Some interesting things. I'm looking forward to the ability to advance (run) and fire assault weapons at -1 to hit. Large squads of flamers could be quite nice.
No more Salvo weapons uh, seems the Volley guns might be a good choice for deep striking stormtroopers, a good thing, considering that if things stay as they are, hotshots are going to suck for deepstriking.
Aetare wrote: Exciting stuff; am I correct in reading that a model can fire all of its ranged weapons, and at different targets? That can't be right
Yes they can. However, you have to choose between firing all your pistols or all of your other weapons. So at least you don't get super shooting from your tac squads.
Aetare wrote: Exciting stuff; am I correct in reading that a model can fire all of its ranged weapons, and at different targets? That can't be right
Yes they can. However, you have to choose between firing all your pistols or all of your other weapons. So at least you don't get super shooting from your tac squads.
Seems like a fair trade off to me! Feel like this works pretty well universally and accounts for MC's and walkers that might be swiveling around with multiple cannons and the like...
Yeah, most infantry will still only have 1 weapon (trade bolter for plasgun) they can shoot. Pistols and grenades both override the rule. But things like tanks can open up on multiple targets, which makes perfect sense.
All and all, I'm super happy with how these are reading. They're clear and concise, and look to be well designed with game mechanics in mind. No more fuffing around with a zillion systems like hullpoints or armourfacing or challenges or all that guff. There are exactly what a CORE ruleset should look like. Everything in the game is using the same basic systems of interaction.
I assume the separate advanced rules will include things like terrain (moving through difficult, what types of units can get what cover, etc), line of sight, if vehicles still have to worry about weapon arcs (I'm going to guess no. They're free to turn and shoot like anything else in the game)
I love that psykers literally explode if they die to perils.
If a unit loses all visible models because the remaining are hidden by walls or other models or other things then will the shooting unit not be able to cause more casualties or is the lack of visibility ignored and so even hidden models can be injured? Personally I don't like the idea that my marines will step into a hole in a wall just to be shot by heavy bolters when it would be more sensible to stay hidden even though the few unlucky enough to have positioned themselves in line of sight of the enemy are slain...
Mortal wounds carry over to other models.
Again, multiple volleys of overwatch fire for a given unit are possible and are resolved on sixes... Personally I find this mechanic disappointing.
Pile in three inches happens before combat and after charge moves. Wow. Swirling masses in the middle of the table meta.
How to resolve attacks in two ranks with models all separated by one inch or less seems much less facile than using simple base contact ...
Models with multiple attacks and weapons can allocate attacks to different enemies and also use different weapons with each attack.
Consolidate moves models another three inches towards the enemy... Wow. So charge distance plus three plus three plus one inch bubbles means that close combat should prove to be more infectious than virus grenades.
A Single model in each unit may use a single grenade. Wow.
Rules state that a model may shoot with its pistol or with ALL of its other weapons... Wtf?
Plasma incinerators can be supercharged. S7 ap-4 damage 1 normally and s8 ap-4 damage 2 supercharged
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aetare wrote: Exciting stuff; am I correct in reading that a model can fire all of its ranged weapons, and at different targets? That can't be right
Seems sort of strange to me too. But then again I find multiple overwatch also strange. Don't like either frankly.
Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Aetare wrote: Exciting stuff; am I correct in reading that a model can fire all of its ranged weapons, and at different targets? That can't be right
Yes they can. However, you have to choose between firing all your pistols or all of your other weapons. So at least you don't get super shooting from your tac squads.
But just for kicks could you outfit a single marine with three bolters? I guess there must be a limit on main weapons so infantry can have only one? But what about reaper exarchs with two launchers? Or ... I know maybe not smart but still the question is could such a thing be use able by the rules as written? And how about two pistols?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
admironheart wrote: Did I see that right....you can shoot thru any of the models in your unit?
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Yeah, I hope they come out with some amazing powers to make it at least tempting to risk it.
Specifically how LOS works will be in another section I imagine.
Rules state that a model may shoot with its pistol or with ALL of its other weapons... Wtf?
List out the number of models with pistols and multiple other weapons. All this means is that infantry can shoot with their pistol/s or their main weapon, while at the same time letting larger units like monsters and vehicles shoot with all their weapons.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Yeah, I hope they come out with some amazing powers to make it at least tempting to risk it.
Grenades still being a single model per unit is pretty disappointing. Not really any reason to even bother getting into that 6" range, even an army that wants to be that close will probably charge from further out than that.
McGibs wrote: Specifically how LOS works will be in another section I imagine.
Rules state that a model may shoot with its pistol or with ALL of its other weapons... Wtf?
List out the number of models with pistols and multiple other weapons. All this means is that infantry can shoot with their pistol/s or their main weapon, while at the same time letting larger units like monsters and vehicles shoot with all their weapons.
Yeah I suppose that this is sinking in... normal models will have a limit and regardless multiple weapons will not be cost effective on single wound models
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Yeah, I hope they come out with some amazing powers to make it at least tempting to risk it.
I'm hoping some units/factions have ways to mitigate perils, particularly armies that do tend to have lots of psykers.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Yeah, I hope they come out with some amazing powers to make it at least tempting to risk it. [/quote
I'm hoping some units/factions have ways to mitigate perils, particularly armies that do tend to have lots of psykers.
That would be very handy indeed; hoping for a little more survivabilitu for my grey knights...
There are a lot of models with multiple pistols. So if your dual wielding pistols you can fire both your pistols. That's interesting and a big buff to sisters.And Cypher.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Given the rules.. "Each unit within 6".. That seems like a desperate attempt that if your psyker perils in the middle of the enemy army you'll strip away wounds from their units as well.
These rules look great to me. The terrain rule is interesting, it looks like it is going to be very very difficult for big blob/horde units to benefit from cover...which makes a ton of sense when you think about it.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Given the rules.. "Each unit within 6".. That seems like a desperate attempt that if your psyker perils in the middle of the enemy army you'll strip away wounds from their units as well.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Given the rules.. "Each unit within 6".. That seems like a desperate attempt that if your psyker perils in the middle of the enemy army you'll strip away wounds from their units as well.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Given the rules.. "Each unit within 6".. That seems like a desperate attempt that if your psyker perils in the middle of the enemy army you'll strip away wounds from their units as well.
SilverAlien wrote: Psychic powers look very risky. I'm thinking about thousand suns and their psyker sergeants, perils will wipe out a big chunk of your unit, psyker included.
Given the rules.. "Each unit within 6".. That seems like a desperate attempt that if your psyker perils in the middle of the enemy army you'll strip away wounds from their units as well.
That story of what happens on Baal. Looks like 8th won't have good background writers either.
Bobby G somehow crosses the rift which would be without the aid of a navigator and gets an entire fleet in orbit around Baal at the last moment. Would have been a better story to just have them wiped and the fleet getting there late, then working to rebuild the blood angels who would likely be overcome by the black rage but perhaps more stable cause they're marines and that's how this stuff works in 40k. Honestly the marines seem to invoke deus ex machina more than the adeptus mechanicus does.
chalkobob wrote: So assault weapons can run (ahem advance*) and shoot at a -1 to hit penalty? That's interesting.
Also interesting: you can now charge after firing rapid fire or even heavy weapons, the only actions that prevent charging now are Advance and Fall Back.
Do their writers actually know how to setup a story line?
Because this is what I read... You're in trouble
JK DEUS EX MACHINA...
Actually, know what? You're still in trouble
HAHAHAHA! GOT YA AGAIN!!! DEUS EX MACHINA!!!!!
Yeah... I try to remain open-minded, but that was, objectively, a poorly set up excuse to hamfist primaris marines into the blood angels at the expense of throwing the tyranids under the bus again. I really hope that Roboute starts failing some missions as to not make him the most boring, predictable, and overused deus ex machina in the setting.
Do their writers actually know how to setup a story line?
Because this is what I read... You're in trouble
JK DEUS EX MACHINA...
Actually, know what? You're still in trouble
HAHAHAHA! GOT YA AGAIN!!! DEUS EX MACHINA!!!!!
yeah, the one deus ex machina may have been ok, but doubling down on it was aweful. I maintain the story could, COULD work, if one of the better black library writers made a trilogy of it.
Book 1 details the start of the battle the holding action, with the climax being the Battle of the dome of angels, (where a character whom was perhaps a major protagionist story dies, to show us the stakes clearly) the book ending as the tyranids begin to drain Baal and it's moons of all life.
