Lord Damocles wrote: How do you drop that through an atmosphere without it all exploding..?
DoW just has everything drop from orbit.
Which is kind of dumb, but concessions have to be made for the sake of gameplay. Even then, the Marine structures have drop rigs around them, whereas this thing has the stabilisation vanes from the top of a drop pod built into it half way up; with a bunch of rockets strapped to the top, and it's filled with promethium!
I mean when has 40k ever really cared about safety? They have guns that might explode on the user.
The guns in question are often more valuable than the person holding them so who cares? Buildings are expensive though.
Load bearing walls are canonically heresy in 40k so maybe making OSHA cry is a design goal?
What? What's that from? That seems odd even for 40k, I mean the load needs bearing somewhere right? Do they magic it all somewhere else???
From "Death of Antagonis":
Wow, they forgot how walls work. Mind you that is on brand. Although if he is dead then Dorn must be spinning in his grave.
it'd be nice if we had seen anything but MORE marines, like f.e. DE, or i dunnoi even more necrons, or Tau, or heck maybee even chaos? Maybee even a look tentatively at FW units and index armies?
No? Not even GSC?
Extra range on MWBD is nice, being able to cast it on our tanks is amazing (hello hitting on 2s doomsday arks). Aura for move instead of +1 move with MWBD is probably a buff overall.
Still 3 attacks, which is ludicrous. Overall he seems fine. Was expecting a 4th attack because even guardsmen leaders have 4 attacks, but whatever. Tachyon Arrow is funny and will occasionally obliterate something, but one shot makes it swingy.
"Assault intercessors are among the most widespread close support units in a Chapters arsenal"
I get it GW, you want to squat oldmarines, at least try to stay subtle about it
BaconCatBug wrote: "Assault intercessors are among the most widespread close support units in a Chapters arsenal"
I get it GW, you want to squat oldmarines, at least try to stay subtle about it
if the leaks are true, i don't see how not, heck scouts at 14ppm and tacs at 15 but an intercissor at 20`?
BaconCatBug wrote: "Assault intercessors are among the most widespread close support units in a Chapters arsenal"
I get it GW, you want to squat oldmarines, at least try to stay subtle about it
if the leaks are true, i don't see how not, heck scouts at 14ppm and tacs at 15 but an intercissor at 20`?
My guess is Camo Cloaks are free now (based on eliminator changes) and tacs are just Fethed.
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
How would a SS terminator get a 2++ save? The shield gives a 4++ and modifies the armor save by 1 so terminators have a 1+/4++ save (1 always fails so only useful against AP values above zero).
BaconCatBug wrote: "Assault intercessors are among the most widespread close support units in a Chapters arsenal"
I get it GW, you want to squat oldmarines, at least try to stay subtle about it
if the leaks are true, i don't see how not, heck scouts at 14ppm and tacs at 15 but an intercissor at 20`?
My guess is Camo Cloaks are free now (based on eliminator changes) and tacs are just Fethed.
doesn't bode well for chaos then, considering what happened to cultists i can't see them not beeing 15 pts aswell, and that they are not worth still, better then cultists but not worth....
Extra range on MWBD is nice, being able to cast it on our tanks is amazing (hello hitting on 2s doomsday arks). Aura for move instead of +1 move with MWBD is probably a buff overall.
Still 3 attacks, which is ludicrous. Overall he seems fine. Was expecting a 4th attack because even guardsmen leaders have 4 attacks, but whatever. Tachyon Arrow is funny and will occasionally obliterate something, but one shot makes it swingy.
While being capped at 3 attacks is dumb, MWBD and the Aura is pretty amazing.
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
How would a SS terminator get a 2++ save? The shield gives a 4++ and modifies the armor save by 1 so terminators have a 1+ save (1 always fails so only useful against AP values above zero). So that lieutenant has a 4++ save and a 2+ armor save.
Hmm, you now have to use all your psychic powers on a psyker before moving to the next one, rather than power-by-power...but it seems like you can also manifest smite more than once per psyker, which I kinda doubt is intentional.
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
How would a SS terminator get a 2++ save? The shield gives a 4++ and modifies the armor save by 1 so terminators have a 1+/4++ save (1 always fails so only useful against AP values above zero).
Yeah, even in cover at +2 it's still not an invul equiv. It just makes things like melta actually useful on terminators instead of being a giant waste.
Now Psykers have to complete all of their powers before moving on to another psyker. I believe that is different. Also, I don't see a range on Deny the Witch, but iirc, there is range on the individual data sheets.
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
I think having an invulnerable save does not replace your Save characteristic. So, that Primaris Lieutenant would be 2+/4++ and a terminator would be 1+/4++. And there is probably a rule that 1 always fails.
Welp, reanimator is indeed not a character, so it is going to get destroyed by a stiff breeze. Though I guess they gotta kill the thralls too first, so it does end up being 10 T5 wounds to get through.
Now Psykers have to complete all of their powers before moving on to another psyker. I believe that is different. Also, I don't see a range on Deny the Witch, but iirc, there is range on the individual data sheets.
I was wrong about Perils thing but yeah, I reread it (my boomer eyes and blurry prints make it a chore). I didn't catch that about the psykers.
Makes sense as you have to do all of a units ranged/melee attacks before you can move on to the next unit.
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
I think having an invulnerable save does not replace your Save characteristic. So, that Primaris Lieutenant would be 2+/4++ and a terminator would be 1+/4++. And there is probably a rule that 1 always fails.
Inv save has NEVER replaced your armor save. You can never take both the armor save and invul save though. You can take an amor save/FNP or inv/FNP but never ARMOR/INV.
It's weird math gymnastics to assume a 4++ becomes a 2++ invul or that +1 to "save characteristic" assume the invul save when Invul saves can NEVER be modified.
The changes to RP are apparently much more extensive than Games workshop have been letting on. I like that warriors now re-rell RP rolls of 1 by default now, and Scarabs now have the old "Poisoned Attacks" rule from warhammer Fantasy (6s to hit wound automatically).
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
I think having an invulnerable save does not replace your Save characteristic. So, that Primaris Lieutenant would be 2+/4++ and a terminator would be 1+/4++. And there is probably a rule that 1 always fails.
Inv save has NEVER replaced your armor save. You can never take both the armor save and invul save though. You can take an amor save/FNP or inv/FNP but never ARMOR/INV.
It's weird math gymnastics to assume a 4++ becomes a 2++ invul or that +1 to "save characteristic" assume the invul save when Invul saves can NEVER be modified.
It wouldn't surprise me that GW added the save mechanics from Fantasy in full to 40k so invuls and armour stack.
So, Plasma now only explodes on an unmodified 1. They did it, the madmen actually did it!
However this makes me more concerned for 1+ save Terminators, I hope something is written to account for that, or that the minimum of 1 rule isn't a thing anymore.
However this makes me more concerned for 1+ save Terminators, I hope something is written to account for that, or that the minimum of 1 rule isn't a thing anymore.
Or standard Terminator Storm Shields are just 4+ without +1 to armour
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody is going to take the Reanimator for ~100 points hahahahahahaha you serious GW?
Yeah it's basically a more expensive tomb spyder. Like twice the cost for the same statline, a slightly better gun (spyders could have twin particle beamers) and a rule that crypteks already do better. Unless there is some way to protect it (and a killer strat to make it good) that thing is DOA.
So someone in reddit actually mentioned that the rules dont prevent multiple smites per caster
oh i will abuse the gak out of that for the first few games
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody is going to take the Reanimator for ~100 points hahahahahahaha you serious GW?
Yeah it's basically a more expensive tomb spyder. Like twice the cost for the same statline, a slightly better gun (spyders could have twin particle beamers) and a rule that crypteks already do better. Unless there is some way to protect it (and a killer strat to make it good) that thing is DOA.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody is going to take the Reanimator for ~100 points hahahahahahaha you serious GW?
Yeah it's basically a more expensive tomb spyder. Like twice the cost for the same statline, a slightly better gun (spyders could have twin particle beamers) and a rule that crypteks already do better. Unless there is some way to protect it (and a killer strat to make it good) that thing is DOA.
like terrain blocking Los
Touche.
Yeah, depends how terrain rules shake out and how much terrain we see at clubs and tournaments. He still seems expensive for that profile though.
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
I think having an invulnerable save does not replace your Save characteristic. So, that Primaris Lieutenant would be 2+/4++ and a terminator would be 1+/4++. And there is probably a rule that 1 always fails.
I sincerely hope that is truly in store for Terminators w/ SS. They'll actually be worth the price, as this would effectively shave off an AP point.
[eyeing longingly to my Deathwing Army under a thick layer of dust]
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
I think having an invulnerable save does not replace your Save characteristic. So, that Primaris Lieutenant would be 2+/4++ and a terminator would be 1+/4++. And there is probably a rule that 1 always fails.
Inv save has NEVER replaced your armor save. You can never take both the armor save and invul save though. You can take an amor save/FNP or inv/FNP but never ARMOR/INV.
It's weird math gymnastics to assume a 4++ becomes a 2++ invul or that +1 to "save characteristic" assume the invul save when Invul saves can NEVER be modified.
I play an army that explicitely modifies invul saves as its faction benefit.
Speaking of custodes, it's hilarious that space marine power swords are now better than guardian spears
jivardi wrote: Fateweaver with 30" smites, adding +2 to the roll means super smites on 9+, getting to cast it 3 times per turn.
9+ isn't super achievable easily but it's a potential 18 mortals on a unit.
Could be fun.
Magnus would be even nastier.
But an even bigger target. Magnus will go down faster than Mr. Chicken because most people are more afraid of Mangus than Mr. Chicken.
True, but now you can bring him in from reserves and unleash three Super-Duper Smites before he is dealt with (at least until a Day 1 FAQ is released, probably).
Either the "can't modify below 1" rule/FAQ is gone, and Plasma now only overheats 1/6th of a time (it just overheats on a 2 instead of a 1)...
Or Terminators now have effective 2++ saves.
Or we might be lucky and a core rule prevents the Sv characteristic from being modified to better than 2+.
I don't know which one I am more afraid of.
I think having an invulnerable save does not replace your Save characteristic. So, that Primaris Lieutenant would be 2+/4++ and a terminator would be 1+/4++. And there is probably a rule that 1 always fails.
