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???
And not painting your models obfuscates information slowing the game and makes it easier for some players to cheat.
We can go round this bush all day. There are points on both sides.
Now PERSONALLY I'd only push this rule on TFG because screw that guy. I was just having a laugh about the fact the people being the loudest about this likely don't paint their armies.
the_scotsman wrote: Wait, am I late, or have foljs not seen the full rules book? Are we complaining aboit paint because we've all already gone thru the rules?
Yes, we've gone through the rules. That's why we're discussing paint. It's in the rules now.
How are any of the examples I gave over the top? My frustration is because people don't seem to understand why winning games based not on what happened in the game but because someone painted their models is fething slowed.
Also flip this to this:
H.B.M.C. wrote: What if the painting award at a tournament had a "winning games" condition. That wouldn't make any sense, would it?
I mean, can you imagine if you had a wonderfully painted army, but lost the painting award at a tournament because you didn't score enough Battle Points during games. You'd be LIVID, because what the feth as your in-game results got to do with being the best painter.
Here is a recap of big changes that we've noticed so far:
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. And they can only be used on certain things:
-Armor Saves
-To Wound
-To Hit
-Damage
-Advance
-Charge
-Psychic test
-Deny the witch
-Number of attacks from a weapon
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.
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.
What if I don't like assembling minis either? Can I show up with boxes and sprues to prove I have the models and just slide bases?
Now PERSONALLY I'd only push this rule on TFG because screw that guy. I was just having a laugh about the fact the people being the loudest about this likely don't paint their armies.
Yeah, and it can be amusing.
I guess I'll see what the local guys think of it. Just to see who's going to push it and who wont.
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.
I imagine he'll be too occupied trying to dampen the frothing rage and stem the endless stream of tears that resulted from losing a game not because of anything him or his opponent did in game to get back to you with your reply.
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.
What if I don't like assembling minis either? Can I show up with boxes and sprues to prove I have the models and just slide bases?
Except TRUE LOS is a part of the rules so you have to assemble them for that reason alone. You are putting up a straw man, now you could argue painting is now a part of the rules but unlike LOS it has no real impact on how the game is played. If you enjoy getting free points for being a bad player, power to you but I would never play that way.
I have a tremor that makes it hard for me to paint details well. It doesn't matter, the 10 points isn't for having a pretty army, it's just for having a painted army.
All you need to do is spray on a base color, paint a couple areas of the model a different color (on a space marine, paint the gun metal colored and say the helmet another color), wash the entire model with the same wash, and then put some texture paint on the base. It's like 5 minutes per model plus paint drying time.
I don't think giving points for it is a great idea, but just putting some perspective here. If you just want to do the minimum to get the points and the people you play with really care about it...you can do it in a couple hours for your whole army.
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.
What if I don't like assembling minis either? Can I show up with boxes and sprues to prove I have the models and just slide bases?
Except TRUE LOS is a part of the rules so you have to assemble them for that reason alone. You are putting up a straw man, now you could argue painting is now a part of the rules but unlike LOS it has no real impact on how the game is played. If you enjoy getting free points for being a bad player, power to you but I would never play that way.
And it's hard to determine TLOS through intervening models and terrain when an entire army is grey plastic.
You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.
Neither is anything you've said so far, so, call it even?
The winner of a game should be determined by the actions taken by the players during that game. I don't understand why you are having such a massive time not understanding this.
yukishiro1 wrote: I have a tremor that makes it hard for me to paint details well. It doesn't matter, the 10 points isn't for having a pretty army, it's just for having a painted army.
All you need to do is spray on a base color, paint a couple areas of the model a different color (on a space marine, paint the gun metal colored and say the helmet another color), wash the entire model with the same wash, and then put some texture paint on the base. It's like 5 minutes per model plus paint drying time.
I don't think giving points for it is a great idea, but just putting some perspective here. If you just want to do the minimum to get the points and the people you play with really care about it...you can do it in a couple hours for your whole army.
It's no different then proxying or playing with partially assembled models. Paying someone else to paint their stuff is also an option, but whenever that gets mentioned the argument always becomes about the cost. Despite the fact I already pointed out the game is heavily tilted toward pay to play to begin with. Notice they all ignored that when I brought it up?
Ill ask again, why should a player have an edge because he or she can afford to latest and greatest units or army when others can't?
H.B.M.C. wrote: A person with that 'edge' would still end up losing if they weren't painted.