Book 2: The Last stand of the Blood angels, more fighting etc, as the blood angels are slowly but surely pushed back to their fortress monestary. things are looking bleak, and we get some fantastic insights into the mentality of the blood angels and their sucessors as they realize that, this is it, lots of chances to really get a look in the heads of blood angel characters as they stare down the reality of death, not only theirs, but their tradtions etc, it ends with the warp rift opening up,
Book 3: you see some combat going on and the blood angels realizing that despite the dissapperance of the fleet they're STILL gonna die, byh about the third chapter the Imperial reinforcements arrive, and victory appers possiable. the crusade relives pressure on the fortress monestary, and Gulliman meets Dante and the other BA chapter masters, and perhaps introduces a primaris blood angels sucessor chapter master from the latest founding, the novel ends with Gulliman visiting his brothers tomb, and then giving a speach to the remaining blood angels where he praises their skill at arms, praising them as the true heros of this battle, as he, and the entire indomatus crusade take to the knee and bow to the remaining Sons of Sanguinis, out of respect for their courage and skill at arms. (that ending would I think immediatly take the stiong off the ending of the campaign, blood angels wouldn't be the guys who had to be bailed out of defending their home, instead they'd be the guys whose bad ass defense of their home world humbled even a damned primarch)
Well the only memorable loss the ultras have had since 4th was that company trazyn threw out of his necron pokeball, so it's pretty unlikely Bobby G will really lose anything. Closest we're probably getting was that thing with the parade.
Do their writers actually know how to setup a story line?
Because this is what I read... You're in trouble
JK DEUS EX MACHINA...
Actually, know what? You're still in trouble
HAHAHAHA! GOT YA AGAIN!!! DEUS EX MACHINA!!!!!
Yeah... I try to remain open-minded, but that was, objectively, a poorly set up excuse to hamfist primaris marines into the blood angels at the expense of throwing the tyranids under the bus again. I really hope that Roboute starts failing some missions as to not make him the most boring, predictable, and overused deus ex machina in the setting.
I dunno, at the same time you have him run the risk of becoming a joke character, which he really shouldn't be, Gulliman should be a character whom shows up rarely, but always at decisive moments. and he should never be beaten by anything other then superior numbers (where it should be made clear any other commander would have performed much worse) or when against a truel;y capable foe, such as a deamon primarch, or maybe abbaddon. (letting Abbaddon score a victory agaisnt Gulliman might actually be a good way to give him soem serious cred again)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote: Well the only memorable loss the ultras have had since 4th was that company trazyn threw out of his necron pokeball, so it's pretty unlikely Bobby G will really lose anything. Closest we're probably getting was that thing with the parade.
1st Battle of Damnos,
The Battle for Mcragge's honor (you know where Gulliman and his company got put in chains)
sure it's a short list, but it's a short list the number of BATTLES the Ultramarines have fought since 4th edition.
1st and second battle of Damnos
the various GS3 battles,
Black Reach.
Do their writers actually know how to setup a story line?
Because this is what I read... You're in trouble
JK DEUS EX MACHINA...
Actually, know what? You're still in trouble
HAHAHAHA! GOT YA AGAIN!!! DEUS EX MACHINA!!!!!
Yeah... I try to remain open-minded, but that was, objectively, a poorly set up excuse to hamfist primaris marines into the blood angels at the expense of throwing the tyranids under the bus again. I really hope that Roboute starts failing some missions as to not make him the most boring, predictable, and overused deus ex machina in the setting.
The worst part is that Rowboat didn't even do very much.
They made it painfully clear that it was actually Chaos who saved the day, not Rowboat.
They could have replaced Rowboat with anything else, since he literally only cleaned up and killed off a tiny amount of stragglers that remained.
Compound that with the last sentence or so; that basically made the entire event pointless...
SO AFTER THE BATTLE THAT LITERALLY COMPLETELY WRECKED THEM AND LIKE... NEARLY MADE THEM EXTINCT FOREVER...
THE BATTLE WITH SO MANY ENEMY FORCES THAT WOULD HAVE LIKE... TOTALLY DEVOURED THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE...
THEY REBUILT AND CLEANED UP IN LIKE... 2 HOURS, KAY BYE
They should have said hammed it up a little and said like and "Rowboat personally showed BAs how to make Numars, Even had his fleet that was bigger than da planet work on the reconstruction."
Tho, nah we just get "They rebuilt, the end."
keep in mind "they finished off the tyranids and then rebuilt" really doesn't likely capture the entireity of what happened. I mean one could call the entire pacific war post midway, a "mop up action" I'm exaggerating a LITTLE, but not a whole lot
Do their writers actually know how to setup a story line?
Because this is what I read... You're in trouble
JK DEUS EX MACHINA...
Actually, know what? You're still in trouble
HAHAHAHA! GOT YA AGAIN!!! DEUS EX MACHINA!!!!!
Yeah... I try to remain open-minded, but that was, objectively, a poorly set up excuse to hamfist primaris marines into the blood angels at the expense of throwing the tyranids under the bus again. I really hope that Roboute starts failing some missions as to not make him the most boring, predictable, and overused deus ex machina in the setting.
I dunno, at the same time you have him run the risk of becoming a joke character, which he really shouldn't be, Gulliman should be a character whom shows up rarely, but always at decisive moments. and he should never be beaten by anything other then superior numbers (where it should be made clear any other commander would have performed much worse) or when against a truel;y capable foe, such as a deamon primarch, or maybe abbaddon. (letting Abbaddon score a victory agaisnt Gulliman might actually be a good way to give him soem serious cred again)
The problem here is if he is a joke by ever being outsmarted or simply encountering a variable that would be impossible to predict (which happens even to the greatest minds) and failing, than by extention, he makes every other character (that isn't a primarch or possibly abbadon level) a joke by existing. Which either requires every faction getting a primarch equivalent, which is contrived (and completely deflates the characters that existed before the return of the primarchs), or by having all other factions being diminished, in the fluff, by not having a worthy adversary. Even the greatest minds fail sometimes, and personally, having guilliman as some unstoppable force in a setting where races have technology to blow up planets, stars and, in the case of necrons, the entire galaxy is not only trite, but predictable to the point of cringeyness. I don't mind him being a bad ass, but if his appearance is always (or close to always) a prelude to an imperial victory that will get old (read: super-boring) fast.
Do their writers actually know how to setup a story line?
Because this is what I read... You're in trouble
JK DEUS EX MACHINA...
Actually, know what? You're still in trouble
HAHAHAHA! GOT YA AGAIN!!! DEUS EX MACHINA!!!!!
They haven't done much good in quite some time, IMO if you can't advance the timeline in a well thought out and well done way...then stop before you damage it beyond repair. 40k was fine as a setting and backdrop for models and gaming. I don't understand the sudden need to bring back primarchs and have all of these rapid story advancements over the course of only one year. I know they are trying to reinvigorate the gw brand and bring in sales, but in the long term if the setting is wrecked then it's not gonna do much good.
I feel like people are forgetting that Guilliman got punked by Fateweaver in Rise of the Primarch and had to be bailed out by the Harlequins. We literally saw him lose in the book where he was resurrected.
1. High level psykers have a HUGE mathmatical advantage over lower level psykers with how DtW works. This will be fine if each level is costed accordingly and increases significantly by level. Otherwise a lvl3 or 4 psyker can legitimately shut down an unlimited amount of level 1 psykers. Again - fine if it's costed appropriately.
Their advantages:
-Extremely likely to shut down multiple lower level psykers for the vast majority of the game.
-Higher chance of casting powers.
-Higher chance of getting to the 2nd tier of a spell (see Smite)
-Highly unlikely to be shut down by a lower level psyker.
These advantages need to be represented by something far greater than the 50pt difference between a lvl1 and a lvl3 that we see in 7th. If not 8th will be an edition of high level psyker s with no low levels to be seen.
2nd point is that since vehicles can move after models have embarked, units suffer a lot from a destroyed transport, and there is no side or rear values anymore, it will be advantageous for any passengers to just simply start the game hiding behind a vehicle that is side on then just jump in T1. So 8th could become an edition of the sideways set up transports on deployment.
Everything else is hunkydory! 4 point powerswords :-D!
Robin5t wrote: I feel like people are forgetting that Guilliman got punked by Fateweaver in Rise of the Primarch and had to be bailed out by the Harlequins. We literally saw him lose in the book where he was resurrected.
