taken too much time; the fluff of them all demonstrates that while they're pretty useful they're far from necessary for a "complete" Space Marine. Dark Imperium explicitly confirmed the Emperor could communicate telepathically, which is why I'm using it as my central point here- while the details of his talk with Guilliman are (justifiably) kept hidden, I act on the assumption that due to his foresight he knew about the Primaris plan already. After all, he also knew about the Imperium Secundus despite being on the opposite side of the galaxy with no other way of knowing it existed, and of course we know he was aware of future events such as his mortal wounding long before they happened. As for Fabius, I think his case was because he sought to improve it out of hubris, not necessity. The Sangprimus Portum couldn't have been just made by the Emperor for no reason, since it's not like he was planning on duplicating the Primarchs, so I reason that it was there that the NuMarines could be implemented should it be necessary to do so at some point. I also note that the Custodes codex only uses "the Emperor's powers" as a fluff description for why they get invulnerable saves. Additionally, the Custodes weren't meant to be mass produced so it's natural they'd be stronger than Marines due to the greater quality and the whole alchemy thing. In light of this, I will simply have to conclude that the mind-reading clairvoyant psychic would have known about Guilliman's plans way before now. I acknowledge the Codexes' viewpoints are distorted, but the only real alternative is equally unreliable BL books and outright speculation.--Newerfag (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope, first-generation marines like that Dark Angel Fallen guy from Angels of Darkness (what was his name, Astelyan?) are so much more compared to what came later, therefore Emps had plenty of time to create exactly what he needed. We know Guilliman spoke with the Emperor even before the Dark Imperium, he did so in Rise of the Primach, and, well, Sanquinius arrived on Terra before the Siege and had all the opportunities to tell dad everything about Guilliman's doings. However, chances are high that yes, Emperor was aware of the whole Primaris project, but saying he agreed to it is akin to saying he permitted all the stuff done during 21st founding because Custodes didn't show up and kill anyone involved as gene-stocks are situated on Terra and there is no way Custodes didn't know about it. Fabius got his carte blanche after Laer, where EC suffered massive casualties, something they always tried to avoid. Can't say he failed entirely either - his modifications are useful, but have side effects (as, once again, it should be when it comes to someone meddling with the Emperor's work). The Sangrimus Primus can very well be the prototype for gene-seed stabilizers that would be appreciated by Legions prone to mutations, hence "Primus", or "the First", we don't know, and likely won't. Yes, protecting the Custodes is the only thing he does with certainty, but he does. That means in two books (Rise of the Primach and Custodes Codex) Emperor turned from one of the most tragic figures in the whole galaxy (imagine basically lying in a coma, powerless to do anything but keeping the Astronomican lit, perceiving reality 24/7, perfectly aware that it takes a thousand souls to keep you alive in this sorry state and that the deed of your entire lifespan, the Imperium of Man, is rotting away slowly around your husk, now hailed as a god, with more and more mechanisms in the device that doesn't let you die are going haywire, but your death also meaning the end of Mankind) into the biggest asshole in it, who is able to communicate with visitors (he didn't so with Rex, mind you!) and use his psychic might to protect Custodes, but seems perfectly fine with Imperiums current condition, therefore being directly responsible for it. --Flutist (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I was merely stating my hypothesis, since the data for the new organs was already contained within the Sangprimum Portus and we both know neither Guilliman or Cawl made it themselves. Odds are that the Emperor doesn't particularly care about what they do as long as the Imperium stays more or less intact; he's always been depicted as a pragmatist above all else, as his article mentions in quite a bit of detail. And to be fair, he had been suggested to be able to communicate with people before, like in the fluff of the Sisters of Battle (with Alicia Dominica and her companions during the Age of Apostasy) as well as that old Inquisition War novel series. Him being an asshole, on the other hand, is not exactly news to me since BL's been working on that angle for a while now (see also: The Last Church, Master of Mankind). I don't buy the "protecting the Custodes" part either, since it could very well be just propaganda to make the Custodes look better. But at any rate, there's too little known about the matter to really determine what the Emperor's opinion on all this really is at this point, and I don't expect GW to do much to change that. --Newerfag (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Once again,I have to disagree with you: everything involving gene-therapy is a big no-no for the Emperor, and countless of otherwise compliant human civilisations were destroyed back in the times of Great Crusade due to their genetic impurities. Even if they were superior to normal human beings, the rule of "means to an end" didn't apply there (see The First Heretic for example). Emps communicating with people was merely suggested: all we know about Alicia Dominica is that she was summoned to the Palace by Custodes, then returned and disposed of Vandir: she may had spoken with the Emps... or she could had been gutted by Guardian Spear after taking the first turn and replaced with Callidus Assasin, you never know. Yeah, Emperor is no doubt a dick, but I fail to imagine him being a dick of such truly epic propotions he is indirectly described in this new canon. About Custodes Codex - lol, I wish they just had a refractor field each as they have in 30k, but no, miracles of gene-science and Emprah protecting them is the new black.--Flutist (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)--Flutist (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If that was the case, I would have thought he would never have considered making the Primarchs, Custodes, or the Astartes to begin with since all of them were made with genetic manipulation. But it seems for now we must agree to disagree- our arguments are both based on interpretations of events that by definition will never be clarified enough to confirm or deny anything beyond a reasonable doubt. --Newerfag (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
>I would have thought he would never have considered making the Primarchs, Custodes, or the Astartes to begin with< Now remember how he treated Psykers (Magnus in particular) despite being one and using his powers all the time and you'll get the idea. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Yeah, it seems our interpretations of various facts are too different to reach a logical conclusion (I'm still certain my point of view is right but have no desire to start an edit war or to bloat this page further. Maybe we should make the whole discussion after the quote collapsible, by the way). --Flutist (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather just delete it entirely lest I be tempted to beat the dead horse further, but I'd be fine doing whatever. TL;DR, GW is inconsistent, water is wet. --Newerfag (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Outdated "sup" pages[edit]