I mean, not really. It's 10 points, not 50. If we both scored all of our primaries and I scored one of my secondaries to the max and you scored three, I'd still lose to you, even with a painted army.
puma713 wrote: I mean, not really. It's 10 points, not 50. If we both scored all of our primaries and I scored one of my secondaries to the max and you scored three, I'd still lose to you, even with a painted army.
Doesn't matter if it's 1 point or 99 points. The events of the game should determine who wins, not whether the minis are painted.
Red Corsair wrote: What if I don't like assembling minis either? Can I show up with boxes and sprues to prove I have the models and just slide bases?
That would prevent the game from being played. Painting your miniatures does not.
And again, what it a tournament's painting prize had a "how many games you won" requirement. Would that be fair?
Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.
How is this hard to grasp?
Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.
I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points. I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.
puma713 wrote: I mean, not really. It's 10 points, not 50. If we both scored all of our primaries and I scored one of my secondaries to the max and you scored three, I'd still lose to you, even with a painted army.
Doesn't matter if it's 1 point or 99 points. The events of the game should determine who wins, not whether the minis are painted.
I get it. I understand your point completely. But you've been describing a scenario where you auto-lose if you show up with a grey army, which is not true. You're just at a disadvantage, warranted or not.
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.
What if I don't like assembling minis either? Can I show up with boxes and sprues to prove I have the models and just slide bases?
I have played against and seen people play with all types of proxies and even empty bases in friendly pick up games. Once back in 5th ed a local SM player wanted to try a drop pod heavy list so they bought a 12 pack of coke and used the cans as the drop pods. I have also played in an apoc game were a nid player used children's toys to proxy biotitans. None of this would be allowed at tournaments and that is totally fine. Casual pick up game at stores have always been more lax on stuff like this.
Should we bring over other tournament requirements to matched play (which is the standard pickup game format that people use) and put them in the core rules?
H.B.M.C. wrote: A person with that 'edge' would still end up losing if they weren't painted.
Notice you had to dodge the question rather then address my point honestly.
Both players have painted or unpainted armies. One can afford more kits. the other can't. Tell me how that is any more fair when the guy with greater purchasing power wins?
puma713 wrote: I mean, not really. It's 10 points, not 50. If we both scored all of our primaries and I scored one of my secondaries to the max and you scored three, I'd still lose to you, even with a painted army.
Doesn't matter if it's 1 point or 99 points. The events of the game should determine who wins, not whether the minis are painted.
That's not what you said in the post he replied to though. You talked about how someone with the ability to build the most top meta list (Economic Advantage) would still lose, and he pointed out that is very likely not the case.
Red Corsair wrote: Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.
That makes zero sense. A painting prize should be determined by, wait for it, painting. If someone won a painting competition because they won more games there'd be a frickin' riot.
Red Corsair wrote: Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.
Require assembly yes, because the games rules require LOS checks and the ability to see what a mini is armed with. Painting doesn't stop either of those.
And it is a penalty. It's saying your opponent wins more because they painted their army, not because of anything they did during the game. You are losing a game because of nothing you did during the game.
Red Corsair wrote: I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points.
I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.
Painting has never been a requirement of the game. Being accurate in an archery contest is. Your analogy is horrific.
I think for a lot of people this could be a positive thing if they could use it to get over the anxiety that comes with the idea of painting. In my experience, a lot of the reason people don't paint is because they're afraid of not doing a good job and being embarrassed about it. So they prefer to leave their models unpainted; if you aren't painting at all, you aren't putting yourself out there.
But if you need to paint to get the points...there's your excuse. "I didn't have time to do this well so I did it the fast way, it's not pretty but it works and fits the rule."
And some portion of those people might even realize that hey...they actually like painting, once they're freed of the obligation of feeling like they have to do it to a level they aren't capable of.
I know because I used to be in the same boat. I never painted my models when I was a kid. When I came back in 8th after a 15 year break, I started painting just for a lark...and discovered I actually like it. My models aren't pretty in a technical sense - I have a tremor that makes it hard to hit details well, and I'm just not that artistically talented anyway - but they're a hell of a lot prettier than the grey plastic. And I've discovered I actually like painting, once I let go of the need to feel it had to be perfect. I've even got complements on my quin army from people - not on a technical level, but on a "wow, that's a really cool painting scheme, I've never seen that particular combination before" which has been very satisfying.
Sasori wrote: That's not what you said in the post he replied to though. You talked about how someone with the ability to build the most top meta list (Economic Advantage) would still lose, and he pointed out that is very likely not the case.
Complete conjecture as to what "edge" that would be. It's a nebulous concept. What I said is that someone who has the "edge" can still lose because they didn't paint said units.