I didn't forget, but that was a minor set back, that was ultimately overcome, in a campaign that was, in essence, one deus ex machina after the other, until the "good guys" ultimately prevailed. Almost as though superman Roboute and the eldar plot-armour superfriends triumphed against impossible odds, which could have been remotely interesting, if the outcome wasn't so obvious that Steevie Wonder could have seen it coming.
Robin5t wrote: I feel like people are forgetting that Guilliman got punked by Fateweaver in Rise of the Primarch and had to be bailed out by the Harlequins. We literally saw him lose in the book where he was resurrected.
I didn't forget, but that was a minor set back, that was ultimately overcome, in a campaign that was, in essence, one deus ex machina after the other, until the "good guys" ultimately prevailed. Almost as though superman Roboute and the eldar plot-armour superfriends triumphed against impossible odds, which could have been remotely interesting, if the outcome wasn't so obvious that Steevie Wonder could have seen it coming.
right because losing god knows how many space marines, every guardsman, and a GOD DAMNED GLORINA CLASS FLAG SHIP, merely a set back
...
Robin5t wrote: I feel like people are forgetting that Guilliman got punked by Fateweaver in Rise of the Primarch and had to be bailed out by the Harlequins. We literally saw him lose in the book where he was resurrected.
I didn't forget, but that was a minor set back, that was ultimately overcome, in a campaign that was, in essence, one deus ex machina after the other, until the "good guys" ultimately prevailed. Almost as though superman Roboute and the eldar plot-armour superfriends triumphed against impossible odds, which could have been remotely interesting, if the outcome wasn't so obvious that Steevie Wonder could have seen it coming.
right because losing god knows how many space marines, every guardsman, and a GOD DAMNED GLORINA CLASS FLAG SHIP, merely a set back
...
Unless it has a noticeable effect on their efficacy moving forward, or actually prevents them from victory in the campaign, than it is literally a set back.
1. High level psykers have a HUGE mathmatical advantage over lower level psykers with how DtW works. This will be fine if each level is costed accordingly and increases significantly by level. Otherwise a lvl3 or 4 psyker can legitimately shut down an unlimited amount of level 1 psykers. Again - fine if it's costed appropriately.
Their advantages:
-Extremely likely to shut down multiple lower level psykers for the vast majority of the game.
-Higher chance of casting powers.
-Higher chance of getting to the 2nd tier of a spell (see Smite)
-Highly unlikely to be shut down by a lower level psyker.
These advantages need to be represented by something far greater than the 50pt difference between a lvl1 and a lvl3 that we see in 7th. If not 8th will be an edition of high level psyker s with no low levels to be se:-D!
I'm not seeing where you're getting any of this. The psykers level determines how many Powers they get and how many times they can deny the witch. That's it. I don't get why you think that they can cast better or denying more times then they have levels.
They all have the same chance of casting and deny. It's a 2d6 for both for everyone.
The new rules seem solid. There are a few changes in there that might take a while to adjust to. Now units can charge different units to the one they have been shooting at. Rapid Fire and Heavy Weapons can fire and charge now. It does shake up the game quite a bit.
Also no barrage or indirect fire, unless I missed that. Friendly units block line of sight.
All very good.
Regarding the background, I think people are forgetting just how big the Hive Fleet was...
1. High level psykers have a HUGE mathmatical advantage over lower level psykers with how DtW works. This will be fine if each level is costed accordingly and increases significantly by level. Otherwise a lvl3 or 4 psyker can legitimately shut down an unlimited amount of level 1 psykers. Again - fine if it's costed appropriately.
Their advantages:
-Extremely likely to shut down multiple lower level psykers for the vast majority of the game.
-Higher chance of casting powers.
-Higher chance of getting to the 2nd tier of a spell (see Smite)
-Highly unlikely to be shut down by a lower level psyker.
These advantages need to be represented by something far greater than the 50pt difference between a lvl1 and a lvl3 that we see in 7th. If not 8th will be an edition of high level psyker s with no low levels to be se:-D!
I'm not seeing where you're getting any of this. The psykers level determines how many Powers they get and how many times they can deny the witch. That's it. I don't get why you think that they can cast better or denying more times then they have levels.
They all have the same chance of casting and deny. It's a 2d6 for both for everyone.
True, looking straight at the rules again. I had it in my head that you added your power level to the roll, since that's what we gathered from the psychic phase leak. Reading it again that doesn't seem the case. That is much better if so.
A few little disappointments. Like if you fail your charge you stand around doing nothing. Turns out you don't move your charge distance like people thought.
Lance845 wrote: A few little disappointments. Like if you fail your charge you stand around doing nothing. Turns out you don't move your charge distance like people thought.
True, but now charges can be made from outside a weapons range so it can't fire in Overwatch, namely flamers. It might be a stretch to get to combat, but still going to help against units with a lot of flamers.
Woah, woah... stop right there. I know that Hellblaster Squad is gonna be expensive piece (200 points for 5 models) but they have nothing like Gets Hot!, only OPTIONAL supercharged thingy. What the absolute... fudge?
Kandela wrote: Woah, woah... stop right there. I know that Hellblaster Squad is gonna be expensive piece (200 points for 5 models) but they have nothing like Gets Hot!, only OPTIONAL supercharged thingy. What the absolute... fudge?
That is how the new plasma rules work. In the news thread, the leaked the plasma guns and pistols that the Death Guard use. Same rules. S7 AP-2 with no risk, S8 with a 1/6 chance of die like a goober.
Its quite a lot of fun trying to fit your idea of an army into it while also trying to max out the fluff/command points
I'm totally having a same situation here, before new edition comes, my projects were;
- Imperium (from 10k upgrading to 15k+)
- Tyranids living tide (about 200 models)
- a very distant project of Ultramarines First Company (from apocalypse, consisting over 100 models)
But this new way allows nicely Astra Militarum Super-Heavy tanks into my projects
The new plasma rules have me thinking about Dawn of War 3 and how somewhat similar they are.
I wonder if we will see more Dawn of War 3 things comes to light in 8th edition.
First, being able to see through models in your own unit is the same as every edition I've played. It does NOT mean that your own models from other units block LOS automatically (though they could). If you can still see the enemy to some capacity, you can see them.
Another thing I noticed is that it appears that units are no longer restricted to charging units that they shoot at, and they can charge after firing Rapid Fire or Heavy weapons. So a unit can rapid fire it's Bolters at unit A, but then charge unit B.
Shadelkan wrote: These read like the quick rules as opposed to the main rules. I'm going there's more details in the CRB
Those details will be on the more competitive style of play, i.e. points, competitive missions, etc. There will be no difference in the Phases between the free rules and the printed rulebook.
Shadelkan wrote: These read like the quick rules as opposed to the main rules. I'm going there's more details in the CRB
Well there are only 14 pages of rules now so i don't know what you expect
I don't think all of the rules are from the same book. I think the majority of what is there is from the core rules leaflet from the dark imperium box. The points appendix, hellblaster squad and primaris armoury are probably from the primaris marines booklet from the new box. And the battle forged armies bit is almost definitely from the main rulebook given that it mentions the detachment rules are on pages 243-245.
Spoiler:
I'm thinking that this might not be a leak but gw showing some of the rules as advertising disguised as a leak given that whoever took the pictures had access to so much stuff but we didn't get too much.
Again, multiple volleys of overwatch fire for a given unit are possible and are resolved on sixes... Personally I find this mechanic disappointing.
It doesn't seem to me like multiple overwatch is going to be that much of a problem; it's only going to happen if all prior charging units fail their charges.
jeff white wrote: But just for kicks could you outfit a single marine with three bolters? I guess there must be a limit on main weapons so infantry can have only one? But what about reaper exarchs with two launchers? Or ... I know maybe not smart but still the question is could such a thing be use able by the rules as written? And how about two pistols?
Currently, there are codices which more often than not allow certain squad members to exchange a weapon. It is very rare for a model to have more than one ranged (non-pistol) weapon unless they are dedicated weapons platforms already (war walkers, crisis suits, centurions, etc).
I would asume the new indices (and subsequent codices) to have like restrictions. From what we have read, a hypothetical infantry model with both a boltgun and a plasmagun would be able to fire them both. Just as a Reaper Exarch with two launchers. I highly doubt that a Reaper Exarch would get two launchers, however.