Inv save has NEVER replaced your armor save. You can never take both the armor save and invul save though. You can take an amor save/FNP or inv/FNP but never ARMOR/INV.
It's weird math gymnastics to assume a 4++ becomes a 2++ invul or that +1 to "save characteristic" assume the invul save when Invul saves can NEVER be modified.
I play an army that explicitely modifies invul saves as its faction benefit.
Speaking of custodes, it's hilarious that space marine power swords are now better than guardian spears
What, do you mean Relic blades which have been D2 since forever?
It's weird math gymnastics to assume a 4++ becomes a 2++ invul or that +1 to "save characteristic" assume the invul save when Invul saves can NEVER be modified.
IanVanCheese wrote: Yeah no complaints tbh, he's a buffer, not a fighter. I'll take the better buffs over a 4th attack any day of the week.
Lets hope our other stuff is as good.
He did lose extra charge distance though. Reliable(78%) ds charge with lychguard died. I have had some success with that
Maybe, we'll have to see what else we get in the codex. I think it's a worthy trade.
Some more rules on that reddit page, Plasmancer looks like a little psyker but not. Given how valuable our HQ slot is looking these days, might get squeezed out of contention.
Also noticed the Noble keyword on the Overlord. Gotta be something that relates to that going on.
jivardi wrote: Fateweaver with 30" smites, adding +2 to the roll means super smites on 9+, getting to cast it 3 times per turn.
9+ isn't super achievable easily but it's a potential 18 mortals on a unit.
Could be fun.
Magnus would be even nastier.
But an even bigger target. Magnus will go down faster than Mr. Chicken because most people are more afraid of Mangus than Mr. Chicken.
True, but now you can bring him in from reserves and unleash three Super-Duper Smites before he is dealt with (at least until a Day 1 FAQ is released, probably).
For a CP cost plus he's pricier than FW by far in terms of points. Fatey is under 300, I'm sure Magnus is about 100 pts or so more. Holding Magnus in reserve does help with his survivability but FW is more discrete I feel, more prone to underestimation.
Or I just take an Exalted LoC, still get the 2+ to cast Smite so long as I'm not bracketed, take an Impossible Robe and trait that makes him -1 to hit and he's harder to kill than FW even. I just don't get the extra D3 CP that FW would give.
I am really liking the look of those SnB marines. Mortal wounds were a huge weakness of SMHQs in 8th so it nice to see that rule on the captain. I think the new stormshield rules are a nice improvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, so melee has a nice deal: everyone in 1/2" of an enemy or 1/2" of a friendly model in engagement range can attack. That helps hordes and makes the coherency rules easier to work with.
jivardi wrote: Dang. That was lots of "save image as" but got em all just in case that post gets taken down.
Lots of reading to do tonight.
Not that I would advocate that sort of thing, but Imgur does have a "download all images in this post as a zip file" button at the bottom of the post, hidden behind the three dot menu.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, so melee has a nice deal: everyone in 1/2" of an enemy or 1/2" of a friendly model in engagement range can attack. That helps hordes and makes the coherency rules easier to work with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, so melee has a nice deal: everyone in 1/2" of an enemy or 1/2" of a friendly model in engagement range can attack. That helps hordes and makes the coherency rules easier to work with.
Is this not what we have now but halved?
I thought it was just a 1" of the enemy can swing. Allowing 1/2" of models who are engaged to swing allows Orks on 32mm bases to get more attacks in.
Wow, melee got utterly screwed with engagement range - now you can only fight if you're within 1" or within 1/2" of another model in your unit that is itself within 1/2" of the enemy.
What on earth prompted that? Seems like just another logic-free nerf to larger units.
yukishiro1 wrote: Wow, melee got utterly screwed with engagement range - now you can only fight if you're within 1" or within 1/2" of another model in your unit that is itself within 1/2" of the enemy.
And you have to remain in coherency after Pile-In.
Edit: After re-reading that, isn't that redundant? A model within 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2" of a unit is within 1" no? So, it's just anyone in Engagement range?
Hit Roll
Wound Roll
Allocate Wounds
Saves
Inflict Damage
it is important for Coherency Checks that the wounds are allocated before you know how many models you need to remove
I can already see most of the people ignoring these and moving the Allocate Wounds part to the end to speed up the game and removing models to their favour to avoid additional losses
Hit Roll
Wound Roll
Allocate Wounds
Saves
Inflict Damage
it is important for Coherency Checks that the wounds are allocated before you know how many models you need to remove
I can already see most of the people ignoring these and moving the Allocate Wounds part to the end to speed up the game and removing models to their favour to avoid additional losses
Whilest understandable to make the coherency rules needed and work that screws with melee so Hard it ain't even funny.....
On the plus side, a charging unit can target anything that heroically intervened that turn, in addition to targets they declared a charge against. So you can't exploit the multi-charge rules by keeping a character slightly back so they can't charge it, then heroically intervening in and being able to fight the unit without the unit being able to fight back.
But the engagement range change is just such a massive nerf to melee, for no reason that I can see. Did anyone seriously think too many models were able to fight in combat in 8th edition?
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Looks like in melee it is now alternating activation and you star with the player whos turn is NOT taking place, that is a very interesting change.
I don't really think so. If you look at the allocation rules, it says if you have allocated an attack to a model, then you must continue to allocate to that model. So, people will allocate to the models they want to remove and keep allocating there until they're removed. For speed, they'll just roll all at once (see Fast Dice Rolling) and remove whoever they would allocate to. It doesn't allow you to allocate multiple shots to multiple models.
It's not like you take 10 shots and allocate 2 each to a 5-man squad. You allocate 1 to 1 guy, then roll his saves and remove him. Then you allocate another. You continue to allocate to one model until he is gone.
I don't really think so. If you look at the allocation rules, it says if you have allocated an attack to a model, then you must continue to allocate to that model. So, people will allocate to the models they want to remove and keep allocating there until they're removed. For speed, they'll just roll all at once (see Fast Dice Rolling) and remove whoever they would allocate to. It doesn't allow you to allocate multiple shots to multiple models.
Its going to prompt very significant decisions on how to use ablative wounds in units. Once the thing you want to keep alive takes an attack, it then takes attacks until its dead.
For Custodes and Deathwatch for example, its a *big* fething deal.
Repentia are so screwed. Targets you want to use them, primaris marines and knights, will simply delete t3 6++5+++ w1 models first.
Just recently got squads 2 and 3. Lol
Yeah painful. On the plus side models/units with "always strikes first" aren't as hosed unless of course that unit charges enemy unit with the same rule.
Charging units still fight first, dunno where anyone got the idea they don't. If nobody made a charge, it's true that the opponent gets the first activation - but we've known about that for a week or two now, it's not new info. And with free fall back staying in plus even being able to fall back when wrapped, I really don't think you're going to see much fighting that didn't involve a charge that turn anyway in 9th edition, unless two combat armies happen to come up against one another.
I don't really think so. If you look at the allocation rules, it says if you have allocated an attack to a model, then you must continue to allocate to that model. So, people will allocate to the models they want to remove and keep allocating there until they're removed. For speed, they'll just roll all at once (see Fast Dice Rolling) and remove whoever they would allocate to. It doesn't allow you to allocate multiple shots to multiple models.
Its going to prompt very significant decisions on how to use ablative wounds in units. Once the thing you want to keep alive takes an attack, it then takes attacks until its dead.
For Custodes and Deathwatch for example, its a *big* fething deal.
How is that any different to the way it is now? If you take an attack now, you have to keep allocating to that model. In 9th, you allocate before saves, but you must continue to allocate to the same model until it is dead. So, if I have 5 guys and I want to keep 1 specfically alive, I don't allocate to him until all others are dead. If you hit me with 10 shots and I fail all but 1, I know who is alive.
It's really no different than 8th.
An example, for clarity:
I have a unit of 5 Marines. I take 5 hits from bolter fire. I allocate to one guy who I don't mind losing. He saves. I allocate to him again, he saves again. I allocate to him for the third time and he dies. Now I allocate the 4th shot to the next marine and he dies. Finally, I allocate the last shot to another Joe Schmo marine and he lives. The shots didn't even reach my Seargent or my Special Weapon because I allocate to a single model until it is dead. The same way you do now.
The big nerf that screws melee is the activation range nerf. I just honestly have no idea why they thought this was a good change at all. Who on earth thought that too many models could fight in close combat in 8th edition?
And if it hasn't been posted, all the specialist detachments are 3CP, with no refund, as people suspected.
How is that any different to the way it is now? If you take an attack now, you have to keep allocating to that model. In 9th, you allocate before saves, but you must continue to allocate to the same model until it is dead. So, if I have 5 guys and I want to keep 1 specfically alive, I don't allocate to him until all others are dead. If you hit me with 10 shots and I fail all but 1, I know who is alive.
It's really no different than 8th.
Its exceptionally different in 8th. 8th only requires a model that has lost a wound to take subsequent attacks, and does not lock a target model into taking every subsequent attack until its dead (if it hasnt taken damage).
Each attack and wound is resolved individually, allowing you to keep shifting saves around inside a unit based on ideal conditions (again, this is a key part of how particular factions kept units alive).
The Necrons are getting similar or less release than marines are getting in this wave. Marines had, what, 10 waves since Necrons got their previous meaningful update?
It's tiring and annoying.
Mr Morden wrote: The Fortification Network especially - Sisters Statue gives 1Cp
Gives back 1CP, but cost 1CP. In other words, refund itself. Like your first detachment, or the supreme command detachment.
The Necrons are getting similar or less release than marines are getting in this wave. Marines had, what, 10 waves since Necrons got their previous meaningful update?
It's tiring and annoying.
Mr Morden wrote: The Fortification Network especially - Sisters Statue gives 1Cp
Gives back 1CP, but cost 1CP. In other words, refund itself. Like your first detachment, or the supreme command detachment.
Yep I misread it - quite nice as I want to use my shiny new Statue
yukishiro1 wrote: Wow, melee got utterly screwed with engagement range - now you can only fight if you're within 1" or within 1/2" of another model in your unit that is itself within 1/2" of the enemy.