The overall point is that you can lose games because of nothing you (or your opponent) did during the game.
That'd be like taking a few strokes off someone's golf score during a major because of the colour of shoes you wore.
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.
It is possible the "proper" competitive packet won't have that clause. And TOs can do as they please.
One thing I am really sympathetic to is the guy who has a mostly painted army who has a piece or two that isn't painted yet because he just got it and he doesn't want to do the quick and dirty job on it, he wants to paint it to a higher standard like the rest of his army. But I am sure 99.999% of players would give that guy the full 10 points based on the rest of his army.
the_scotsman wrote: Wait, am I late, or have foljs not seen the full rules book? Are we complaining aboit paint because we've all already gone thru the rules?
Yeah I'm in the same boat. Guess we missed out.
So let's see if I can figure this out: fallback is effectively the same, you have to maintain coherence when piling in, and you now have to be closer to engage in cc. So melee is still on the losing side against gun lines. I'm shocked.
Also loyalists are getting another G.I. Primaris toy, which as usual looks terrible, and will probably be getting ridiculous rules and be under costed.
And tacticals are going up to 15 ppm. So csm will probably be 14 ppm, a 27% increase. That's 7% more than intercessors. Without doctrines, super doctrines, good faction traits or any of the other stuff that intercessors get. With the 50% increase for cultists this doesn't look good for the legions.
I am feeling very salty. And everyone is arguing about painting. This is what I get for having a job.
Red Corsair wrote: Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.
That makes zero sense. A painting prize should be determined by, wait for it, painting. If someone won a painting competition because they won more games there'd be a frickin' riot.
Red Corsair wrote: Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.
Require assembly yes, because the games rules require LOS checks and the ability to see what a mini is armed with. Painting doesn't stop either of those.
And it is a penalty. It's saying your opponent wins more because they painted their army, not because of anything they did during the game. You are losing a game because of nothing you did during the game.
Red Corsair wrote: I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points.
I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.
Painting has never been a requirement of the game. Being accurate in an archery contest is. Your analogy is horrific.
accept it now IS a requirement if you want max points. The analogy might not be perfect but it does get my point across. Your now required to have some paint on your models if you want 100 points. You can still play regardless, your just not getting 100 points, so winning is going to be harder.
Your just acting entitled. Get over it. If you hate painting and want equal odds, either discuss it with your opponent, play another guy with an unpainted army. You could also of course paint your models, even minimally or pay someone else to paint your army.
Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?
Sasori wrote: That's not what you said in the post he replied to though. You talked about how someone with the ability to build the most top meta list (Economic Advantage) would still lose, and he pointed out that is very likely not the case.
Complete conjecture as to what "edge" that would be. It's a nebulous concept. What I said is that someone who has the "edge" can still lose because they didn't paint said units.
The overall point is that you can lose games because of nothing you (or your opponent) did during the game.
That'd be like taking a few strokes off someone's golf score during a major because of the colour of shoes you wore.
That analogy is worse then mine mate. If the tournament didn't tell players maybe, but if the golf tournament was sponsored by Nike and you wore reboks and were forced to play barefoot because your a moron that can't follow instructions and it threw your swing off, sure you deserve to lose
Your acting like this is hidden and nefarious. It's literally equal to anyone that chooses to follow instructions. You just want to have it YOUR way.
I'll ask again, how is it any less fair then unequal purchasing power? That also has nothing to do with skill and VERY much can effect outcome, more so then this.
puma713 wrote: You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.
There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?
Battle ready is a fairly low bar.
If anything this should make folks with unpainted armies feel BETTER. The game is actually saying it's OK, since your "losing" points, before it was part of the social contract. You were failing to uphold your end if you didn't paint your models. Now you can play guilt free because your opponent is being rewarded for their end.
Sasori wrote: This album is supposed to be a little bit better organized:
It is. It gets some... NSFW overlays on top of the images later on, however.
The mods also nuked the last album thread as well, so you might want to check about posting it.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?
Battle ready is a fairly low bar.
If anything this should make folks with unpainted armies feel BETTER. The game is actually saying it's OK, since your "losing" points, before it was part of the social contract. You were failing to uphold your end if you didn't paint your models. Now you can play guilt free because your opponent is being rewarded for their end.
Just like you have to memorize rules to paint your models, right?
I mean, if I have to paint models to play the game, surely you should have to do something game-related to paint.