In that same vein, gimme some pistol lovin'. Sisters Seraphim being able to fire both pistols as separate weapons would seem so much more usefull than having two pistols, and for that fact being able to use only one, but count it as twin-linked anyways.
ryanme12 wrote: Am I understanding pistols right? My guys in hand to hand can shoot the squad they are fighting with their pistols during their own shooting phase?
The 'model can shoot all it's ranged weapons' is just a general rule so that your battle tank can shoot all it's guns - like it should - without adding an extra special rule or tag on it.
It's just going to be handled with unit profiles not having access to multiple weapons. So that your guardsman wouldn't be able to get a lazgun, a grenade launcher and a flamer all at the same time unless he's Rambo Marbo.
On the other hand, i'm pretty sure that at first we'll get some hilarious loopholes where a grot would be able to take an infinite number of grotblastas and one-shot a titan or something. But it's gona be fixed quickly...i'd probably even play vs this grot if it was wysiwyg.
Ran through a few turns with a couple of units this morning (making some educated guesses re profiles we haven't seen yet) and I like these rules. Particular shout out to the revisions to close combat; it's so much less of a headache now.
(It's pretty much the AoSCC rules, but with the addition of chargers striking first, I think, but it's been a little while since I've played AoS)
Bring on the Indices; I want to get going properly!
So here's something amusing - RAW, the Assault rule on weapons doesn't actually do anything.
"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."
So, this would come up in Step 3 of the Shooting Phase (Choose Ranged Weapon). However, before we ever get there, we have this rule in Step 1:
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
There is nothing in the Assault rule that overrides this. The Assault rule talks about individual models and specific weapons. Step 1 of the Shooting Phase is on the level of whole units, and doesn't even get into individual weapons or weapon-types.
vipoid wrote: So here's something amusing - RAW, the Assault rule on weapons doesn't actually do anything.
"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."
So, this would come up in Step 3 of the Shooting Phase (Choose Ranged Weapon). However, before we ever get there, we have this rule in Step 1:
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
There is nothing in the Assault rule that overrides this. The Assault rule talks about individual models and specific weapons. Step 1 of the Shooting Phase is on the level of whole units, and doesn't even get into individual weapons or weapon-types.
I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.
all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot
BrianDavion wrote: I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.
all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot
That's what it means, that's not what it technically reads... You can bet somebody's going to try to argue that in a tournament!
Well luckily not going to be major issue and TO's likely will laugh that player off if somebody tries.
BrianDavion wrote: I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.
all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot
That's what it means, that's not what it technically reads... You can bet somebody's going to try to argue that in a tournament!
Well luckily not going to be major issue and TO's likely will laugh that player off if somebody tries.
I like to assume there is a point in which if you try to lawyer certain things people will attempt to force feed you the rule book, rectally.
I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.
all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot
First off, why not just write their rules properly in the first place? I mean, why even bother having them if the players literally have to break and amend them just to get them to work properly?
Second, let's say that you were actually trying to follow the rules (I know, what a concept!). Please explain to me how you'd actually fire that stormbolter within the steps outlined in the Shooting Phase.
In particular, which rule(s) do you plan to break or ignore in order to get the Assault rule on the Stormbolter to function?
I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.
all this means is if I have a squad of tac marines, and the sergent has a stormbolter, the sergent can fire after advancing, but the rest of the squad with bolt guns cannot
First off, why not just write their rules properly in the first place? I mean, why even bother having them if the players literally have to break and amend them just to get them to work properly?
Second, let's say that you were actually trying to follow the rules (I know, what a concept!). Please explain to me how you'd actually fire that stormbolter within the steps outlined in the Shooting Phase.
In particular, which rule(s) do you plan to break or ignore in order to get the Assault rule on the Stormbolter to function?
The part where they can't fire because they had Advanced earlier in the turn. Just stop nitpicking and TRYING to break the rule. Are you really going to be the guy who says that the 1 stormbolter can't fire even though its an Assault Weapon, because of minor nitpicky wording that ultimate doesn't matter, because any reasonable person knows that Assault Weapons are designed as "can fire after running" weapons?
vipoid wrote: So here's something amusing - RAW, the Assault rule on weapons doesn't actually do anything.
"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."
So, this would come up in Step 3 of the Shooting Phase (Choose Ranged Weapon). However, before we ever get there, we have this rule in Step 1:
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
There is nothing in the Assault rule that overrides this. The Assault rule talks about individual models and specific weapons. Step 1 of the Shooting Phase is on the level of whole units, and doesn't even get into individual weapons or weapon-types.
I've said it before, but GW likes to assume we're not complete idiots.
This. It's abundantly clear what the intention is, and anyone who argues otherwise, because they've got an agenda to pursue about GW, isn't the sort of person I'd have any interest in playing a game with.
Deadshot wrote: The part where they can't fire because they had Advanced earlier in the turn.
No such rule exists.
You are not allowed to choose a unit that Advanced in the Shooting Phase, as per Step 1 in said phase.
Is that the rule you're referring to?
Deadshot wrote: Just stop nitpicking and TRYING to break the rule.
On the contrary - *you* are the one breaking the rule. I am following the rules, as written, step by step.
Deadshot wrote: Are you really going to be the guy who says that the 1 stormbolter can't fire even though its an Assault Weapon
Are you really going to be the guy who needs to break the rules for the sake of firing that 1 stormbolter?
I'm not arguing the rule, the rule is badly worded, but I'm arguing why you feel the need to be that guy who argues about it? Why nitpick to that degree to cause arguments when you know exactly what its supposed to do? I don't need to break rules on this because no one else would argue that I can't fire my stormbolter or flamer after Advancing because I can't pick that unit to fire.
Deadshot wrote: I'm not arguing the rule, the rule is badly worded, but I'm arguing why you feel the need to be that guy who argues about it?
Eh?
I wasn't the one who started the argument.
I just thought it was amusing that, RAW, the Assault rule was nonfunctional, and decided to share that.
I wasn't the one who decided to turn this into an argument. Nor was I the one who started making personal attacks based on this.
I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here." I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play. Rules aren't bulletproof, even the law has thousands of loopholes that can only be discovered by abuse of it, so why not just say "hmm, it's not technically allowed but we all know its supposed to work that way so why not just ignore it?"
It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.
Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.
I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here."
Please don't be disingenuous. It's far more than a missing comma and indeed it completely invalidates the Assault rule.
(Incidentally, don't undervalue the power of a comma to change the meaning of a sentence - "Let's eat, Grandpa!").
As to the why, because this is a discussion about the core rules? Because I thought it noteworthy that their core rules are now just ~16 pages long and they still couldn't avoid errors like this?
Deadshot wrote: I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play.
That's exactly what I think when I see mistakes like these in the rules. They are unnecessary and don't make the game any better to play.
It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.
I have made no such attempt.
Deadshot wrote: Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.
So it's not about me, just my mindset, which is why you're asking me? Glad we cleared that up.
With regard to my mindset, all I'll say is that you seem to be ascribing thoughts and actions to me that I do not possess and that I haven't taken, respectively. You accuse me of nitpicking, yet all I have done is found a problem when simply attempting to follow the rules as written. You accused me of trying to break the game, yet I have done no such thing. Indeed, I was trying specifically to not break the game and found that this was impossible in order for the Assault rule to work as intended.
That being said, GW really does need to learn how to write rules properly.
I really don't feel like it matters that much. As long as the way it's intended to work is clear, what's the problem?
Look at the YMDC full of arguments over RAW vs RAI and nitpicking loopholes.
GW doesn't write RAW=RAI and it's going to lead into arguments.
Arguments don't stop just by 8th ed being it. It stops if they write rules bullet proof. This isn't. Arguments will come.
'
This, but to elaborate, if this simple core rule has this big of a logical error in the grammar of their rules then whats going to happen when we start looking at special rules for armies and models whos RAI might not be as clear?
This doesn't bode well for whats to come.
Rules should be clear and concise and say exactly what they do. This could be fixed with a few potential changes to the wording.
1) Under Movement/Advancing remove the line "A unit that Advances cannot shoot or charge latter that turn."
2) Under Shooting/Choose a Unit to Shoot With change the line "You may not pick a unit that advanced or fell back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit" (this line also prevent pistols from working and the Fly keyword BTW) to "Unless otherwise noted a unit cannot shoot in the shooting phase if it advanced or fell back this turn, or if it is within 1" of an enemy unit."
Now the rules for Fly, Pistols, and Assault work properly because you are no longer prevented from selecting the unit to shoot. Instead you are simply not given permission to actually shoot unless something says otherwise.