What on earth prompted that? Seems like just another logic-free nerf to larger units.
Only to models on 25mm bases which are already dying out. All other models could already only fight in 2 ranks. 25mm bases could fight in 4 ranks now which is a bit unfair to all those models that got rebased (enemy and 4 25mm bases all in a straight line touching each other, the first and second model are in direct engagement range, the 3rd and 4th within 1" of an engaged model.
How is that any different to the way it is now? If you take an attack now, you have to keep allocating to that model. In 9th, you allocate before saves, but you must continue to allocate to the same model until it is dead. So, if I have 5 guys and I want to keep 1 specfically alive, I don't allocate to him until all others are dead. If you hit me with 10 shots and I fail all but 1, I know who is alive.
It's really no different than 8th.
Its exceptionally different in 8th. 8th only requires a model that has taken a wound to take an attack, and does not lock a target model into taking every subsequent attack until its dead.
Each attack and wound is resolved individually, allowing you to keep shifting saves around inside a unit based on ideal conditions (again, this is a key part of how particular factions kept units alive).
I think I see what you're saying now.. You might say, "Okay, I take that bolter shot on this guy." And you roll a save. "Now I take that lascannon shot on this guy with the Storm Shield." And take his save. Now, you have to allocate the bolter shot and the lascannon both to the same guy (non Storm Shield guy, in this example).
I think I see what you're saying now.. You might say, "Okay, I take that bolter shot on this guy." And you roll a save. "Now I take that lascannon shot on this guy with the Storm Shield." And take his save. Now, you have to allocate the bolter shot and the lascannon both to the same guy (non Storm Shield guy, in this example).
Horde combat looks totally dead. You won't be able to fight with most of your models due to the bizarre massive nerf to engagement range, and you have to keep coherency when piling in and when consolidating - which are still limited to being towards the closest model - which means trapping is also very hard.
And even if you do trap, they can just fall back using the strat and have the rest of their army wipe you off the table. Whereas you got one round of combat with maybe 10 guys.
Something I don't get: why are we allocating after the wound roll, and which T are we rolling against if we haven't allocated yet?
Would be so much easier to allocate first!!!
The Necrons are getting similar or less release than marines are getting in this wave. Marines had, what, 10 waves since Necrons got their previous meaningful update?
It's tiring and annoying.
Mr Morden wrote: The Fortification Network especially - Sisters Statue gives 1Cp
Gives back 1CP, but cost 1CP. In other words, refund itself. Like your first detachment, or the supreme command detachment.
tneva82 wrote: Actually we did miss it. Charging unit strikes first.
So repentia isn't totally screwed
You know i keep scouring the images and cant see where it says that. Anyone know where that is said?
I got mine labeled all weird but its in their that charging units fight first.
Also, no seize the initiative. Most missions both players roll off, whoever wins can choose to attack or defend. No way to go first if your opponent decides to attack.
I thought it said if your army isn't battle-forged you not only Do NOT get ANY CP to start the game, but also you are not able to put units in Strategic Reserves.
Soup is pretty much dead (unless I'm reading it wrong, which is totally plausible).
EldarExarch wrote: I thought it said if your army isn't battle-forged you not only Do NOT get ANY CP to start the game, but also you are not able to put units in Strategic Reserves.
Soup is pretty much dead (unless I'm reading it wrong, which is totally plausible).
If all units have the same faction keyword (Imperium, Chaos,etc) they are battleforged.
Not sure if it's current in 8th ed either but Supreme Command, SH and SHA detachments do not gain detachment abilities even if they are part of the same faction as the rest of your force.
EldarExarch wrote: I thought it said if your army isn't battle-forged you not only Do NOT get ANY CP to start the game, but also you are not able to put units in Strategic Reserves.
Soup is pretty much dead (unless I'm reading it wrong, which is totally plausible).
yukishiro1 wrote: Horde combat looks totally dead. You won't be able to fight with most of your models due to the bizarre massive nerf to engagement range, and you have to keep coherency when piling in and when consolidating - which are still limited to being towards the closest model - which means trapping is also very hard.
And even if you do trap, they can just fall back using the strat and have the rest of their army wipe you off the table. Whereas you got one round of combat with maybe 10 guys.
Only a nerf if you're on 25mm. GW seems to be moving most things to 28mm or 32mm.
CP Farming Soup is now a thing of the past. Soup otherwise hasn’t been changed in terms of appeal.
I think you're the one missing the point.
For weeks now we have been debating whether their talk of a "soup penalty" was something in ADDITION to detachment costs - i.e., you pay another 1CP for a detachment if it's in a different codex from your warlord's detachment - or whether the "soup penalty" was just a shorthand for paying for additional detachments.
Now we know: there is no soup penalty beyond the normal detachment costs.
yukishiro1 wrote: Horde combat looks totally dead. You won't be able to fight with most of your models due to the bizarre massive nerf to engagement range, and you have to keep coherency when piling in and when consolidating - which are still limited to being towards the closest model - which means trapping is also very hard.
And even if you do trap, they can just fall back using the strat and have the rest of their army wipe you off the table. Whereas you got one round of combat with maybe 10 guys.
Only a nerf if you're on 25mm. GW seems to be moving most things to 28mm or 32mm.
No, it's a nerf no matter what. In 8th on 32mm you could fight in two ranks even if your first model was .99" away from the enemy model, and your second guy was .99" behind that.
Now your first guy has to be within .5" if you want to fight in a second rank, and the guy behind him has to be within .5" too.
On 25mm it also means fighting in three ranks is impossible, but it's a significant nerf no matter what.
EldarExarch wrote: I thought it said if your army isn't battle-forged you not only Do NOT get ANY CP to start the game, but also you are not able to put units in Strategic Reserves.
Soup is pretty much dead (unless I'm reading it wrong, which is totally plausible).
If all units have the same faction keyword (Imperium, Chaos,etc) they are battleforged.
Also, alternating deployment is back
Bah so step back for alpha strikes.
But with the 0.5" from friend within 0.5" maybe silly rebaslng thing goes away as you are limited to 2 ranks 25mm or 32mm
yukishiro1 wrote: Horde combat looks totally dead. You won't be able to fight with most of your models due to the bizarre massive nerf to engagement range, and you have to keep coherency when piling in and when consolidating - which are still limited to being towards the closest model - which means trapping is also very hard.
And even if you do trap, they can just fall back using the strat and have the rest of their army wipe you off the table. Whereas you got one round of combat with maybe 10 guys.
Only a nerf if you're on 25mm. GW seems to be moving most things to 28mm or 32mm.
No, it's a nerf no matter what. In 8th on 32mm you could fight in two ranks even if your first model was .99" away from the enemy model, and your second guy was .99" behind that.
Now your first guy has to be within .5" if you want to fight in a second rank, and the guy behind him has to be within .5" too.
On 25mm it also means fighting in three ranks is impossible, but it's a significant nerf no matter what.
Sorry, but not seeing it as a nerf to force people to consolidate in closer to get their attacks instead of spreading out.
yukishiro1 wrote: Horde combat looks totally dead. You won't be able to fight with most of your models due to the bizarre massive nerf to engagement range, and you have to keep coherency when piling in and when consolidating - which are still limited to being towards the closest model - which means trapping is also very hard.
And even if you do trap, they can just fall back using the strat and have the rest of their army wipe you off the table. Whereas you got one round of combat with maybe 10 guys.
Only a nerf if you're on 25mm. GW seems to be moving most things to 28mm or 32mm.
No, it's a nerf no matter what. In 8th on 32mm you could fight in two ranks even if your first model was .99" away from the enemy model, and your second guy was .99" behind that.
Now your first guy has to be within .5" if you want to fight in a second rank, and the guy behind him has to be within .5" too.
On 25mm it also means fighting in three ranks is impossible, but it's a significant nerf no matter what.
Of course it's a nerf. You can think it's a good nerf, but of course it's a nerf. It forces you to do things you didn't have to do before in order to be eligible to attack, things that limit your unit's flexibility. That's the definition of a nerf.
yukishiro1 wrote: Horde combat looks totally dead. You won't be able to fight with most of your models due to the bizarre massive nerf to engagement range, and you have to keep coherency when piling in and when consolidating - which are still limited to being towards the closest model - which means trapping is also very hard.
And even if you do trap, they can just fall back using the strat and have the rest of their army wipe you off the table. Whereas you got one round of combat with maybe 10 guys.
Only a nerf if you're on 25mm. GW seems to be moving most things to 28mm or 32mm.
No, it's a nerf no matter what. In 8th on 32mm you could fight in two ranks even if your first model was .99" away from the enemy model, and your second guy was .99" behind that.
Now your first guy has to be within .5" if you want to fight in a second rank, and the guy behind him has to be within .5" too.
On 25mm it also means fighting in three ranks is impossible, but it's a significant nerf no matter what.
Also with 32mm you struct with 2.5 ranks in 8th
Yeah, if your opponent let you by the way their models were set up you could fight in somewhat more than 2 ranks on 32mm in 8th too.
The upshot is that in 9th you're going to have a very hard time getting more than 10 of your guys able to fight an enemy unit if your opponent sets up right to brace for the charge.
Wasn't prepared positions just a matched play rule? The rules don't seem to include those - nothing about deep strike limitations either, but I very much assume you can't do a T1 DS in 9th, and that the rules are the same as in 8th for that.
or just about any dice related stuff from strats etc
Yeah this is a very big one, it means that e.g. strats that work on a 4+ can't be upgraded to working 75% of the time for a CP. Stuff like WS snarecaptains are much less reliable, so it's even easier to fall back than it already was.
Not being able to reroll just one of your charge dice hurts, too.
Selfcontrol wrote: I might be too tired to notice it, but I'm not seeing any change to the attack sequence.
I have the 8th edition rulebook next to me. It says :
- Roll to hit
- Roll to wound
- Allocate wound
- Save
- Resolve damages
I'm not seeing any difference with 9th edition.
The devil is in the details. In 8th, when you allocate the wound and save, you're done with that model and can move on to another model to allocate and save. In 9th, you must continue to allocate to the first model you chose until it is dead. So, for instance, if I shoot 4 bolter shots and a lascannon at one of your units, you used to be able to take the 4 bolter shots on regular Joes and then allocate the lascannon to your Storm Shield. Now, if one of your regular Joes takes all 4 bolter shots, he's now locked in to taking the lascannon as well.