Do you drybrush your models? Use more than one layer? Highlight over contrast? If so, and you want to enforce this rule, you automatically forfeit those 10 VPs. Battle Ready is defined on GW's site, and using those techniques very specifically makes you Parade Ready, not Battle Ready. Is that cool with everyone who likes this rule? Highlights are now actively detrimental to your game.
Obviously enforcing that is silly, but it is the letter of the rules.
As for outspending your opponent on models, those advantages are real, but are the result of GW's poor balance and slow update schedule. Not something that should be held up as a positive. Should I demand that everyone who doesn't heavily convert their minis take a 10 VP hit in games, just because I do it? This is a model based hobby after all - requiring that you do a bit more than just slap your figures together seems around as reasonable as making painting part of the game score. It only takes a few minutes per model to sculpt and add additional scrolls/capes, green stuff on some unique berets, or even just swap all those boring old lasguns on your guard with fancier admech rifles, after all.
Trimarius wrote: Do you drybrush your models? Use more than one layer? Highlight over contrast? If so, and you want to enforce this rule, you automatically forfeit those 10 VPs. Battle Ready is defined on GW's site, and using those techniques very specifically makes you Parade Ready, not Battle Ready. Is that cool with everyone who likes this rule? Highlights are now actively detrimental to your game.
Now we need BCB to determine whether painting your army beyond Battle Ready standard means that you also lose out on those 10 points.
Oaka wrote: VPs for painted models is also another nerf to hordes.
puma713 wrote: You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.
There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.
There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.
Red Corsair wrote: Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.
That makes zero sense. A painting prize should be determined by, wait for it, painting. If someone won a painting competition because they won more games there'd be a frickin' riot.
Red Corsair wrote: Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.
Require assembly yes, because the games rules require LOS checks and the ability to see what a mini is armed with. Painting doesn't stop either of those.
And it is a penalty. It's saying your opponent wins more because they painted their army, not because of anything they did during the game. You are losing a game because of nothing you did during the game.
Red Corsair wrote: I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points.
I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.
Painting has never been a requirement of the game. Being accurate in an archery contest is. Your analogy is horrific.
accept it now IS a requirement if you want max points. The analogy might not be perfect but it does get my point across. Your now required to have some paint on your models if you want 100 points. You can still play regardless, your just not getting 100 points, so winning is going to be harder.
Your just acting entitled. Get over it. If you hate painting and want equal odds, either discuss it with your opponent, play another guy with an unpainted army. You could also of course paint your models, even minimally or pay someone else to paint your army.
Here's the thing. For large events, this doesn't matter. Every large event has this as a minimum standard to even show up.
For locals? This can be a death sentence to an event. People see 'painting points', look at their gray plastic and stay home. You could lose half the field at an FLGS tourney with a rule like this.
Which would get worse over time. Your bad painters, slow painters, or just people who are really busy will get sick of playing their only painted list and stop showing up.
It's why we don't have paint points in any of our locals. We're lucky to get 10 people as it is. Tell them you have to paint your army and you'll be lucky to keep 4.
puma713 wrote: You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.
There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.
There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.
ERJAK wrote: Which would get worse over time. Your bad painters, slow painters, or just people who are really busy will get sick of playing their only painted list and stop showing up.
It's why we don't have paint points in any of our locals. We're lucky to get 10 people as it is. Tell them you have to paint your army and you'll be lucky to keep 4.
I've been to one tournament in my life. It was during the dark times of 7th, so Eldar/Tau Riptide soup spam made everything exceptionally unfun, but that aside I was disappointed that only one of the armies was painted (and I say that as someone who brought an unpainted army). That said, even I understood that if that had been a requirement, it would have been a tournament with one person in it, which means it wouldn't've been a tournament at all.
It is so disappointing that GW has chosen to implement a rule during a time when game companies are trying to increase accessibility (sometimes to extreme degrees, like the recent Last of Us 2's various visual impairment modes).
The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.
puma713 wrote: You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.
There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.
There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.
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.
Not a surprise.
Too bad. Gw had gotten pretty darn good missions to themselves which they then abandoned for this junk. Gotta push marines eh.
I am feeling very salty. And everyone is arguing about painting. This is what I get for having a job.
I somehow doubt CSM will go up as much. If they don't then it's confirmation of the disparity of traits being codified.
So the idea that veterans of hundreds if not thousands of years of war, much of it in literal hell, are inferior to thin blooded members of founding #3478 will be codified. Thanks, that makes me feel so much better.
Also: apparently gw wants us to pay for new points again, only a little over six months after the last time. And with the change to the supreme command detachment we've lost one of the few ways a super heavy can get traits. Guess that's not really a problem for csm. Oh, and the new super melta primaris are actually 40 ppm.