3) Under Charge Phase/Choose a Unit to Charge With change the line "You may not choose a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, nor one that started the charge phase within 1" of an enemy unit." to " Unless otherwise noted a unit cannot charge if that unit Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or if it started the charge phase within 1" of an enemy unit." Now the Genestealer unit can still do it's advance and charge where as before the rules did not allow it to be selected to even try to charge.
Deadshot wrote: I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here." I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play. Rules aren't bulletproof, even the law has thousands of loopholes that can only be discovered by abuse of it, so why not just say "hmm, it's not technically allowed but we all know its supposed to work that way so why not just ignore it?"
It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.
Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.
That wasn't even going through comb...
Anyway it's good to know what loop holes are there so they can be plugged for tournaments because _they will pop up there_.
People dont' magically change just because 8th ed comes. 8th ed rules have holes in it, they get exploited. YDMC isn't filled up with nitpick arguments because 7th ed players are magically different to 8th ed. It's because those rules had also holes like this. Fix them or you WILL get nitpick arguments. Simple as that.
Otto von Bludd wrote: These rules look great to me. The terrain rule is interesting, it looks like it is going to be very very difficult for big blob/horde units to benefit from cover...which makes a ton of sense when you think about it.
I imagine that blob armies will now have a mandatory Aegis Defence Line. Now more than ever before.
I had never realized the 40k community was so toxic: 2 pages to know if a rule telling that you can shoot after having advanced allow you to shoot after you have advanced.
Amazing.
I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just asking why people (in this case you because you brought it up, but its about people as a whole) feel the need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and say "this doesn't work because they forgot a comma here."
Please don't be disingenuous. It's far more than a missing comma and indeed it completely invalidates the Assault rule.
(Incidentally, don't undervalue the power of a comma to change the meaning of a sentence - "Let's eat, Grandpa!").
As to the why, because this is a discussion about the core rules? Because I thought it noteworthy that their core rules are now just ~16 pages long and they still couldn't avoid errors like this?
Deadshot wrote: I just don't see why its necessary or how it makes the game any better to play.
That's exactly what I think when I see mistakes like these in the rules. They are unnecessary and don't make the game any better to play.
It just doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would try to break the game or parts of the game through such rigid and strict reading of rules due to a tiny miniscule detail.
I have made no such attempt.
Deadshot wrote: Again, its not about you, its about the mindset, which is why I'm asking you.
So it's not about me, just my mindset, which is why you're asking me? Glad we cleared that up.
With regard to my mindset, all I'll say is that you seem to be ascribing thoughts and actions to me that I do not possess and that I haven't taken, respectively. You accuse me of nitpicking, yet all I have done is found a problem when simply attempting to follow the rules as written. You accused me of trying to break the game, yet I have done no such thing. Indeed, I was trying specifically to not break the game and found that this was impossible in order for the Assault rule to work as intended.
It doesn't invalidate it if you don't go an make a tiny nitpick of the wording. Quite clearly the way its intended it to work is as exception and it really just doesnt need to scrutinised to such an absurd degree. Everyone knows what it means, and how its intended to work, and unless you're planning to abuse that aspect to the Nth degree, why bother mentioning it? And no, you can't avoid errors. As mentioned, even the law which has hundreds of thousands of specially trained experts writing it, has loopholes such as these. Just don't abuse it.
As for the comma thing, its not. A "Let's eat Grandpa" and "Let's eat, Grandpa" mean different things, but at the end of the day, is anyone eating Grandpa? Well, I'm sure someone out there is, but doubtfully anyone playing 40k 8th Ed.
Mistakes are completely irrelevant when they have no impact on the clarity of the rule. Quite clearly Assault Weapons are meant to be fired after running, the intention is clear. They only slow the game when someone tries to abuse that minor mistake. Are you going to enjoy the game less because someone was able to fire their Stormbolter? Or are you going to enjoy it less because you had an argument over the stormbolter?
Rules cannot be bulletproof. There is always someone wanting to break them and they will find a way regardless, whether its in the wording, punctuation or simply interpretation of a line or phrase. Also, it doesn't need to be. Again, what value does it bring to argue about something like this? If it was something major like "Models in a Flyer cannot disembark." and Stormravens "Models disembarking in Zoom mode may use this method," that is a gamebreaking thing. This isn't.
YOu can proofread something a million times, doesn't guarentee you'll pick up on the minor mistake like this.
You appear to have made an attempt by pointing it out. I can happiy read over that without even mentioning the discrepancy, as it wont affect my game, as I know the intention of the rule. Why point it out or take notice if not to abuse?
Not your mindset, the mindset, of going through word by word in an attempt to find flaws with the system. Why do it if not to break the game or complain? Its nitpicking to find such a tiny mistake, that, ultimately, should not have an impact on the game and should not be a problem at all. The game uses abstraction and representation, it doesn't work when people argue about tiny details.
And again, this is not a specific thing about you. You were the one to point it out and I just want to know why you feel the need to do so.
godardc wrote: I had never realized the 40k community was so toxic: 2 pages to know if a rule telling that you can shoot after having advanced allow you to shoot after you have advanced.
Amazing.
Discussing Rules is not toxic, But it is sad to see people step in to defend a badly written rule. If GW is made aware of the rule that can help them int he future with writing other rules as well.
It just sucks to see players wave away a rule being wrong, As it effects perception of other rules that can be even worse to decipher.
Its half of what made the previous editions so crap so often.
As for the comma thing, its not. A "Let's eat Grandpa" and "Let's eat, Grandpa" mean different things, but at the end of the day, is anyone eating Grandpa? Well, I'm sure someone out there is, but doubtfully anyone playing 40k 8th Ed.
I'd be more curious if someone is eating Grandpa because someone messed up their grammar.
godardc wrote: I had never realized the 40k community was so toxic: 2 pages to know if a rule telling that you can shoot after having advanced allow you to shoot after you have advanced.
Amazing.
Hardly toxic. Being critical of a product that can be easily fixed is something to be encouraged. Don't settle for less. There's absolutely zero reasons why they couldn't have and shouldn't have caught this for a company their size, their experience in the industry, and the size of the team working on it.
If anything, the toxic behaviour is going around calling other people toxic for pointing out obvious flaws. I'm about 99% everyone will play it RAI, but that doesn't change the fact that RAW is broken and we should expect them to fix it so its clear.
When you boil it down, the Assault rule is little different then the Relentless rule. Relentless only applies to the model and not to the unit, but if the unit fired a Rapid Fire/Heavy Weapon, it cannot Charge. This rule does not care if the model in the unit that fired it has Relentless or not, yet we treat it as affecting the unit in such a manner.
Black Rage: In addition roll a d6 each time this unit looses a wound. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored.
So when does this happen?
Units don't loose wounds. Models do. Also I believe it's called suffer damage in other parts of the rules. Are you rolling it after saves but before damage and thus negated any potential damage? Is it a FNP like rule where you roll it after damage for each damage so a weapon that deals 2 damage would get 2 "Black Rage" rolls?
Personally I would say it's pretty clear it's meant to be a FNP like roll. But then, I can see why a RAW person would make a (weak) argument for it applying before damage.
Damnit GW. Just write your rules with consistent language and structure.
It is really disappointing to see that they are still writing rules like this :(
I guess They will need 9th edition to fix what they get wrong at this point.
BrianDavion wrote: coming soon warhammer 9th edition! rules for 500 dollars! because we had to hire a team of high priced lawyers to write them for you!
Without wishing to impart air into a certain musical instrument that I perhaps perchance to own, I'm going to go ahead and say that I could do a far better job at writing or proofreading these rules without needing to hire any lawyers.
Black Rage: In addition roll a d6 each time this unit looses a wound. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored.
So when does this happen?
This roll would happen after failed saves and damage applied. So if you had 6 attacks at 2 damage each, you save 4 so 2 attacks go through dealing 4 damage. You would now roll 4 dice and on a 6 one lost wound is discounted.
Basically a unit/model doesn't lose a wound until damage is applied and any ability that lets you ignore wounds is rolled after.
BrianDavion wrote: coming soon warhammer 9th edition! rules for 500 dollars! because we had to hire a team of high priced lawyers to write them for you!
They could hire me alone for a regular hourly wage and I would be glad to go cover to cover through all 6 rule books and fix them.