Selfcontrol wrote: I might be too tired to notice it, but I'm not seeing any change to the attack sequence.
I have the 8th edition rulebook next to me. It says :
- Roll to hit
- Roll to wound
- Allocate wound
- Save
- Resolve damages
I'm not seeing any difference with 9th edition.
The difference is in who attacks must be allocated to (and is covered in that section, it might be a little tricky to find due to some pages being out of order). 8th requires attacks be allocated to a model that has taken damage until either the model makes all its saves, or is destroyed. If a model in a unit has not taken damage, the controlling player is free to allocate incoming attacks as they see fit.
9th adds a stipulation that if a model in a unit has had an attack allocated to it in the current phase, all subsequent attacks must then be allocated to it until it either makes all its saves or is destroyed.
For units with identical wounds and/or saves across the models in said unit, it's not a meaningful change. For those units that have differing saves and/or wounds characteristics its a significant addition.
The devil is in the details. In 8th, when you allocate the wound and save, you're done with that model and can move on to another model to allocate and save. In 9th, you must continue to allocate to the first model you chose until it is dead. So, for instance, if I shoot 4 bolter shots and a lascannon at one of your units, you used to be able to take the 4 bolter shots on regular Joes and then allocate the lascannon to your Storm Shield. Now, if one of your regular Joes takes all 4 bolter shots, he's now locked in to taking the lascannon as well.
Moving through terrain managed to give me a whole bunch of brand new questions.
Like, if you put your forest on a base that's 1.1 inches tall, is it impassable terrain now? Or at the very least a feature you cannot end a move on? What about the second level of buildings?
Jesus, secondaries are worth the same as primaries. That's a mess.
And these secondaries are all over the place re: how much you score off them and how hard they are to score. Why would you ever take slay the warlord when it's capped at only 6/15 total CP? First strike is also capped at 8/15.
Selfcontrol wrote: I might be too tired to notice it, but I'm not seeing any change to the attack sequence.
I have the 8th edition rulebook next to me. It says :
- Roll to hit
- Roll to wound
- Allocate wound
- Save
- Resolve damages
I'm not seeing any difference with 9th edition.
The devil is in the details. In 8th, when you allocate the wound and save, you're done with that model and can move on to another model to allocate and save. In 9th, you must continue to allocate to the first model you chose until it is dead. So, for instance, if I shoot 4 bolter shots and a lascannon at one of your units, you used to be able to take the 4 bolter shots on regular Joes and then allocate the lascannon to your Storm Shield. Now, if one of your regular Joes takes all 4 bolter shots, he's now locked in to taking the lascannon as well.
Thanks for the explanation. I re-red it again and now I'm noticing the difference.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I went to bed last night at 2am thinking that nothing new could possibly come out in the 6 hours between then and when I had to be logged into work.
Happy work day!
This secondary seems really cool at first glance. Although Knights will love that gak...
Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.
sinthes wrote: Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.
I would wager that is in the tournament pack along with prepared positions.
sinthes wrote: Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.
As much as I don't like the rule of 3 in principle, GW's own game design means this would be bad juju. No way do they have balance anywhere near close enough to not end up with 8 hive tyrants again.
I think a lot of folks are just gonna pull a "more like guidelines" on that account.
Liable to make pickup games obnoxious for some people.
Feth, sincerly an extremely slow painter.....
Personally, I have a lot of armies built up and am slow to paint them because I can only accept high standard paintjobs (as far as I can manage, not gonna claim they’re masterpieces to other people’s eyes but it’s full obsessive effort or no effort) from myself or why bother?
sinthes wrote: Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I went to bed last night at 2am thinking that nothing new could possibly come out in the 6 hours between then and when I had to be logged into work.
Happy work day!
This secondary seems really cool at first glance. Although Knights will love that gak...
No they wont, not when marines can Kill 2 knights in a single turn.
They can kill an entire 2k list in 3 turns currently and only look to be getting stronger.
Those secondaries seem super unbalanced compared to the ITC ones. The reaper clone can only be maxed against someone with 150+ models. But you get 15 points from killing 5 11W vehicles, or from killing 2 knights.
Meanwhile to max recon you have to have a unit wholly in each board quarter every single turn of the game.
4 points a round for kill more, but first strike is capped at 8 points, and slay the warlord is capped at 6.
Will update as more people post, but I think this summarizes a lot of what we didn't know. Didn't include things that were previewed by GW themselves:
Reinforcements can come in after T3. Strategic Reserves always come in on a board edge. Which one depends on if it's T2 or T3. Reinforcements are not the same thing as Reserves. Not all reinforcement are reserves, but all reserves are reinforcements.
Melee units can only fight if they are within Engagement Range or within 1/2" of a friendly model that, is itself, within 1/2" of an enemy model (isn't that the same thing?)
You must maintain coherency after a Pile-In.
Attack Sequence change in that you must continue to allocate attacks to the same model until it is dead. No spreading around allocation of wounds to different models.
To Hit and To Wound are both capped at -1/+1
Insane Bravery is once PER BATTLE
Command Re-roll is the entire test, not just one dice.
Units can target other units that heroically intervened this turn.
All specialist detachments (Spearhead, Vanguard, Outrider) cost 3CP. There doesn't appear to be an Airwing Detachment.
Aircraft cannot be move-blocked. If they cannot move, they enter reserve.
There are rules for objective markers.
Mission points are 45 for Primary, 45 for Secondary and 10 for having your army painted for 100 pts. per mission.
You can fall back into a transport.
Weapons are based on unit movement, not model movement.
Storm Shields now are 4++ and +1 to the model's Sv characteristic.
sinthes wrote: Has anybody found a reference to the rule of 3 in the rule book ? Me and my friend haven't seen it so it looks like it's unrestrained armys once again.
It’s in there, including reference to how it applies to GSC and the various daemon princes.
puma713 wrote: Will update as more people post, but I think this summarizes a lot of what we didn't know. Didn't include things that were previewed by GW themselves:
Reinforcements can come in after T3. Strategic Reserves always come in on a board edge. Which one depends on if it's T2 or T3. Reinforcements are not the same thing as Reserves. Not all reinforcement are reserves, but all reserves are reinforcements.
Melee units can only fight if they are within Engagement Range or within 1/2" of a friendly model that, is itself, within 1/2" of an enemy model (isn't that the same thing?)
You must maintain coherency after a Pile-In.
Attack Sequence change in that you must continue to allocate attacks to the same model until it is dead. No spreading around allocation of wounds to different models.
To Hit and To Wound are both capped at -1/+1
Insane Bravery is once PER BATTLE
Command Re-roll is the entire test, not just one dice.
Units can target other units that heroically intervened this turn.
All specialist detachments (Spearhead, Vanguard, Outrider) cost 3CP. There doesn't appear to be an Airwing Detachment.
Aircraft cannot be move-blocked. If they cannot move, they enter reserve.
There are rules for objective markers.
Mission points are 45 for Primary, 45 for Secondary and 10 for having your army painted for 100 pts. per mission.
You can fall back into a transport.
The matched play (or is it tournament?) mission leaks have reinforcements/strategic reserves destroyed if they don’t enter by battle round 3, unless they leave the table during the game (eg flyers)
yukishiro1 wrote: Those secondaries seem super unbalanced compared to the ITC ones. The reaper clone can only be maxed against someone with 150+ models. But you get 15 points from killing 5 11W vehicles, or from killing 2 knights.
Meanwhile to max recon you have to have a unit wholly in each board quarter every single turn of the game.
4 points a round for kill more, but first strike is capped at 8 points, and slay the warlord is capped at 6.
So weird.
Hmm? 10 points for W10+ models. Need to score 150 total.
The others I can only imagine are for some weird situation that they're the most achievable option. I can't think of those scenarios so, *shrug*.
Recon is an easy lazy score for 10. 15 would be really hard.
Yeah, for reaper, you get 10 points for a 10W+ model. So it could be 100 1W infantry + 5 tanks. Still going to be a pretty rare list where you can max it, since it's 1 point per model (10 for 10W+), not 1 point per wound.
These secondaries are just...bad. Why didn't they just use the ITC ones if this is the best they could come up with? They're not perfect, but they're much better balanced than these.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, for reaper, you get 10 points for a 10W+ model. So it could be 100 1W infantry + 5 tanks. Still going to be a pretty rare list where you can max it, since it's 1 point per model (10 for 10W+), not 1 point per wound.
These secondaries are just...bad. Why didn't they just use the ITC ones if this is the best they could come up with? They're much better balanced than these.
Really it looks like someone Baised the out of the secondrys to make certain amies and builds auto give them away will other's will be impossible to maximise score against.
If my Guard army takes a Baneblade it doesn't gain the benefits of the Regiment I have. I have to take 3 superheavies (minimum) to have them share my Regiment.
Will update as more people post, but I think this summarizes a lot of what we didn't know. Didn't include things that were previewed by GW themselves:
Reinforcements can come in after T3. Strategic Reserves always come in on a board edge. Which one depends on if it's T2 or T3. Reinforcements are not the same thing as Reserves. Not all reinforcement are reserves, but all reserves are reinforcements.
Melee units can only fight if they are within Engagement Range or within 1/2" of a friendly model that, is itself, within 1/2" of an enemy model (isn't that the same thing?)
You must maintain coherency after a Pile-In.
Attack Sequence change in that you must continue to allocate attacks to the same model until it is dead. No spreading around allocation of wounds to different models.
To Hit and To Wound are both capped at -1/+1
Insane Bravery is once PER BATTLE
Command Re-roll is the entire test, not just one dice.
Units can target other units that heroically intervened this turn.
All specialist detachments (Spearhead, Vanguard, Outrider) cost 3CP. There doesn't appear to be an Airwing Detachment.
Aircraft cannot be move-blocked. If they cannot move, they enter reserve.
There are rules for objective markers.
Mission points are 45 for Primary, 45 for Secondary and 10 for having your army painted for 100 pts. per mission.
You can fall back into a transport.