On the upside, since we already have the full brb, no reason gw shouldn't give us something on the new fw books. Please? A little good news? Can we at least get some leaks for the points for something besides those members of founding #3478?
Edit: Wait, were are these secondaries? What page? Please, give me another reason to be salty.
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary.
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
That's what I've been saying from the start, but apparently I'm being "over the top" with my criticism of this rule.
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.
Not a surprise.
Too bad. Gw had gotten pretty darn good missions to themselves which they then abandoned for this junk. Gotta push marines eh.
Because...one secondary favors marines? You know Custodes benefit even more right? And Dark Eldar vehicles only have 6 wounds, Venom Spam loves reaper.
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.
Well, that's a bit of an unfair analogy, isn't it?
Battle Ready isn't a quality standard, it's just a "did you do this?" It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done. So the analogy would be to just playing, not to what your W/L ratio was.
So it would be like saying "you get an additional 10 points in the painting competition if you played in the tournament too."
Which I agree is also silly...but it's less silly than your analogy.
puma713 wrote: I mean, not really. It's 10 points, not 50. If we both scored all of our primaries and I scored one of my secondaries to the max and you scored three, I'd still lose to you, even with a painted army.
Doesn't matter if it's 1 point or 99 points. The events of the game should determine who wins, not whether the minis are painted.
I personally think it is a good rule. I was tired of playing at events and games with people to lazy to paint their armies. Now i gain points for doing the right thing and they don’t since they break game immersion. Not sure how you can’t see that.
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.
Not a surprise.
Too bad. Gw had gotten pretty darn good missions to themselves which they then abandoned for this junk. Gotta push marines eh.
I don't think this is about Primaris Syndrome. They're so badly designed that you can't even say they were clearly designed to benefit anything in particular. They're all-around bad, not in any one particular way.
I think it's just about GW being too proud to just take the ITC secondaries wholesale (or with some minor tweaks and additions). Instead they insisted on doing their own version of the same idea, ended up doing it much worse, and were too proud to just admit they had failed and do the logical thing and use the ITC ones instead since they're just better.
jivardi wrote: 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.
Agreed. However gw went hardcoding it to everywhere. So gw disagrees with you and me
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: In a casual game, penalization for lack of painting is just being pedantic.
But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.
And lets be honest if you have the resources to go to an official tournament you have the resources to have a painted army.
But wouldn't logical point for that being in tournament rules? Now it applies to both.
As it is here either tournament rules have forced painted armies or given bonus(like 1 cp reroll) for painted armies.
Gw decided it applies to casual garage games as well as tournaments.
Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of
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.
It's not tournaments that are issue. Before painted armies was common requirement. But this applies to every game. Wanna try new unit? -10 vp.
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.)
Also guess it means your fliers die leaving board since come back requires strategic reserve rule being used.
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.
They haven't defined "fluffy/unfluffy." I think that Battle Ready has a standard. Achieve it and get 10 VP. Bask in the glow of those VP.
If they had said: "the player with the better painted army gets +10 VP", I could understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth on this thread. Those 10 VP are there, ready for you to claim them with your brush.
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.
But having part of core rules rule you expect to not be used for sake of tournaments rather than have that tournament rule in tournament rule is just silly. It shows you have failed basic competence level in rulewriting
I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.
Issue isn't tournaments. Those have generally had requirement and that's fine. But this is core rule for every...single...game. not just tournaments but your garage game where you buy new unit and want to try it asap. Didn't paint it? -10vp.
Sure you can house rule things but that's something you need to agree and opponent is 100% fine for not allowing house rules and having baked in core rule that is expected to be ignored is just silly. Core rule that is by default is core rule that should be in optional rules. If expectation is it's only used in tournaments then howabout have it in tournaments?
Also wouldn't it be nice to have even once edition where there would be roughly same way to play 40k largely without bunch of house rules altering things?
Red Corsair wrote: Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.
That makes zero sense. A painting prize should be determined by, wait for it, painting. If someone won a painting competition because they won more games there'd be a frickin' riot.
Red Corsair wrote: Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.
Require assembly yes, because the games rules require LOS checks and the ability to see what a mini is armed with. Painting doesn't stop either of those.
And it is a penalty. It's saying your opponent wins more because they painted their army, not because of anything they did during the game. You are losing a game because of nothing you did during the game.
Red Corsair wrote: I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points.
I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.