It's fething simple. You create a basic structure for the rules writing that is comprehensive, concise, and avoids definitive statements so special rules can act as intended.
For instance Black Rage: "In addition, if a model from this unit suffers damage roll a d6 for each damage suffered. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored. "
Black Rage: In addition roll a d6 each time this unit looses a wound. On a roll of 6 the damage is ignored.
So when does this happen?
This roll would happen after failed saves and damage applied. So if you had 6 attacks at 2 damage each, you save 4 so 2 attacks go through dealing 4 damage. You would now roll 4 dice and on a 6 one lost wound is discounted.
Basically a unit/model doesn't lose a wound until damage is applied and any ability that lets you ignore wounds is rolled after.
ross-128 wrote: I'm basically going to be reading anything that says "If X loses a wound, roll Y+ to ignore" as "Y+ Feel No Pain".
Which could lead to its own problems :( If they introduce rules that should be different, but are taken as the same it means we are just going to end up with another system that is split .
Thinking about this, are they not getting a bunch of high profile people in on the testing that should have catch things like this ?
If they want to sell the books, they have to show they can get the basic rules down and quite tight, Not perfect but i do not want to see half the pages of the rules as a Faq 2 months down the line.
Honestly, considering GW is already notorious for their legal department they probably should get one of their lawyers to proofread their rules. Legalese may be stilted and awkward to read, but that's because it's an exercise in torturing all the vagueness out of the English language until only precise meaning is left.
Or they could write their rules in C, that would work too.
This isn't being pedantic-this is reading the rules as written and realizing that GW made mistakes.
I don't think it's too much to ask that with a less than 20 page rulebook, they go over it and fix mistakes.
But it isn't really a mistake..
You just don't like their grammar and/or their phrasing
No, it IS a mistake. The Rules As Written explicitly prevent this.
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
Don't forget that GW released a FAQ on day 1 of Codex: Tau Empire in 6th edition, just to explicitly clarify that Missile Drones were *only* usable by Broadside Squads. It was an obvious misprint that had people excited that they could totally take 2 Missile Drones per Fire Warrior squad, or tons of them for Crisis Teams or whatnot.
This isn't being pedantic-this is reading the rules as written and realizing that GW made mistakes.
I don't think it's too much to ask that with a less than 20 page rulebook, they go over it and fix mistakes.
But it isn't really a mistake..
You just don't like their grammar and/or their phrasing
No, it IS a mistake. The Rules As Written explicitly prevent this.
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
That's pretty cut and dry.
>_>
yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
It is pretty clear, you are just pedantic
It trumps it for the model, but not the unit. Can the model shoot if the unit does not? If GW is going to continue with recognizing the difference between units and models with rule interactions, then it is wise to recognize the difference.
But again, as I said, it is no different then with how we treat Relentless.
yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
It is pretty clear, you are just pedantic
It trumps it for the model, but not the unit. Can the model shoot if the unit does not? If GW is going to continue with recognizing the difference between units and models with rule interactions, then it is wise to recognize the difference.
But again, as I said, it is no different then with how we treat Relentless.
Well with the defender now chooses losses.. I would suspect Model and Unit are interchangeable terms with the new rules
yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
It is pretty clear, you are just pedantic
It trumps it for the model, but not the unit. Can the model shoot if the unit does not? If GW is going to continue with recognizing the difference between units and models with rule interactions, then it is wise to recognize the difference.
But again, as I said, it is no different then with how we treat Relentless.
Well with the defender now chooses losses.. I would suspect Model and Unit are interchangeable terms with the new rules
You suspect wrong.
It's clear from what rules we have seen that a unit is what you act with and models make up a unit.
And even if there was no difference then why did they use 2 terms?
It's clear from what rules we have seen that a unit is what you act with and models make up a unit.
And even if there was no difference then why did they use 2 terms?
Could be a different person wrote different rules
Hate to break it to you. GW is a company. They have a lot of employees. A new edition of 40k does not get placed into the hands of a single person. Neither does any game on the market. There is always a team that works on any book including editors and testers.
No gak a different person wrote different rules. The company is supposed to have a project lead and a lead designer who both lay down a ground work and quality standard that every other employee is supposed to follow. Editors, testers, and proof reading staff should be looking for inconsistencies. Quality control.
Every page of all 12 pages of rules should be getting checked and rechecked by several people before it ever makes it to print or gets all the pretty pictures put into the background. Either GWs writing staff is made up of various people who are all incompetent. Or the lead staff were incredibly incompetent and the standards they laid down were so bellow par that the actual staff was directionless.
Either way, I would not build a company that way. Seems shoddy.
So apparently every sentence in the rulebook needs to start with "Unless otherwise noted", and/or every special rule needs to explicitly state "this overrides normal movement/shooting/assault/etc. rules", or by RAW the game just doesn't work? Is that the argument?
What other game does that? I'm pretty sure I've never read a rulebook before that was that irritatingly precise in its language, but people here are making it sound like that's the norm.
Sidstyler wrote: So apparently every sentence in the rulebook needs to start with "Unless otherwise noted", and/or every special rule needs to explicitly state "this overrides normal movement/shooting/assault/etc. rules", or by RAW the game just doesn't work? Is that the argument?
What other game does that? I'm pretty sure I've never read a rulebook before that was that irritatingly precise in its language, but people here are making it sound like that's the norm.
Warmachine and MtG manage to write their rulebooks to work exactly RAW. Sure others do as well, but they're the only two I've read.
GW rules are a pain with their writing, and it goes back to BFG/Epic/etc. Although BFG was better then the others, it still had plenty of issues.
Sidstyler wrote: So apparently every sentence in the rulebook needs to start with "Unless otherwise noted", and/or every special rule needs to explicitly state "this overrides normal movement/shooting/assault/etc. rules", or by RAW the game just doesn't work? Is that the argument?
What other game does that? I'm pretty sure I've never read a rulebook before that was that irritatingly precise in its language, but people here are making it sound like that's the norm.
I own DOZENS of board games. Their rules ARE that precise.
Often they have a little section that says "If a rule on a card contradicts the rules in this book the card takes precedence".
In 7th they had a rule for basic vs advanced.
Some of them have the good sense to Bold keywords that get repeated throught the book so that people always know when the rules are referring to specific terms in the rules and they always make sure to use the correct terms.
I dare you to go dig out your rule book for anything from Monopoly or Descent, or any other game and give that rule book a read. Go look up the actual rules to poker and tell me if there are any holes in their language or syntax.
What they never do is make definitive statements that tell you what you can never do and then write rules that grant you permission to break them without ever actually allowing you to break them.
Mistakes are completely irrelevant when they have no impact on the clarity of the rule. Quite clearly Assault Weapons are meant to be fired after running, the intention is clear. They only slow the game when someone tries to abuse that minor mistake. Are you going to enjoy the game less because someone was able to fire their Stormbolter? Or are you going to enjoy it less because you had an argument over the stormbolter? .
Nice in theory, doesn't work in practice. Virtually all 7th ed arquments in 7th ed are result of stuff like this. If this was irrelevant becausewit's so obvious no 7th ed arquments either. How did that work out?
Ethereal: Sense of Stone. When I read that rule it pretty clearly happens on a to wound roll, after saves, before damage.
Sense of Stone is better than FNP because a single roll will negate multiple damage.
RAW that is what it says. But it can be argued that it's not what they meant. And those arguments will happen.
It's also the same rule as Black Rage but it's written differently for no good reason.
You take a save for every damage point and a wound for every unsaved point. Sense of stone pretty clearly is just fnp. Say you to take a hit of 4 damage, you then roll 4 saves, fail 2 of them. You then take 2 sense of stone tests for the unsaved wounds that got through. It's not like the 7ed D where one save negated all the wounds. At least that's how I see it given that saves are taken on an per damage bases, not all on one.
I could be wrong, let me know if I am please. I just thought thats how it was for saves.
Still don't understand why they don't just make all flyers count as skimmers for 40k games, only on Apoc or very large tables does flyers even make a remote amount of sense.
Still don't understand why they don't just make all flyers count as skimmers for 40k games, only on Apoc or very large tables does flyers even make a remote amount of sense.
actually I think they may have done just that more or less
Ethereal: Sense of Stone. When I read that rule it pretty clearly happens on a to wound roll, after saves, before damage.
Sense of Stone is better than FNP because a single roll will negate multiple damage.
RAW that is what it says. But it can be argued that it's not what they meant. And those arguments will happen.