The matched play (or is it tournament?) mission leaks have reinforcements/strategic reserves destroyed if they don’t enter by battle round 3, unless they leave the table during the game (eg flyers)
Can you score victory points from models that are destroyed during the Morale phase?
Also, do we revert back to understrength units not requiring an Auxiliary Detachment?
Edit: Nevermind, detachments do say whether they can include understrength units or not, good.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If my Guard army takes a Baneblade it doesn't gain the benefits of the Regiment I have. I have to take 3 superheavies (minimum) to have them share my Regiment.
Was it this way in 8th?
Yep. Superheavy Auxiliaries don't gain Regimental Doctrines. You could also take them in Supreme Command and get Regimental Doctrines, however.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, for reaper, you get 10 points for a 10W+ model. So it could be 100 1W infantry + 5 tanks. Still going to be a pretty rare list where you can max it, since it's 1 point per model (10 for 10W+), not 1 point per wound.
These secondaries are just...bad. Why didn't they just use the ITC ones if this is the best they could come up with? They're much better balanced than these.
Really it looks like someone Baised the out of the secondrys to make certain amies and builds auto give them away will other's will be impossible to maximise score against.
They do seem extremely gameable, in addition to just being weird and unbalanced generally. No matter what angle I look at them from, they look like a bit of a hot mess.
Weapons are once again based on unit movement, not model movement. So if one guy moves in your squad, all heavy weapons are -1 to hit, even if they stayed stationary.
Storm Shields now are 4++ and +1 to the model's Sv characteristic.
I think To Wound also being capped at -1/+1 is a bigger deal than it's being given credit for. It adds protection for those tougher units that were getting slaughtered by buffed-up units. While you can still increase strength, adding To Wound modifiers has helped units deal with monsters/titans in the past.
If they really wanted to reduce lethality/overly though units,and I'm just spit-balling here, maybe it would have been better to cap offensive/defensive modifiers to 1 each, EG you can have -1 to hit but then no more +1 T too, or you get +1 to wound but then no more rerolls to hit.
9th is set up in most ways to be deadlier than 8th (certainly deadlier than ITC 8th). The change to modifiers was designed primarily to nerf -to hit - again, a change to make the game deadlier.
If they had wanted to tackle deadliness, rerolls would have been the first port of call. But they left those completely intact.
You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote:
Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
puma713 wrote: You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote: Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
Chargers still fight first. What the change means is that whoever charged doesn't also get to activate a non-charger right after their chargers. It'll go Friendly Chargers > Enemy "Fight First" > If still chargers/fight first left, goto 10 > Enemy Non-Charger > Friendly Non-Charger > if units left to fight, goto 40
The 1/2 inch with 1/2 inch rule allows models on 50 or bigger bases fight without having to get within an inch of the enemy now. It allows for things like a squad of 6 60mm bases to both maintain coherency with each other and still have the back rank fight.
puma713 wrote: You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote:
Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
You're missing a page (they're out of order in the leak). Another one starts with 'Charging Units Fight First' (in all caps, because all subsections are all caps),as far as I can tell, in the book it is the next page after the one you're quoting.
The bullet point for this section is simply:
units that made a charge move this turn fight before all other units
There is a lot of this in the rules, to be honest.
they present the general rule, then present exceptions.
Its... fine as a format, but the piecemeal approach leads to people getting confused about how things work when they haven't read the next relevant section. (Aircraft in particular are very much the posterboys for this)
mightymconeshot wrote: The 1/2 inch with 1/2 inch rule allows models on 50 or bigger bases fight without having to get within an inch of the enemy now. It allows for things like a squad of 6 60mm bases to both maintain coherency with each other and still have the back rank fight.
That was already true. The rule is the same as it used to be, except nerfed to 1/2" and 1/2" instead of 1" and 1".
You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote:
Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
Chargers still fight first. What the change means is that whoever charged doesn't also get to activate a non-charger right after their chargers. It'll go Friendly Chargers > Enemy "Fight First" > If still chargers/fight first left, goto 10 > Enemy Non-Charger > Friendly Non-Charger > if units left to fight, goto 40
I get that, but that's not what the Fight Phase rules say. I agree with you that the intention is for chargers to go before everyone, because it alludes to that earlier in the rules, but in the Fight Phase it makes no mention of chargers going first. Even the bullet points start with "Starting with your opponent..."
"Starting with your opponent..." and your chargers going first are mutually exclusive.
Ew, measuring 1/2 inches is such an ugly rule. They're harder to see on tape measures, and for things like melee ranges and pile-ins etc I tend to favour hard plastic widgets for greater accuracy, which often only have whole inches marked.
Fortunately I randomly have a widget with a 1/2 inch end for some long-forgotten or defunct game system, so I finally get to use that. Yay?
I understand most people just hover a tape measure miles above the models and eyeball it, but I don't like doing that.
You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote:
Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
Chargers still fight first. What the change means is that whoever charged doesn't also get to activate a non-charger right after their chargers. It'll go Friendly Chargers > Enemy "Fight First" > If still chargers/fight first left, goto 10 > Enemy Non-Charger > Friendly Non-Charger > if units left to fight, goto 40
I get that, but that's not what the Fight Phase rules say. I agree with you that the intention is for chargers to go before everyone, because it alludes to that earlier in the rules, but in the Fight Phase it makes no mention of chargers going first. Even the bullet points start with "Starting with your opponent, choose..."
"Starting with your opponent..." and your chargers going first are mutually exclusive.
You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote:
Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
Chargers still fight first. What the change means is that whoever charged doesn't also get to activate a non-charger right after their chargers. It'll go Friendly Chargers > Enemy "Fight First" > If still chargers/fight first left, goto 10 > Enemy Non-Charger > Friendly Non-Charger > if units left to fight, goto 40
I get that, but that's not what the Fight Phase rules say. I agree with you that the intention is for chargers to go before everyone, because it alludes to that earlier in the rules, but in the Fight Phase it makes no mention of chargers going first. Even the bullet points start with "Starting with your opponent, choose..."
"Starting with your opponent..." and your chargers going first are mutually exclusive.
You sure about that?
Spoiler:
Yes, that's not the Fight Phase rules. These are. And there is no mention of chargers going first before "Starting with your opponent":
The Royal Warden has a "Relic Gauss Blaster". Given that Necrons are all millions of years old, how old would a Gauss Blaster need to be to be considered a "relic"?
You know, now that I read the Fight phase more carefully, I DON'T think chargers go before everyone. They just go before everyone in YOUR army. So, if you have a mix of units in melee and a units that charged, your units that charged go first in YOUR activation.
Look at the rules for the Fight Phase:
Games Workshop wrote:
Fight Phase
Starting with the player whose turn is not taking place, the players must alternate selecting an eligible unit from their army and fighting with it. An eligible unit is one that is within Engagement Range of an enemy unit and/or made a charge move in the same turn."
What this says to me is this:
On my turn, I charge your unit. We also have another unit locked in combat. Since it is my turn, according to the Fight Phase rules, you select an eligible unit first. Since you don't have any chargers, you select the unit that just got charged to fight. Now, it's my activation and I must select my chargers because they go before other units. Once I do that, then we resolve the other combat. If not, then why include the above language at all?
Chargers still fight first. What the change means is that whoever charged doesn't also get to activate a non-charger right after their chargers. It'll go Friendly Chargers > Enemy "Fight First" > If still chargers/fight first left, goto 10 > Enemy Non-Charger > Friendly Non-Charger > if units left to fight, goto 40
I get that, but that's not what the Fight Phase rules say. I agree with you that the intention is for chargers to go before everyone, because it alludes to that earlier in the rules, but in the Fight Phase it makes no mention of chargers going first. Even the bullet points start with "Starting with your opponent, choose..."
"Starting with your opponent..." and your chargers going first are mutually exclusive.
You sure about that?
Spoiler:
Yes, that's not the Fight Phase rules.
Yes it is. Its the very next page of the fight phase rules. Keep reading- the rules text he just posted for you spells it out, and after that its diving right into FIGHT, PILE IN and all the other rules for the fight phase.
yukishiro1 wrote: Nah, it just means start with your opponent's charging units. There are none? Ok, then move to your charging units.
It's badly written because it isn't possible there could be any of your opponent's units that charged during your turn, but it still works RAW.
I don't think so. The "Chargers Fight First" rule is on the page opposite the rule I'm quoting, which is why I think it only applies to YOUR army. The Fight Phase rules say nothing about you going BEFORE your opponent. It just says that Chargers Fight First.
Again, YOUR chargers fighting first and "Starting with your opponent" are mutually exclusive. You cannot do both. I think that the block about Chargers Go First is about YOUR army.
yukishiro1 wrote: Nah, it just means start with your opponent's charging units. There are none? Ok, then move to your charging units.
It's badly written because it isn't possible there could be any of your opponent's units that charged during your turn, but it still works RAW.
I don't think so. The "Chargers Fight First" rule is on the page opposite the rule I'm quoting, which is why I think it only applies to YOUR army. The Fight Phase rules say nothing about you going BEFORE your opponent. It just says that Chargers Fight First.
Again, YOUR chargers fighting first and "Starting with your opponent" are mutually exclusive. You cannot do both. I think that the block about Chargers Go First is about YOUR army.
Stop. Stop and read what people are posting.
"Units that did not make a charge move this turn cannot be selected to fight until after all units that did make a charge move have fought"
Yes it is. Its the very next page. Keep reading- the rules text he just posted for you spells it out, and after that its diving right into FIGHT, PILE IN and all the other rules for the fight phase.
I have pointed that out a couple times now. That rule is AFTER the Fight Phase bullet points. There is no mention of STARTING WITH CHARGERS in the fight phase bulletpoints. STARTING WITH THE OPPONENT is first. If you begin with your chargers, then you have not followed the first bulletpoint.
I a happy to be wrong, but when it says CHARGERS FIGHT FIRST, I believe it is talking about when it is YOUR activation. That is the only interpretation that satisifies both rules.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Ew, measuring 1/2 inches is such an ugly rule. They're harder to see on tape measures, and for things like melee ranges and pile-ins etc I tend to favour hard plastic widgets for greater accuracy, which often only have whole inches marked.
Fortunately I randomly have a widget with a 1/2 inch end for some long-forgotten or defunct game system, so I finally get to use that. Yay?