Painting has never been a requirement of the game. Being accurate in an archery contest is. Your analogy is horrific.
accept it now IS a requirement if you want max points. The analogy might not be perfect but it does get my point across. Your now required to have some paint on your models if you want 100 points. You can still play regardless, your just not getting 100 points, so winning is going to be harder.
Your just acting entitled. Get over it. If you hate painting and want equal odds, either discuss it with your opponent, play another guy with an unpainted army. You could also of course paint your models, even minimally or pay someone else to paint your army.
Red Corsair: Well said. Dakka is lucky to have you here. Always being constructive unlike others that do nothing but troll here.
the_scotsman wrote: Wait, am I late, or have foljs not seen the full rules book? Are we complaining aboit paint because we've all already gone thru the rules?
Yeah I'm in the same boat. Guess we missed out.
So let's see if I can figure this out: fallback is effectively the same, you have to maintain coherence when piling in, and you now have to be closer to engage in cc. So melee is still on the losing side against gun lines. I'm shocked.
Also loyalists are getting another G.I. Primaris toy, which as usual looks terrible, and will probably be getting ridiculous rules and be under costed.
And tacticals are going up to 15 ppm. So csm will probably be 14 ppm, a 27% increase. That's 7% more than intercessors. Without doctrines, super doctrines, good faction traits or any of the other stuff that intercessors get. With the 50% increase for cultists this doesn't look good for the legions.
I am feeling very salty. And everyone is arguing about painting. This is what I get for having a job.
Yeah this discussion about paints and VP involves the same three people and lasted about 10 pages.... Get a freaking room you won't change each others mind so please stop spamming the forum.
CC is nerfed
Primaris stuff gets all the benefits
Weird and clunky rules... Like we need a frikking spreadsheet mark an remember all the terrain features on the table
Coherency bs is bringing back my old PTSD from pieplates
Horses are basically unplayable
We have to pay for point updates
5 model units outperform 6+ units cause of reasons
This edition got me a bit exited at first... Now I am just flat out disappointed... And if idiot another ms ' urrr you hav to wait till all information is out' followed by 'just because now you have all the rules, you still need to play the actual game before whining' finalized by 'they will fix the problems with an errata /faq, so stop complaining' ...I'm going to hang myself
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.
The 'Ard Boyz tournaments from GW didn't have painting req's but most others do/did.
Luckily, ''Battle Ready'' is fairly subjective. Just getting models close enough should be good enough! A bit of paint on models isn't too bad. Just assume it is part of the list building process.
Interestingly, since building/painting/basing is now rewarded with points, you are effectively modelling for advantage! (or more accurately choosing to not paint/base models is ''modelling for disadvantage'')
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.
Well, that's a bit of an unfair analogy, isn't it?
Battle Ready isn't a quality standard, it's just a "did you do this?" It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done. So the analogy would be to just playing, not to what your W/L ratio was.
So it would be like saying "you get an additional 10 points in the painting competition if you played in the tournament too."
Which I agree is also silly...but it's less silly than your analogy.
For one, there is a standard, as spraying your 200 boyz with black primer and then slapping them on the table does not count as "battle-ready" (and in fact if you're a gak or slow painter you can in fact "fail" to meet the standard by default), and 2. the point of the comparison is two aspects of the hobby impacting each other for no real reason. Whether or not both scenarios measure skill quality is here nor there.
They haven't defined "fluffy/unfluffy." I think that Battle Ready has a standard. Achieve it and get 10 VP. Bask in the glow of those VP.
If they had said: "the player with the better painted army gets +10 VP", I could understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth on this thread. Those 10 VP are there, ready for you to claim them with your brush.
Your point of contention doesn't really matter in regards to my point, for the reasons outlined above.
So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?
So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?
Still this. Psykers can't cast after unless Titantic. One unit that's been tri pointed can escape each turn with a strat.
So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?
Still this. Psykers can't cast after unless Titantic. One unit that's been tri pointed can escape each turn with a strat.
Non-Titanics cannot shoot or cast psychic powers if they fall back, in general. The Fly keyword is no longer immune to this from what I can see.
Alpharius wrote: So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat
Nope. You can still annihilate assault units after walking away from them. No real change other the unit itself cannot do it (unless they can, like Ultramarines).
So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?
Still this. Psykers can't cast after unless Titantic. One unit that's been tri pointed can escape each turn with a strat.
Yup, good job "fixing" melee gw. Bravo. Guess I'll be saving 1CP per round for"We Have Come For You", though the coherencey rules have nerfed that. Don't know what other cc centered factions will do though.