A lot of pages on models or factions are outdated (thanks 8th) and I have been looking for a object like \/ to post above the page for easy finding

Clean-Up.jpgThis page is in need of cleanup. Srsly. It's a fucking mess.

The closest thing I found was

Commissarpoke transparent.png This article or section covers a Rules that Are outdated. You can help 1d4chan by keeping it up to date.

That relay does not work any other ideas to mark a page as outdated or a tutorial to make my own template would be appreciated. BibiFloris (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel you, made many edits to Leman Russ page to reflect that there is no longer armour facings or blast templates but still only scratching the surface. --WatcherZero (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is good and all, but in Horus Heresy there are Leman Russes too and they still have facings, so please mind that fact when rewriting the articles.--Flutist (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Any other additions to the tl;dr?[edit]

Hey guys! I'm thinking of adding this line to the tl;dr but I'm a little hesitant because it could cause arguments and edit wars. How does this sound? I'll probably edit this a bit further if you greenlight it.

  • Another point of contention among gamers is the increased presence of "re-roll auras" that many special characters have, such as Guilliman who lets all Ultramarine units within 6" re-roll all failed hit and wound rolls. Some see this as a way of encouraging players to take special characters, while others see this as completely broken, claiming "why should you even bother rolling dice?!".

--SheWantsDaB96 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Let it be for now; most of those characters only allow for re-rolling 1s.Newerfag (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Xenos and their problems[edit]