I understand most people just hover a tape measure miles above the models and eyeball it, but I don't like doing that.
I suspect combat gauges will be popular like they are in AoS.
Yes it is. Its the very next page. Keep reading- the rules text he just posted for you spells it out, and after that its diving right into FIGHT, PILE IN and all the other rules for the fight phase.
I have pointed that out a couple times now. That rule is AFTER the Fight Phase bullet points. There is no mention of STARTING WITH CHARGERS in the fight phase bulletpoints. STARTING WITH THE OPPONENT is first. If you begin with your chargers, then you have not followed the first bulletpoint..
Because that is not how any of these rules are written! It starts with general case, then provides exceptions.
It doesn't matter that its after the bullet points. Its the next subsection of the Fight Phase rules. Chargers Fight First. The end.
By your exact same argument, pistols can't fire in close combat, because the general shooting rule is that can never happen. The pistol rule comes later and provides the exception. That's literally the point of the way they formatted the entire ruleset
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, start with your opponent. Did any of his units charge? No. Did any of your units charge? If yes, they get to go before his non-chargers.
That's RAW.
But that's not what the Fight Phase says. Go back and read it. It says STARTING WITH YOUR OPPONENT, choose an ELIGIBLE unit. An ELIGIBLE unit is a unit that is within Engagement Range of an enemy AND/OR a unit that charged this turn.
RAW, you start with your opponent. Does he have units in Engagement Range? Yes? Then he goes first. Then, it is your turn, and your activate an ELIGIBLE unit (which is a charger, who goes first.)
For most other factions, the Fortification Detachment not getting the 'Detachment Abilities' might not be an issue.
But what about Sporocysts? They're a fortification that has the <Hive Fleet> Keyword. Are Detachment Abilities going to be things like Hive Fleet traits and the like?
Not a huge deal, but it's unfortunate.
Also, Chargers still fight first in the Fight Phase, it's the page right after the Fight Phase page....
It literally says non-charging units cannot be selected to fight until units that charged fight. There is NO stipulation about any player in the wording.
Carnikang wrote: But what about Sporocysts? They're a fortification that has the <Hive Fleet> Keyword. Are Detachment Abilities going to be things like Hive Fleet traits and the like?
Do you think they remembered that when they wrote that rule?
The ugly bit is because technically you have to start with your opponent and check to see if they have any charging units, which they can't according to the rules. So every turn you are stopping and saying "ok, do you have any chargers? you can't, but we have to check first according to the rules."
Platuan4th wrote: It literally says you cannot select non-charging units until you fight with units that charged. There is NO stipulation about any play in the wording.
You're flat out wrong, Puma.
I will digress, because this is not YMDC, but if you start with your chargers, you break the first rule of the Fight Phase. At the very least, it is poorly written.
yukishiro1 wrote: No eligible units that did not charge can be selected until all eligible units that did charge have been. That's in the rules too.
It works. It's ugly, but it works.
It isn't particularly ugly. You just don't stop reading rules because you came to the end of page or subsection.
In many ways its good future proofing, because you can tweak subsections without breaking the general rules at all.
I have proven in three posts that I did not stop at the Fight Phase bulletpoints. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that i didn't read the Chargers Fight First paragraph. I have referenced it multiple times.
yukishiro1 wrote: The ugly bit is because technically you have to start with your opponent and check to see if they have any charging units, which they can't according to the rules. So every turn you are stopping and saying "ok, do you have any chargers? you can't, but we have to check first according to the rules."
yukishiro1 wrote: The ugly bit is because technically you have to start with your opponent and check to see if they have any charging units, which they can't according to the rules. So every turn you are stopping and saying "ok, do you have any chargers? you can't, but we have to check first according to the rules."
No, you say 'charging unit fight first- these units charged, I'm going to start with this one.' You don't have to pretend everyone is a toddler.
Besides, you're forgetting stuff like slaanesh daemons and Quicksilver Swiftness. They DO alternate with chargers.
yukishiro1 wrote: The ugly bit is because technically you have to start with your opponent and check to see if they have any charging units, which they can't according to the rules. So every turn you are stopping and saying "ok, do you have any chargers? you can't, but we have to check first according to the rules."
Stooping Dive?
Oh, I guess. Though that strat itself says that you always fight before everything else. So it didn't need things to be set up the way they were in the rules.
Platuan4th wrote: It literally says you cannot select non-charging units until you fight with units that charged. There is NO stipulation about any play in the wording.
You're flat out wrong, Puma.
I will digress, because this is not YMDC, but if you start with your chargers, you break the first rule of the Fight Phase. At the very least, it is poorly written.
yukishiro1 wrote: No eligible units that did not charge can be selected until all eligible units that did charge have been. That's in the rules too.
It works. It's ugly, but it works.
It isn't particularly ugly. You just don't stop reading rules because you came to the end of page or subsection.
In many ways its good future proofing, because you can tweak subsections without breaking the general rules at all.
I have proven in three posts that I did not stop at the Fight Phase bulletpoints. I'm not sure why you keep insisting that i didn't read the Chargers Fight First paragraph. I have referenced it multiple times.
Because inexplicably you feel it somehow doesn't count.
It literally says that otherwise eligible units can't fight until after all the chargers do. If you're dismissing that, you didn't read it, and you're going to have a hard time with every section of this ruleset because it presents General Rule followed by exceptions the exact same way.
Carnikang wrote: But what about Sporocysts? They're a fortification that has the <Hive Fleet> Keyword. Are Detachment Abilities going to be things like Hive Fleet traits and the like?
Do you think they remembered that when they wrote that rule?
No... no, they probably didn't.
Maybe just running 4 'dules for fun games will get me by until the next change. At least they'll get Hive Fleets... for 6 cp.
Because inexplicably you feel it somehow doesn't count.
It literally says that otherwise eligible units can't fight until after all the chargers do. If you're dismissing that, you didn't read it, and you're going to have a hard time with every section of this ruleset because it presents General Rule followed by exceptions the exact same way.
That's actually not at all what I've said. And you're the one accusing others of not reading. But like I said, I'm done since this is News and Rumors and not YMDC.
Edit: The below quote makes it clear that chargers go first, regardless of the bulletpoint wording. As I said before, I think it is poorly-worded and should've contained a clearly-worded exception in the bulletpoints themselves.
Games Workshop
Since the player who isn’t taking their turn gets to choose the first non-charging unit to fight with, the Foul Blightspawn’s Revolting Stench ensures that the Blightlords will fight first against any enemy units that dare charge them.
If I was playing someone without a fully painted army not in a tournament I'd just give them the 10 points too, can't imagine anyone who wouldn't do the same.
ClockworkZion wrote: From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.
While that is true... the fact that is is now a part of the GW backed competitive packet makes me feel even less inclined to participate in Competitive Events, even locally.
It's not really an issue for me, because I CAN field a fully painted force... but sometimes that's not what I want to do.
Also echo H.B.M.C on this as many people don't actively like to paint. It can make you feel bad about not painting, especially if you enjoy the competitive part of the game. It might widen a gap that the community sometimes makes itself, just driving people to opposite positions. I dont know if this is actually healthy for the Competitive scene.
All I can really say about it is that local painters that do cheap commissions might make some bank.
All this argument over who fights first. If effing obvious to anyone with a reading comprehension skill above a 1st grader that chargers go first, than when all charging units have fought your opponent selects a unit instead of you.
It is the same damn rule as is current with the exception that your opponent picks the first unit to fight with after all of your charging units have fought instead of you getting to double dip.
Only a complete WAAC gamer would try to argue that the opponents NON CHARGING units fight first before their CHARGING units.
Seriously folks. The rule is pretty damn obvious in it's meaning. What part of "charging models always fight first" is unclear?
ClockworkZion wrote: From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.
You should win the game by being the better general not because you accomplished some external criteria, and like I pointed out in another thread why draw the line at painting if they are going to do this? Fielding fluffy armies seems to me to be more important than wether or not they are painted. Are my black coated plague marines somehow an immersion dealbreaker but a force of 1 knight, 30 guardsman and some random SM captains are not? Now I will say in my group this rule won't be impact full because half of us play with half painted armies but it's the principle that bothers me.
ClockworkZion wrote: From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.
You should win the game by being the better general not because you accomplished some external criteria, and like I pointed out in another thread why draw the line at painting if they are going to do this? Fielding fluffy armies seems to me to be more important than wether or not they are painted. Are my black coated plague marines somehow an immersion dealbreaker but a force of 1 knight, 30 guardsman and some random SM captains are not? Now I will say in my group this rule won't be impact full because half of us play with half painted armies but it's the principle that bothers me.
If you're truly the better general but lost by that 10 points, where you really better?
Look, painting standards have been part of tournaments for years now, and this is clearly an attempt to codify that into what is basically a tie breaker to encourage people to engage in more parts of the wider hobby.
The argument over "Do chargers fight first?" seems be based on some strange assumption that GW has written the sort of war-game rules that cross reference their exceptions, instead of just defining a main set of rules and then letting whatever else later contradict the main rules and make exceptions. (And I'm sure the fact that some rules try to be helpful and point out their own common exceptions will be found to be really helpful by some people, and incredibly annoying by others.)
I'm pretty sure over the twenty five years that GW has been publishing rules, that they've had to put the rules priority principles into writing once or twice. But I think the odds are still slim that they're put into writing in the new edition.
If you're truly the better general but lost by that 10 points, where you really better?
Look, painting standards have been part of tournaments for years now, and this is clearly an attempt to codify that into what is basically a tie breaker to encourage people to engage in more parts of the wider hobby.
Or at least pay a friend to paint them for you.
If I won by 10 points then yes I'm better, wasn't that the point of the game? I take the same issue with some marine strats that basically give free VP in Maelstorm missions for 1 CP. I don't give a gak about tournaments and I suspect so do 80% of all players. This did not need to be codified and like I said why not codify fluffyness too while we are at it and introducing no in game standards to who wins or does not win a game.
Models are a part of the game. Painting those models has always been something that has been pushed. If anything all I am hearing are excuses to defend the grey tide.
Sorry but I am not buying in on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I never said "matched = competetive". Stop strawmanning my position.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So here's a question: if you play narrative and you don't paint your army, are you really playing narrative? Doesn't feel like it.