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.
Well, that's a bit of an unfair analogy, isn't it?
Battle Ready isn't a quality standard, it's just a "did you do this?" It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done. So the analogy would be to just playing, not to what your W/L ratio was.
So it would be like saying "you get an additional 10 points in the painting competition if you played in the tournament too."
Which I agree is also silly...but it's less silly than your analogy.
For one, there is a standard, as spraying your 200 boyz with black primer and then slapping them on the table does not count as "battle-ready" (and in fact if you're a gak or slow painter you can in fact "fail" to meet the standard by default), and 2. the point of the comparison is two aspects of the hobby impacting each other for no real reason. Whether or not both scenarios measure skill quality is here nor there.
Right, but the standard is "did you do these things?" not "did you do them well?" Spray-painting them black doesn't satisfy it not because you didn't paint them well enough but because you didn't use 3 colors and a wash and base them.
But it seems like you agree your reference to the W/L ratio was irrelevant, so I don't think we need to argue about it.
Do I think it would be silly if you got 10 points in a painting competition for having played in the tournament it was associated with? Sure, just like I think this is silly. But I don't think it's as silly as your W/L ratio analogy suggested. And I don't think it's as big a deal as a lot of people are making it out to be. The standard is extremely low. It's simply not true that you can fail to satisfy it by being a bad painter. I'm a terrible painter - I have a tremor that makes it very hard for me to do details well - but battle ready doesn't depend on quality. It's just whether you did the steps you need to do, not how well you did them.
I don't fundamentally disagree with your point about painting and playing being two separate things - though plenty of people do, because they feel that part of the game is having a painted army, and that when someone doesn't, it diminishes their enjoyment. Those are both valid perspectives.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.
The 'Ard Boyz tournaments from GW didn't have painting req's but most others do/did.
Luckily, ''Battle Ready'' is fairly subjective. Just getting models close enough should be good enough! A bit of paint on models isn't too bad. Just assume it is part of the list building process.
Interestingly, since building/painting/basing is now rewarded with points, you are effectively modelling for advantage! (or more accurately choosing to not paint/base models is ''modelling for disadvantage'')
Also, not for nothing but by RAW if your painting is BETTER than battle ready, you lose the points.
puma713 wrote: You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.
There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.
There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.
gorgon wrote: Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.
Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.
People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.
That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.
gorgon wrote: Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.
Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.
People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.
That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.
Definitely this.
I get where HBMC is coming from on an accessibility front, but it's definitely more an argument for accessibility accommodations rather than against a rule about painting.
So the idea that veterans of hundreds if not thousands of years of war, much of it in literal hell, are inferior to thin blooded members of founding #3478 will be codified. Thanks, that makes me feel so much better.
Also: apparently gw wants us to pay for new points again, only a little over six months after the last time. And with the change to the supreme command detachment we've lost one of the few ways a super heavy can get traits. Guess that's not really a problem for csm. Oh, and the new super melta primaris are actually 40 ppm.
On the upside, since we already have the full brb, no reason gw shouldn't give us something on the new fw books. Please? A little good news? Can we at least get some leaks for the points for something besides those members of founding #3478?
Edit: Wait, were are these secondaries? What page? Please, give me another reason to be salty.
I'm glad I can bring you comfort!
The app will have points (and army builder). The AoS app is like $1 so this will probably be the same, but if you're a tourney slut like me I'm not sure the missions will be in the app...though I'm sure widely discussed on the internet.
gorgon wrote: Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.
Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.
People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.
That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.
Definitely this.
I get where HBMC is coming from on an accessibility front, but it's definitely more an argument for accessibility accommodations rather than against a rule about painting.
Painting rules for large events are fine. It's a long standing expectation and you almost always have a LONG period of time to prep for events of any kind of significant size. It's when you apply them to small events that they become problematic. Because there ARE drawbacks in forcing people to paint. Especially the 5% or so of players that will absolutely dip out of ANYTHING that requires painting, for one reason or another.
1. Reduces attendance: I don't care if it's ONE point off for not painting, some players will simply not show up for the event if they don't qualify. For myself, I have to take off work to go to any event and paying essentially 315 dollars to go to a tournament and starting out 10 points down is deeply irritating. Remember, the cost of getting your models painted is not necessarily less than the cost of just not going. (well then just those people don't get to play I guess! Attendence is the number one thing most locals events struggle with. It's easier to get a venue, terrain, and mats than it is to get even half the people who respond as 'going' to show up.)