It's also the same rule as Black Rage but it's written differently for no good reason.
You take a save for every damage point and a wound for every unsaved point. Sense of stone pretty clearly is just fnp. Say you to take a hit of 4 damage, you then roll 4 saves, fail 2 of them. You then take 2 sense of stone tests for the unsaved wounds that got through. It's not like the 7ed D where one save negated all the wounds. At least that's how I see it given that saves are taken on an per damage bases, not all on one.
I could be wrong, let me know if I am please. I just thought thats how it was for saves.
You have your order of operations wrong.
In 8th you roll to hit, roll to wound, save then damage the model. Then FNP the damage.
So lets use the Lascannon. Heavy1 / ap-3 (I think) / dmg d3
It's heavy 1 so you shoot once. Roll 1 die to hit. You do, roll to wound, you do. the target allocates the wound to a model (defenders choice now) and rolls to save. If they fail d3 damage is dealt to the single model. Any excess damage is lost. If the model has a FNP like ability you would need to roll FNP agaisnt each individual damage from the d3 roll.
But that is not what Sense of Stone says.
Sense of stone says: It's heavy 1 so you shoot once. Roll 1 die to hit. You do, roll to wound, you do. the target allocates the wound to a model (defenders choice now) and rolls to save. They fail so you roll Sense of Stone. On a 6 the WOUND is ignored. ALL the damage is ignored because it never reaches the dmg step.
To reiterate the inconsistency and the issue: Sense of Stone say to roll when the unit SUFFERS an UNSAVED WOUND and on a 6 ignore the WOUND. Black rage says to roll when the unit LOOSES a WOUND and on a 6 the DAMAGE is ignored.
The wording is different and references different things in those profiles.
Sense of stone, RAW, applies before damage.
Black Rage, RAW, applies AFTER damage.
If the Lascannon does 3 damage a single model needs to pass a single sense of stone roll to walk away scott free. A Black Rage model needs to pass 3 Black Rage rolls to do the same.
GodDamUser wrote: yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
It is pretty clear, you are just pedantic
Okay, let me explain this the long-winded way. Hopefully you'll see that this goes beyond mere pedantry.
The shooting phase is divided into 4 steps:
Step 1 - Choose Unit to Shoot With
Step 2 - Choose Targets
Step 3 - Choose Ranged Weapons
Step 4 - Resolve Attacks
Each step is predicated on completing the ones before it (e.g. if there are no legal targets in Step 2, you can't advance to Step 3).
With me so far?
Right, so let's say we have a squad of 5 Marines. 4 with bolters, 1 with a Flamer and 1 with a Lascannon (I don't know if this loadout will be possible, but let's just assume it is).
In the Movement Phase the squad Advances up the table.
Now we move to the shooting phase and begin with Step 1:
"In your Shooting Phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons." Check.
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
The player may not pick the unit of marines because it Advanced in the movement phase.
"But what about the Assault rule!" I hear you cry.
Okay, let's look at the Assault rule:
"A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it advanced earlier that turn."
I refer you back to Step 1 of the shooting phase:
"First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced"
Do you see any reference to models in that sentence? Do you see any mention of weapon types? No. Do you see any mention of 'units' or 'choosing' in the Assault rule? Also no.
This is a permissive ruleset. You do not have permission to choose the unit of marines that advanced. There is literally nothing in the Assault rule that overrides that. The Assault rule would, in theory, come into play in Step 3 (when you are at the level of individual models and their weapons). However, that's far too late because you've already been denied access to those steps.
"But the intent is obvious!" I could argue that we're already on dicey ground here. I mean, what's to stop me arguing that the intent of a transport is to move units before they disembark, and thus I should be able to ignore that rule?
But whatever. Let's say you're right. Clearly the intent is that the model with an Assault weapon should be able to fire it even if the unit advanced. So clearly it must override that restriction in Step 1.
Okay, we'll move onto Step 2. Let's say that there's a single unit of orks within 6", so that'll be our target.
Step 3 (Choose Ranged Weapons). Okay. I'll choose to fire the Flamer, the Bolters and the Lascannon.
"Wait! You can't do that?"
On the contrary - nothing in Step 3 prevents me from choosing to fire the non-Assault weapons in the unit. Literally the only barrier to firing those weapons in the first place was in Step 1, and by allowing me to override that because the unit contained a model with an Assault weapon, you also opened the door for the unit to fire every non-Assault weapon as well. Good job.
Do you see the problem yet?
The barrier that prevents units that Advanced from shooting is in Step 1 and precludes the entire unit from even trying to shoot.
The Assault rule doesn't override this because it comes in at the wrong step and overcomes a barrier in that step that doesn't actually exist. What's more, if you allow the Assault rule to overcome the barrier in step 1, then there is nothing stopping the entire unit from shooting. Because by the time you get down to the level of individual models and weapons, the only barrier to shooting with non-Assault weapons has already been passed.
Now, this is fixable. First you'd have to remove the restriction in Step 1 that prevents you from being able to choose units that Advanced. Then you'd have to add a rule in Step 3 that prevented models that advanced from firing with any weapons that don't have the Assault property.
However, we're now having to break or remove one rule and then add a second rule just to get the Assault rule to work as intended. This is not pedantry this is incompetent rule writing and proofreading by chimpanzees.
Lance845 wrote: Sense of Stone say to roll when the unit SUFFERS an UNSAVED WOUND and on a 6 ignore the WOUND. Black rage says to roll when the unit LOOSES a WOUND and on a 6 the DAMAGE is ignored.
The wording is different and references different things in those profiles.
Sense of stone, RAW, applies before damage.
Black Rage, RAW, applies AFTER damage.
If the Lascannon does 3 damage a single model needs to pass a single sense of stone roll to walk away scott free. A Black Rage model needs to pass 3 Black Rage rolls to do the same.
This is exactly the way I read it. the Black Rage ability of discounting damage is a common enough thing is AoS, but the Etheral ability is unique. It actually makes them worth taking, that ability is super strong.
GodDamUser wrote: yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
It is pretty clear, you are just pedantic
stuff
Yup.
I'm truly impressed!
The new edition hasn't even come out yet - and Dakka's already found a 'contradictory' rule to ruthlessly analyze without any semblance of common sense and obvious intention? Ma gawd!
I'm saving this post for when they fix the 'mistake' by issuing some smug reply to all the rules lawyers on Facebook
Jambles wrote: and Dakka's already found a 'contradictory' rule
The rule isn't contradictory (not even if you put the word in inverted commas) - it is outright nonfunctional if you attempt to follow the rules as written.
Excuse me while I contact the Oxford English Dictionary and inform them that the definition of 'ruthlessly analyse' has been changed to 'reading the rules'.
Jambles wrote: without any semblance of common sense and obvious intention?
Does it make you feel big when you outright lie about people?
Jambles wrote: I'm saving this post for when they fix the 'mistake' by issuing some smug reply to all the rules lawyers on Facebook
People like you are why the rest of us have to put up with GW's sloppy writing. People like you who will defend atrociously-written rules because of 'obvious intention', apparently oblivious to the thousands of pages of rule disputes on this forum alone. People like you, who think that the appropriate response by a company, when someone points out a mistake in their rules, is for them to post a smug reply on Facebook instead of making an effort to actually fix the mistake and improve their sloppy writing.
But feel free to save my above post if it somehow pleases you. I have said nothing I regret and am satisfied with the arguments I provided. If GW issues a smug reply via Facebook, all it will prove is that they have no actual rebuttal nor any excuse for their poor writing. If that puts you in awe of GW as a company, then that is your problem and not mine.
GodDamUser wrote: yes normally a unit cannot shoot if it has advanced.. the Assault weapons have a rule that trumps this rule, as an exception
It is pretty clear, you are just pedantic
stuff
Yup.
I'm truly impressed!
The new edition hasn't even come out yet - and Dakka's already found a 'contradictory' rule to ruthlessly analyze without any semblance of common sense and obvious intention? Ma gawd!
I'm saving this post for when they fix the 'mistake' by issuing some smug reply to all the rules lawyers on Facebook
The problem is that we don't know. What were the intentions of the writers? The two situations should be equal and we are nitpicking, or is intentional and carefully calculated in the unit point cost? I don't read minds, do you? Especially on the other side of the ocean, I don't have enough Warp Charges to be honest.
Besides, albeit I like how the new rules model weapons and how the shooting between infantry models changes, these pseudo-FnP, wounds, random stats, decreasing stats, and split fire look like a lot of stuff to keep track of!