Well, my opinion is that if you enter tournaments you should have a painted army. You are playing theoretically the best players from all over a certain part of the world (or the entire world itself). If I had to stay up for 48 straight hours to paint my army ahead of a GT I would.
If you play garage 40k with your buddies than, i dont know, discuss with them whether the paint job is going to factor in or not.
The owner of my LGS always has prizes for best painted army so it's incentive to paint my force because even if I lose the tournament I might win "best painted" and get at least a consolation prize.
ClockworkZion wrote: Models are a part of the game. Painting those models has always been something that has been pushed. If anything all I am hearing are excuses to defend the grey tide.
Sorry but I am not buying in on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I never said "matched = competetive". Stop strawmanning my position.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So here's a question: if you play narrative and you don't paint your army, are you really playing narrative? Doesn't feel like it.
I don't really enjoy painting, but I do enjoy gaming. Why should I be punished for gaming without painting? They're related, they're both under the whole "40k Hobby" umbrella, but one does not require the other.
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.
While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.
While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.
They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.
But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?
If I recall GW's painting stuff properly, Battle Ready is just blocks plus a shade (or contrast) and more detail beyond that point is referred to as Parade Ready, right? So if you have any NMMs, layered up highlights, stacking drybrushes with contrasts, etc. you would no longer score those 10 VPs, as at least part of your army would no longer be Battle Ready (i.e. it doesn't say "at least to a Battle Ready standard"). I hope no one spent extra time on leaders or centerpiece models.
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.
While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.
Except it rewards them in the wrong way. If people like me enjoy the game part of this game why should be deducted arbitrary points for a part we don't enjoy? I accept not everyone is like me, in fact most of the people I play with don't like my unpainted armies, but they are also powergamers when it comes to playing the game. You liking painting is fine but why should you get points for it in the actual game part? By the looks of it GW wants this to be a tournament game edition and then adds completely unrelated conditions to the actual game part.
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.
While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.
They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.
But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?
I think it might deter those without painted armies to join the tournament. So, while 10 extra points might not make the actual game itself any better, it might ensure that whoever I put my models on the table against has a painted army, which increases the enjoyment (at least for those that want to do it).
I can see plenty of TO's houseruling that the painting requirement won't make or break points. But, I've been to plenty of tournaments with paint requirements and nobody bitched about it. They just did or didn't go. This is basically the same thing. No one is making you join the tournament, just like no one is making you paint your army.
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.
While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.
They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.
But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?
No, but it's not meant to do that. It's meant to convince you not to bring a grey plastic army in the first place.
Every tournament on earth already had this rule, casual play is up to you if you want to implement it. It's literally just GW implementing the painting standards rules that most ITC tournaments already had.
A unit added to your army during battle are never part of a Detachment.
Meaning
A) they don't cost CPs B) they never benefit from Detachment abilities
So summoned daemons? Extra-bad- no Daemonic Loci, No Daemonic Legions (their 'troops win objectives' snowflake rule)
Unbound armies (Ie, not Batlleforged) Get 0 (zero) CPs. You can get them via abilities and 'other rules.' In which case, you can use them on Strats.
ClockworkZion wrote: Models are a part of the game. Painting those models has always been something that has been pushed. If anything all I am hearing are excuses to defend the grey tide.
Models are part of the game. Painting is not part of the game.
Painting isn't part of the rules. Why am I being penalised for not doing something I don't want to do because I don't enjoy it?
ClockworkZion wrote: And I never said "matched = competetive". Stop strawmanning my position.
And yet you're talking about painting being part of tournaments here, as if it meant something. Most people don't play in tournaments, and this rule impacts them just as much.
ClockworkZion wrote: So here's a question: if you play narrative and you don't paint your army, are you really playing narrative? Doesn't feel like it.
That's complete and utter nonsense.
Painting and gaming are part of the hobby. Painting is not part of the game. Gaming is not part of painting.
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, start with your opponent. Did any of his units charge? No. Did any of your units charge? If yes, they get to go before his non-chargers.
That's RAW.
But that's not what the Fight Phase says. Go back and read it. It says STARTING WITH YOUR OPPONENT, choose an ELIGIBLE unit. An ELIGIBLE unit is a unit that is within Engagement Range of an enemy AND/OR a unit that charged this turn.
RAW, you start with your opponent. Does he have units in Engagement Range? Yes? Then he goes first. Then, it is your turn, and your activate an ELIGIBLE unit (which is a charger, who goes first.)
The Fight Phase is written that way to give that edge to the opponent so that is the base rule. The base rule doesn't assume chargers exist. But when they do they take precedent.
Trimarius wrote: If I recall GW's painting stuff properly, Battle Ready is just blocks plus a shade (or contrast) and more detail beyond that point is referred to as Parade Ready, right? So if you have any NMMs, layered up highlights, stacking drybrushes with contrasts, etc. you would no longer score those 10 VPs, as at least part of your army would no longer be Battle Ready (i.e. it doesn't say "at least to a Battle Ready standard"). I hope no one spent extra time on leaders or centerpiece models.
puma713 wrote: ... couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey?
No. Painting isn't part of the game. If someone loves painting more power to them, but they shouldn't win the game because they like painting.
Unbound armies (Ie, not Batlleforged) Get 0 (zero) CPs. You can get them via abilities and 'other rules.' In which case, you can use them on Strats.
They also don't get access to Strategic Reserves (I guess that's obvious from the 0CP, but it is called out specifically in the Strategic Reserves rule.)
Tyran wrote: But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.
No it's not, because the tournament can just say "Your army must be painted" and that's it. Tournament organises can do whatever the hell they want. This isn't that though. This is penalising people in-game for something that isn't part of the game.
And, yes, it's yet another tournament rule bleeding into regular 40K.
I'd honestly argue that unpainted models actually detract from the game play experiance and potentially create an unfair advantage.
An army that is all one solid color becomes hard to identify units and wargear from across the table as everything blends together requiring people to waste time asking what things are or walking around the table to check.
It also makes it hard to keep track of units if multiple units end up in combat together and nothing is painted.
Tyran wrote: But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.
No it's not, because the tournament can just say "Your army must be painted" and that's it. Tournament organises can do whatever the hell they want. This isn't that though. This is penalising people in-game for something that isn't part of the game.
And, yes, it's yet another tournament rule bleeding into regular 40K.
Tournament Edition!!!!
Yes, but in casual 40k, just ignore it. I don't think anyone here is advocating for a painting penalty in a game between friends. I think we're all talking about events (in regard to actually using the requirement).
Tyran wrote: But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.
No it's not, because the tournament can just say "Your army must be painted" and that's it. Tournament organises can do whatever the hell they want. This isn't that though. This is penalising people in-game for something that isn't part of the game.
And, yes, it's yet another tournament rule bleeding into regular 40K.
Tournament Edition!!!!
Yes, but in casual 40k, just ignore it. I don't think anyone here is advocating for a painting penalty in a game between friends. I think we're all talking about events (in regard to actually using the requirement).
Tyran wrote: But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.
No it's not, because the tournament can just say "Your army must be painted" and that's it. Tournament organises can do whatever the hell they want. This isn't that though. This is penalising people in-game for something that isn't part of the game.
And, yes, it's yet another tournament rule bleeding into regular 40K.
Tournament Edition!!!!
Yes, but in casual 40k, just ignore it. I don't think anyone here is advocating for a painting penalty in a game between friends. I think we're all talking about events (in regard to actually using the requirement).
Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you are not playing in a tournament, then just don't use it. Seems pretty simple to me.
Most major tournaments and a lot of events usually already required a 3 color minimum or docked you on points anyway.
If GW's website is any indication, "battle ready" is essentially: You've primed the model and put precisely one layer of contrast paints over that primer, although in most cases that still means multiple paints per model. (Or the traditional method, which is slightly more work...)
To be frank, if you're in a situation where you lose a game by that ten point "battle ready" award, then own it. Vent and curse the mustache twirling villains at GW who have put this incredible barrier of ten points between you and your proper victory.
If you say the words "I would have won if I had painted my models" or "I would have won if you hadn't painted your models", I think doing so in the manner of a Scooby Doo villain is advised against.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd honestly argue that unpainted models actually detract from the game play experiance and potentially create an unfair advantage.
An army that is all one solid color becomes hard to identify units and wargear from across the table as everything blends together requiring people to waste time asking what things are or walking around the table to check.
It also makes it hard to keep track of units if multiple units end up in combat together and nothing is painted.
Seeing as most people I know paint their army in one uniform colour scheme what exactly is the difference between painted and unpainted at this point? I had as much difficulty differentiating my own unpainted squads as I did between 2 identically painted genestealer squads in the same combat. As usual it seems you are making nonsensical defenses for GW's faulty rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd honestly argue that unpainted models actually detract from the game play experiance and potentially create an unfair advantage.
An army that is all one solid color becomes hard to identify units and wargear from across the table as everything blends together requiring people to waste time asking what things are or walking around the table to check.
It also makes it hard to keep track of units if multiple units end up in combat together and nothing is painted.
I've never had a problem with that, especially with a really quick zenithal spray job.
Also, I disagree that combat is hard with unpainted units. Not everyone basecoats, leaves models absolutely bare of paint, or uses the same type of color/primer. So there will definitely be some difference.
Another point, how does a solid color make it hard to differentiate between a space marine and a space marine commander? One is clearly more ostentatious. Even in a single scale of color. Even special characters have defining silhouettes.
But your point about mixing up squads? Yeah, that can happen, if its all the same unit type/datasheet, with the same models. But that happens even with painted models unless some care was taken to give them a defining feature.
yukishiro1 wrote: If I was playing someone without a fully painted army not in a tournament I'd just give them the 10 points too, can't imagine anyone who wouldn't do the same.
We've had people on this very board who not only refuse to play against unpainted armies but also suggest that people who don't paint or have any intention to paint shouldn't be playing the game at all.
Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1", so (unless there is an exception I've missed). So, with the L-shaped buildings that people have been talking about, in 8th a horde of Orks could just rumble through the walls to assault what's on the other side. In 9th, they've got to trek all the way around the building. Seems like another small shot to big units of infantry.