I can tell you, because this is stupid, pointless whining. Did you expect Tyranids to eat Blood Angels? Or maybe eat Terra altogether (by the way, they are currently trying despite "lost" Third Tyrannic)? Did you think Tau would be able to secure an easy victory against Death Guard legion, a force that exterminated the likes of their empire by dozens back in the days of Great Crusade and has grown both larger and stronger since then, all while having no experience in fighting Daemonic and warp-infused enemies? Or maybe Eldar getting a new god that saves them from Slaanesh is not enough for you to justify the fraction, not even complete destruction, of Biel-Tan? --Flutist (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oh no! Tyranids win a battle against Blood Angels! Truly this is completely unaccpetable. I certainly think the Tyranids winning a battle against the Blood Angels and the Blood Angels being forced to retreat before them and give up the system isn't weird or unacceptable at all, and find your petulance over it strange. Don't know where eating Terra comes from. Also who said the Tau needed an easy victory against the Death Guard? But considering the Imperium got to beat them in the Plague Wars, don't really see why its okay for them to do it but for a faction like the Tau to beat them, or a faction like the Tyranid to beat the Blood Angels, is unacceptable. If the Imperium's allowed to do it, why not let other factions do it too? Ynnead hasn't done anything of note yet other than buff the Imperum by giving them a Primarch so I don't even see what point you are making there. Seems you just don't like the idea of anyone but the Imperium actually winning a major battle. Why did you even call it Xenos and their problems if you don't think they have any problems? Malignant (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We don't even know the final outcome of the Tau/Death Guard battles yet since the Codex depicts it as ongoing. Right now my bet is on "pyrrhic Tau victory that forces them to start questioning their ideals and/or triggers discontent within the Empire" since let's face it, GW doesn't have the balls to openly kill off a faction that's developed an established player base. As for the Tyranids, the Blood Angels fleeing their homeworld would go against their theme of noble self-sacrifice and the end result of the Blood Angels just barely surviving and only being able to rebuild due to Guilliman's intervention is probably the least bad approach they could've gone with. --Newerfag (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Tyranids have driven Blood Angels back to their homeworld and made them call all their Successor Chapters, it was a last stand. If Tyranids had won, Blood Angels would be wiped out, once and for all. Stuff about Terra comes from Tyranid Codex, you can read it too and uncover a lot of fascinating facts. You have a problem understanding Imperium is a single most powerful force in Warhammer 40k universe, able to crush any other faction with it's combined might, so when it commits itself, the outcome is certain (and Guilliman is quite notorious for caring about Ultramare too much for his own good). Nevertheless, the whole armada he gathered as Lord-Commander was able only to fight off Death Guard, not destroy their strike force completely. Ynnead basically transformed all Eldar (including DE) society by inverting the whole "doomed and dying race" thing, and this is huge. More fluff of him is surely to come, but as usual, likely with Ynnari Faction Codex. >Seems you just don't like the idea of anyone but the Imperium actually winning a major battle< Ever heard about Cadia? --Flutist (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter that we don't know the final outcome. In Space Marine, Custodes, Grey Knight etc. Codex we literally get nothing but major victories; Devastation of Baal, Siege of Terra, Plague Wars, Indomitus Crusade. Meanwhile the Tyranid lose 3/4 of their big battles in their Codex and the Tau lose or at best stalemate basically everything they do in their Codex. You don't need to be observant to see the clear difference. Also I have read the Tyranid Codex, those 'fleets near Terra' have done absolutely nothing of note so they don't prove anything, they are just nebulous background noise which amount to nothing. Again with your Ynnead example you fail to produce a single actual example of winning, since the whole 'doomed and dying race thing' has not been inverted, indeed no segment of Eldar population has recuperated at all, Biel-tan is just lesser, and the Ynnari themselves are stated in their own Rise of the Ynnari series to be so weak they cannot even challenge a minor Craftworld, so, again, that proves nothing. As for Cadia, good, that's one example, literally a single one, not to mention that despite Cadia falling the entire Black Crusade then failed to make a single success for a century later. I cannot imagine I need to explain the difference here. Nor do I care too as I doubt this conversation will reach any point we are all happy with and so we might all just as well ignore it since it'll likely lead to nothing. Malignant (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, to Newerfag specifically, how about an approach that actually lets the Tyranid and Swarmlord win a decisive battle for a change? Why is that so unacceptable? I don't see why that can't be allowed to happen. Malignant (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
That depends entirely on what you define as "a decisive battle". If you mean "a battle that has massive repercussions for everyone involved", that's not possible without making massive fluff changes that would be on par with the fall of Cadia at minimum. If you mean "a battle that they clearly win but don't make massive changes", I could point out that there are already examples of that which you seem to ignore because they're not prominent enough for you to notice. Alternately, you could say that any such decisive victory would go unknown because anyone who could've made a record of it is dead. Not every faction needs to deliver a massive curbstomp to cement themselves as a mover and shaker in the galaxy. (See also: Sisters of Battle, Deathwatch, whichever IG regiments don't get the spotlight on a regular basis.) In any event, I strongly suggest you drop the matter and accept that as long as GW has its way, xenos are nothing more than bit players in 40k's emphasis on Imperium vs. Chaos. --Newerfag (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, I highly doubt this discussion can reach some logical conclusion. After all, if Imperium sacrificing untold hundreds of billions in numbers unseen since Horus Heresy in order to avert Leviathan is "nebulous background noise" for you, dunno what will suffice. --Flutist (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I even need to explain what a decisive battle is cause everyone knows there is a difference, obviously, between the Devastation of Baal and anything the Swarmlord has ever won ever. I think your just trying to now find a way out of an obvious point. Regardless, since we both agree Xenos are just bit players, I don't have an issue with that, I want to then add that, and since we both agree on it I'm going to. As for Flutist, obviously when losing said numbers is having no major or appreciably demonstrated effect at all it is nebulous background noise. So if we can both just agree to drop it, then I'm more than content to accept that. Malignant (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to add that- xenos were always bit players from the very beginning and there was already a section about how xenos were taking a backseat. --Newerfag (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

On Daemon Immortality[edit]

I'd like to mention that Daemons can be permanently killed for a long while, ever since 3rd edition if I remember right. I recall Eisenhorn killing Prophaniti permanently, and the original plan in the story Mortarion's Heart was to permanently bind and kill Mortarion, it just didn't work out. The thing about killing them permanently is that it's incredibly hard to do, so it almost never happens. -- Triacom (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh, this was the first I've heard of it. The part about the ones who can't be permanently killed is new, however. At least I think it is. --Newerfag (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
That part's new, I'm not sure why they introduced that. -- Triacom (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Plot armor for the most important daemons, maybe?--Newerfag (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)