Better keep the points low (and buy less models )
The main reason it's getting so much scrutiny is that a syntax error like that is not always so innocent as "oh well obviously they MEANT to let assault weapons shoot after running, so we'll just ignore the fact that their order-of-operations technically would prevent it".
D&D's long history is filled with numerous examples of how a simple oversight like that can turn out much worse. Such as the Locate City Bomb. 40k even has a fairly infamous example with the Fish of Fury.
Ideally, a good rules system should be written so a computer can understand it in order to avoid situations like that.
Arguing raw vs rai is almost always a lesson in futility. We all know that GW leaves holes in their rules but it is usually pretty obvious what they are trying to get at. It'll probably just get FAQed at some point if it confuses enough people.
These disussions always just end up in 20 pages of circular arguments, descending into name calling and other nonsense. What is the point?
Aparently you think its excessive to point out that logically it just doesnt work. Thats your perogative. You're wrong. But its ok. You are allowed to be wrong.
D&D's long history is filled with numerous examples of how a simple oversight like that can turn out much worse. Such as the Locate City Bomb.
.
and here I thought you where going to mention "and not shall be left saved shattered thrones with no rulers but the dead. Dragons shall rule the world entire" vs "and not shall be left saved shattered thrones with no rulers but the dead Dragons shall rule the world entire"
cause yeah, Forgotten realms created an entire evil orginization based around a grammer error in a prophecy
excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.
The difference between a unit and model in a rule is not a minor detail. Just look at the difference between Relentless and Slow and Purposeful for such a "minor detail".
Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
Yeah we have a lot of the pieces of the story but are still in the dark as how they properly fit. Wich piece belongs where in what order? Also we have less pieces then some people might think.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Make them aware all you want. I don't think you realize how long printing, production, packing, shipping to distribution centers and then actual shipping takes. If they plan on releasing that starter box on the 17th then I guarantee you those starter boxes are already wrapped in shrink wrap packed into cardboard boxes and being palatalized to be shipped to distribution centers in the next week or so.
If they are not in or on the way to distribution centers by the end of the week there is no way they can ensure the product will be in the stores on release.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Make them aware all you want. I don't think you realize how long printing, production, packing, shipping to distribution centers and then actual shipping takes. If they plan on releasing that starter box on the 17th then I guarantee you those starter boxes are already wrapped in shrink wrap packed into cardboard boxes and being palatalized to be shipped to distribution centers in the next week or so.
If they are not in or on the way to distribution centers by the end of the week there is no way they can ensure the product will be in the stores on release.
I know all of that it is not some mystery at all, which in turns spins it all back around to GW Just got no clue And this edition will be rocky again since they need someone in the design staff that is up to modern standards.
This is the what may be the sad Reality, GW Cannot Bring the rules standard up with the current design leadership. Its not like they should be unaware at this point where there rules in the passed have been, and should be extra carefull.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Only if they are reading the rules to the Nth degree like in this thread. Most likely the playtesting is done as actual game to determine balance, so instead of reading the syllables every single time, they do what every single player does after learning the rules enough to know the effect.
"What do Assault Weapons do now?"
"They can be fired after Advancing."
"Sweet. I'm going to Advance and fire my stormbolter."
As it should be done, in a friendly verbal way adhering to the spirit of the game.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Only if they are reading the rules to the Nth degree like in this thread. Most likely the playtesting is done as actual game to determine balance, so instead of reading the syllables every single time, they do what every single player does after learning the rules enough to know the effect.
"What do Assault Weapons do now?"
"They can be fired after Advancing."
"Sweet. I'm going to Advance and fire my stormbolter."
As it should be done, in a friendly verbal way adhering to the spirit of the game.
When rules have issues at the base level it filters up, It is there job to make a product for SALE.
Why pay for shoddy work, It take less than a day here to catch.
Just because that is how a rule should work, does not mean a mistake in the rule cannot cause issues latter.
Also some people actually play the game to the rules written if possible to avoid arguments, its just whats normal in the other games i play. GW has to proove they can do this, They are sorta passed there chances phase.
Lance845 wrote: Not that it makes MUCH of a difference, but so far all the core rules leaks we have seen have been on very oddly formatted pages. (they are very thin). I suspect they are scan of the quick reference pamphlet thing that comes with the starter box and not actually scans of the real rules from the BRB.
If that is true it's possible we are not seeing the real wording of the actual rules but the abbreviated bull crap they stuck on that pamphlet. It doesn't make it good. But it might mean it's not ACTUALLY as bad as it looks.
We will have to wait for properly formatted scans or the 17th to know for sure.
It may be in the pamphlet, But abbreviated it does not read that way. And would be kind of pointless.
It is likely a scan of the Booklet for the box, but still disappointing to see.
It is far better GW is made aware now, than after release. But if they have been play testing it, they should have catch something like this before they have print anything.
Only if they are reading the rules to the Nth degree like in this thread. Most likely the playtesting is done as actual game to determine balance, so instead of reading the syllables every single time, they do what every single player does after learning the rules enough to know the effect.
"What do Assault Weapons do now?"
"They can be fired after Advancing."
"Sweet. I'm going to Advance and fire my stormbolter."
As it should be done, in a friendly verbal way adhering to the spirit of the game.
You're wrong. It's fine. You are allowed to be wrong. But you are still wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, the core books leaked. Interesting points.
1) they mention codexes and what they will include that you will not find in the indexes or the free rules on the websites.
Namely, Warlord traits, stratagems and relics. They are not gone, they just don't exist yet.
2) the gak wording in the core rules is in the BRB. It's official. RAW, Assault, Pistols, and such don't actually work in the game. Strap in everyone. YMDC is going to be a gak storm over the next couple months.
Jambles wrote: and Dakka's already found a 'contradictory' rule
The rule isn't contradictory (not even if you put the word in inverted commas) - it is outright nonfunctional if you attempt to follow the rules as written.
Excuse me while I contact the Oxford English Dictionary and inform them that the definition of 'ruthlessly analyse' has been changed to 'reading the rules'.
Jambles wrote: without any semblance of common sense and obvious intention?
Does it make you feel big when you outright lie about people?
Jambles wrote: I'm saving this post for when they fix the 'mistake' by issuing some smug reply to all the rules lawyers on Facebook
People like you are why the rest of us have to put up with GW's sloppy writing. People like you who will defend atrociously-written rules because of 'obvious intention', apparently oblivious to the thousands of pages of rule disputes on this forum alone. People like you, who think that the appropriate response by a company, when someone points out a mistake in their rules, is for them to post a smug reply on Facebook instead of making an effort to actually fix the mistake and improve their sloppy writing.
But feel free to save my above post if it somehow pleases you. I have said nothing I regret and am satisfied with the arguments I provided. If GW issues a smug reply via Facebook, all it will prove is that they have no actual rebuttal nor any excuse for their poor writing. If that puts you in awe of GW as a company, then that is your problem and not mine.
Oh wow, I touched a nerve! You went and replied not just sentence by sentence, but broke up the sentences into individual parts! Had a bad day?
I'm just kidding around, man. I'm sorry you got upset, but you're taking this way too personally. If you really want to take it there, I'm not the only one who thinks the same way about rules lawyering, and surely you've encountered these people before, so why be so defensive? My post didn't attack or insult you personally, although you seem to think it did, and it wasn't aggressive or inflammatory; all things your post most assuredly did and was. The Facebook bit was a JOKE, man, and for that you've pegged me as the ultimate GW apologist and the root cause of all your woes? How's that projection working out?
Fastest ignore of my life.
Lance845 wrote: YMDC is going to be a gak storm over the next couple months.
When has it ever not been? It doesn't usually bleed into the other sections of the forum though...
I'm digging the Battlezone rules in the BRB. The way they've implemented night fighting as a combination of the old sight line restrictions and mysterious objectives is neat. I'm interested in what else they'll be adding for those in the future, I'd like to see some reprints of old White Dwarf rules like jungle death worlds and daemon worlds.
lol, damn people are getting a bit to heated over this stuff, I am just excited to try out these new rules... even though I just learned the old rules but you know whatever. Just like any game some folks take gak way to seriously, that said IF there is a miswording in the rules I hope they correct it in a post on the community page or something but I am not going to through a fit over it. These games and the hobby in general take to much time as it is, not gunna waste more of it crying about something I cant change.