Edit: Although I don't see the definition of "Breachable" here, so that may cover the above.
Sasori wrote: Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you are not playing in a tournament, then just don't use it. Seems pretty simple to me.
And if you're playing a random pickup game and your opponent insists in playing by the printed rules rather than your suggested house rule? It's really hard to get annoyed at someone who wants to play by the rules.
Which is why a painting requirement shouldn't be part of the rules.
You should never be able to win a game of 40K because your army is painted. That's daft.
Tournaments can have their own painting requirements (and often do), which is fine, but it shouldn't be part of the core rules.
Wow.... OK so with all the coherency bs, the addition of vehicles Beeing able to shoot in CC, multicharges Beeing extremely risky, the addition of the fall back strat...
They also capped models that can fight to a 1/2" range...
Can someone tell me what I missed in 8th? Since when was the consensus that CC was so overpowering it needed to be nerfed that hard?
Not to mention the screw you to big units which are extremely negatively effected by the before mentioned rule changes in addition to Beeing further screwd by terrain rules and the introduction of blast weapons...
Well at least I can now attack the intervening hero with 3 ork Boyz, that will balance thing out
puma713 wrote: Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1", so (unless there is an exception I've missed).
"A model can be moved vertically in order to climb up, down and over any terrain features that are higher than this, counting the vertical distances as part of its move"
Same section as being able to move over terrain that is 1" or less.
Sasori wrote: Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you are not playing in a tournament, then just don't use it. Seems pretty simple to me.
And if you're playing a random pickup game and your opponent insists in playing by the printed rules rather than your suggested house rule? It's really hard to get annoyed at someone who wants to play by the rules.
Which is why a painting requirement shouldn't be part of the rules.
You should never be able to win a game of 40K because your army is painted. That's daft.
Tournaments can have their own painting requirements (and often do), which is fine, but it shouldn't be part of the core rules.
Then you either play with the rules or you move on and find someone else to play with.
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
puma713 wrote: Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1", so (unless there is an exception I've missed). So, with the L-shaped buildings that people have been talking about, in 8th a horde of Orks could just rumble through the walls to assault what's on the other side. In 9th, they've got to trek all the way around the building. Seems like another small shot to big units of infantry.
Edit: Although I don't see the definition of "Breachable" here, so that may cover the above.
I assumed that they meant they can climb and 'jump' down, costing you movement now. Of course, you may be right that the Breachable rule might come into effect. Possibly allows charging through walls and other obstacles?
puma713 wrote: Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1" (unless there is an exception I've missed).
"A model can be moved vertically in order to climb up, down and over any terrain features that are higher than this, counting the vertical distances as part of its move"
Same section as being able to move over terrain that is 1" or less.
Right, vertically, not through. In 8th, you can go right through a wall. In 9th, you can't (unless "Breachable" let's you).
Edit: Found Breachable and that is exactly what it does. If a terrain piece is breachable, you can move through its walls, structures, etc.
ClockworkZion wrote: From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.
It's awesome when you're made to engage in part of the hobby you don't like by penalising you in-game.
Its no different then a guy that paints his minis but doesn't like to learn strategy or has trouble learning the rules and loses most of his games. Some folks invest more time in different parts of the game, but building and painting the models has always been a core element to the game.
Red Corsair wrote: Its no different then a guy that paints his minis but doesn't like to learn strategy or has trouble learning the rules and loses most of his games. Some folks invest more time in different parts of the game, but building and painting the models has always been a core element to the game.
To the hobby, not the game.
Sasori wrote: I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
First time you lose a game not because of anything you or your opponent did during the game but because you didn't have a painted army come back and say that again.
RedNoak wrote: Can someone tell me what I missed in 8th? Since when was the consensus that CC was so overpowering it needed to be nerfed that hard?
Close combat takes a long time, especially with hordes, which eats up precious round time during a tournament. This is why HTH and hordes needed to be nerfed into the fething ground for Tournament Edition 40K.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd honestly argue that unpainted models actually detract from the game play experiance and potentially create an unfair advantage.
An army that is all one solid color becomes hard to identify units and wargear from across the table as everything blends together requiring people to waste time asking what things are or walking around the table to check.
It also makes it hard to keep track of units if multiple units end up in combat together and nothing is painted.
Seeing as most people I know paint their army in one uniform colour scheme what exactly is the difference between painted and unpainted at this point? I had as much difficulty differentiating my own unpainted squads as I did between 2 identically painted genestealer squads in the same combat. As usual it seems you are making nonsensical defenses for GW's faulty rules.
One solid color =/= one uniform scheme.
Let's give an example: you haveba squad of 10 Intercessors and none of them are painted (or maybe they'll all black) and I kill 5 in melee with a unit who gives -1 LD. Now if you paint them then we both know that you still have a SGT in the squad adding +1LD, but if they're unpainted I have to ask "if your SGT still alive?" and trust I am not being mislead for in game advantage.
Painted models with markings keep players honest, even if they would never intentionally cheat in the first place.
ClockworkZion wrote: From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.
You should win the game by being the better general not because you accomplished some external criteria, and like I pointed out in another thread why draw the line at painting if they are going to do this? Fielding fluffy armies seems to me to be more important than wether or not they are painted. Are my black coated plague marines somehow an immersion dealbreaker but a force of 1 knight, 30 guardsman and some random SM captains are not? Now I will say in my group this rule won't be impact full because half of us play with half painted armies but it's the principle that bothers me.
So why should some one with money to burn have an edge over another guy on a tight budget?
There are a ton of other barriers to winning at 40k. Seems hilarious that folks are upset that your models are expected to be painted. It's not like 10 points guarantees a win BTW. It's pretty minor.
puma713 wrote: ... couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey?
No. Painting isn't part of the game. If someone loves painting more power to them, but they shouldn't win the game because they like painting.
This times 1000x.
It is beyond idiotic to take a game metric scoring system that is supposed to represent how well players competed in a match, and then give one player a bunch of extra participation points that have zero to do with what happened in that much or how well that player played.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd honestly argue that unpainted models actually detract from the game play experiance and potentially create an unfair advantage.
An army that is all one solid color becomes hard to identify units and wargear from across the table as everything blends together requiring people to waste time asking what things are or walking around the table to check.
It also makes it hard to keep track of units if multiple units end up in combat together and nothing is painted.
I've never had a problem with that, especially with a really quick zenithal spray job.
Also, I disagree that combat is hard with unpainted units. Not everyone basecoats, leaves models absolutely bare of paint, or uses the same type of color/primer. So there will definitely be some difference.
Another point, how does a solid color make it hard to differentiate between a space marine and a space marine commander? One is clearly more ostentatious. Even in a single scale of color. Even special characters have defining silhouettes.
But your point about mixing up squads? Yeah, that can happen, if its all the same unit type/datasheet, with the same models. But that happens even with painted models unless some care was taken to give them a defining feature.
Zenithal =/= one paint color.
And "not everybody" doesn't change the fact it does happen. I've played against it more times than I care to count over the years.
Sure, there are exceptions, but they don't disprove the arguement.
Some people hate painting. Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it. Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.
No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.
While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.
They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.
But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?
Bull crap. I have been in tournaments where armies were "required" to be at least painted and WYSIWYG and all 3 rounds the other players failed to hold up their end. If the store enforced it the RT tournament would have been canceled.
So whats the alternative? Dis-sallow them from prizes? From winning? Because both of those are way harsher and I have seen it.
Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.
No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???
Thats mellow dramatic mate.
It's hardly suffering lol.
I guess WYSIWYG shouldn't be a thing either. Because it forces folks on a budget to make subpar choices in list building often. Heck just let full proxying in so it's more fair.
ClockworkZion wrote: From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.
You should win the game by being the better general not because you accomplished some external criteria, and like I pointed out in another thread why draw the line at painting if they are going to do this? Fielding fluffy armies seems to me to be more important than wether or not they are painted. Are my black coated plague marines somehow an immersion dealbreaker but a force of 1 knight, 30 guardsman and some random SM captains are not? Now I will say in my group this rule won't be impact full because half of us play with half painted armies but it's the principle that bothers me.
So why should some one with money to burn have an edge over another guy on a tight budget?
There are a ton of other barriers to winning at 40k. Seems hilarious that folks are upset that your models are expected to be painted. It's not like 10 points guarantees a win BTW. It's pretty minor.
10 out of a 100 maximum is not minor, especially when one player gets it for free and the other is left out. Money, granted that makes a difference but this A) isn't the cheapest hobby to begin with, B) having a 500 or 700 Euro/Dollar/W/e budget is generally not the reason you lose the game, at least not were I play. And even if that were true why add another arbitrary barrier between players? You either are good at the game or not, getting free points because you like painting whereas I don't is ridiculous. Magic tournaments are not decided because one guy decided to sleeve his cards whereas his opponent didn't. You want to win the actual game part of this hobby? Put the work in and get better.
Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.
No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???
You're going way over the top. If you and a person in the store can't agree for something simple like this for a casual pick up game, then there are other problems at play.
puma713 wrote: ... couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey?
No. Painting isn't part of the game. If someone loves painting more power to them, but they shouldn't win the game because they like painting.
This times 1000x.
It is beyond idiotic to take a game metric scoring system that is supposed to represent how well players competed in a match, and then give one player a bunch of extra participation points that have zero to do with what happened in that much or how well that player played.
Same goes for the guy that runs out and drops half a grand on 9 ridge runners because of a new mechanic in order to gain an edge. If you don't like that example, there's plenty of others for more competitive crap in the meta BTW, before that target gets moved.
Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.
No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???
You're going way over the top. If you and a person in the store can't agree for something simple like this for a casual pick up game, then there are other problems at play.
Maybe yes, maybe no. His point that this should never be part of the core rules is valid. It just invites unnecessary arguments for nor reason.
-Armor Saves
-To Wound
-To Hit
-Damage
-Advance
-Charge
-Psychic test
-Deny the witch
-Number of attacks from a weapon
So no using a command re-roll to see if Robby G gets back up or to see if Agents of Vect goes off. No more command re-roll for Morale, for exploding tanks, etc., etc.
out of the secondrys to make certain amies and builds auto give them away will other's will be impossible to maximise score against.
