GW *is* a British company...

I want to see his battle report. I'm really curious about this actually.

I'm erring on the side of caution with regards to the Nightbringer's Gaze of Death. I'm aware of the "Not rolling to-hit" part of it but since it occurs in the Shooting Phase, it could easily be an omission on GW's part. The same way that Doom of Malant'ai was "supposed" to hit models in Transports, or Blood Angels Vindicators were "supposed" to be direct-fire weapons (in the 5e codex, the BA Vindicator was just Ordnance 1; didn't have Large Blast), or folks got all excited about mass Missile Drones before the Day 1 Tau FAQ...I'd advise caution in that regard.

Regardless, still not seeing the C'Tan as anything other than expensive area denial. The advantage Eldar have is that they can easily switch from playing a ranged game to going up close and personal. The Deceiver at least gets his cute little redeploy for your otherwise short-ranged dudes, and can do the H&R game.

Meh, dramatic exaggeration. And thoughtcrime warrants not a (sic), unless you fear the creeping nature of minivox-approved newspeak in our netspace. Then again, I suppose a sic is warranted after all.

So how much theft is photocopying 2 pages instead of the other 98 you don't have an interest in, with no intent to sell? Or is it likewise reasonable to say that pirating one page is the same as pirating 100 pages? Which then begs the question of, if we have the ability to glance over an opponent's codex and take a few notes, is this piracy? What about if we have enough memory to remember the parts we actually care about ("Meh, I'll roll one of the default tables for my Wraithzord")? Thoughtcrime much?

Um...I was basically advocating taking the old Chapter Traits and Doctrines systems, at least pretending to put something resembling basic internal balance among them (rather than "hrm, do I take Drop Troops or Warrior Weapons?"), and making army-wide trait customization a fairly universal aspect at the army level, rather than "each individual Deathworld/Chapter gets their own variant rules!" like what Index Astartes did ("Bone Dragons are Space Marines...but with melee Rending!").

If you wanted to add supplements to that, you could always keep them army-agnostic. Power Spade: The Big Book of Fortifications and Emplacements. Or turning Death From The Skies into a general "expanded aerial options" ruleset rather than a glorified Black Templar addendum with optional tables nobody will wield anyway. Will you actually use Crusade of Fire for anything, or would a tabletop equivalent of Rogue Trader's Navis Primer be up your alley?

Honestly, I think that this was just another lazy GW cashgrab. The fluff is easy enough to come up with, copypaste, sprung /tg/ for sessions of Dark Heresy, etc. For this hardcover's rules to basically be a few extra magic items, and a slightly different Warlord Trait=that's it?

>Bottom line is, if that doesn't interest you, don't buy it.
Haven't bought anything since finecast, so...

>Balancing out all the SM sub chapters and giving them each a unique feel and competitiveness has proven to be challenging enough.
Balance. Sure.

There are a thousand marine chapters. How come only a few of them get the limelight?

ADDENDUM: I do miss the Chapter Traits/Doctrines. Even if their balance was laughable at best (do I take Drop Troops or do I take Warrior Weapons!). I believe if it was carefully planned out, each option having meaningful impact (Running Commissars as Independent Characters won't mean jack when they get pulped all the same!), and being internally balanced against each other, would be one rather entertaining. It's not like one can't attempt to port chapter/regiment/etc creation rules over from the Fantasy Flight games, scaling them down in a way that they can make it into the tabletop...

...and maybe a craftworld-creation system would be loverly too. Maybe AK-47 Republic's having an influence also.

It's because Warmachine did it, most likely. "Destroyed versus RFP." With exception of...a Grey Knight Brother-captain, or a Tau player that wanted to take the detonator (oh and Nork)...there are very few cases of areas where it would make a difference rulewise, much less in areas where the unit is actually worth taking.

Thought:

Why not turn Rangers into more than glorified rank-and-file snipers? There are plenty of potential options for how to make them more entertaining:
1) Shoot-and-Scoot: Rangers may choose to make a 6" move in the assault phase, even after they use their sniper rifles.
2) Special weapons: Pathfinders can carry more, but rangers can bring specialist gear: A small squad, more fragile-and-expensive but forward-deploying and carrying optional flamers, Eldar Grenade Launchers (with tanglefoot/hallucinogenic/etc options), or the equivalent of an Eldar democharge...

If you aren't bringing the buzz-saws, Deffkoptas are better-replaced by Warbuggies, reason-being that the moveblock and cover-generation...they can buy time for the rest of your army. Wagons dislike being side-sniped, meltad...even assaulted prematurely, and buggies are better for sacrificial duty instead.

That said, the odds of getting to fire mass shootas at Assault Terminators from the safety of a battlewagon are optimistic...since Land Raiders are their main way of riding to battle and all. Shooting from a wagon can work...but not as a main strategy.