2. Limits unit variety: People aren't as likely to take risks on 'fun' or 'niche' models if they have to paint them before they can use them. Generally people will either use one 2k list until they get bored and stop going to events; or they'll stick strictly to meta picks to reduce the risk of wasted time/effort.
3. Pushes Chapter Approved and FAQ nerfs/buffs from dramatic to apocalyptic: Eating a significant nerf to your army can leave you scrambling(remember, these are competitions. It is absolutely reasonable to want to change your army up if it gets significantly worse. It's not even meta hunting at that point, just damage control.) If the tournament is on the 25th and the FAQ comes out on the 10th, that means you only have 2 weeks to buy, build, and paint new models when a lot of locals metas used to let you come in with the arms not attached as long as you had the right gun on the models feet.
4. Encourages terrible, sometimes unfixable paint jobs: If I want to use my Triumph of St. Catherine at an event next month, I don't have time to do divide it into sub assemblies. I just slap it together and rattlecan away and whatever I get is what I get. The idea that nothing is worse than grey plastic is nonsense.
tneva82 wrote: Why not have vp's for fluffy armies, behaviour, yelling waaaghs etc while we are at it?
Remember all those rules people hated from the start of AoS? We should bring those back. Makes just about as much sense as winning a game because you painted something.
Something I haven't seen mentioned is that you can only end in engagement range of units you declare you're charging against. No tagging units you didn't declare as a target of your charge via a good charge roll.
Pile-ins don't have this restriction, so you only need to stay 1/2" off units you didn't charge before your pile in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Objective markers are now a 40mm round marker. Guess that's why GW got rid of the old marker set.
ClockworkZion wrote: Something I haven't seen mentioned is that you can only end in engagement range of units you declare you're charging against. No tagging units you didn't declare as a target of your charge via a good charge roll.
Pile-ins don't have this restriction, so you only need to stay 1/2" off units you didn't charge before your pile in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Objective markers are now a 40mm round marker. Guess that's why GW got rid of the old marker set.
The charge thing was the case in 8th already. Can't charge what you didn't declare as a charge, but can pile in/ consolidating.
ClockworkZion wrote: Something I haven't seen mentioned is that you can only end in engagement range of units you declare you're charging against. No tagging units you didn't declare as a target of your charge via a good charge roll.
Pile-ins don't have this restriction, so you only need to stay 1/2" off units you didn't charge before your pile in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Objective markers are now a 40mm round marker. Guess that's why GW got rid of the old marker set.
The charge thing was the case in 8th already. Can't charge what you didn't declare as a charge, but can pile in/ consolidating.
Ah, guess I've gotten a bit rusty since I forgot that.
Well matched play confirms no more arguing over whether or not you should share your army list (yes, that was a thing I remember being argued about online in the past, and yes it is dumb).
If you concede in Matched Play your opponent can choose to play out their turns to maximize their score, so don't concede in tournament play.
As for the Secondaries: 2 based on killing (though one has a defensive objective), 2 based on holding/holding more, and one for Warp Craft (has two Psychic Tests for VP, and one VP option for killing Psykers).
Honestly looks pretty balanced since you have to pick 3 different categories, meaning that at least one of your secondaries is likely not geared up on killing. You can still go heavy on killing, but looking through the missions they all seem to be geared around holding objectives meaning that spreading out to take points on the board is going to be important.
Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.
Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.
The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.
I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
Spoletta wrote: Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.
Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.
The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.
I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.
The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs. Assassinate is another one that will be easy to max for certain lists against other lists.
Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max no matter what, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?
Battle ready is a fairly low bar.
Unless they have a disability. Guess they should suck it up and spend 1000 dollars on commissions though right?
Jesus people. As someone who paints very slowly, I'd rather not get punished because i want to play with the new models I bought instead of waiting a year until they make it to my paint table after all the other gak I am painting is done
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.
The 'Ard Boyz tournaments from GW didn't have painting req's but most others do/did.
Luckily, ''Battle Ready'' is fairly subjective. Just getting models close enough should be good enough! A bit of paint on models isn't too bad. Just assume it is part of the list building process.
Interestingly, since building/painting/basing is now rewarded with points, you are effectively modelling for advantage! (or more accurately choosing to not paint/base models is ''modelling for disadvantage'')
The problem with battle ready being subjective is that TFGs, like the ones here in this thread, can and will try to browbeat poor painters into accepting their army is too badly painted to get the points. Maybe with a little mocking to go along with it.
gorgon wrote: Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.
Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.
People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.
That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.
Definitely this.
I get where HBMC is coming from on an accessibility front, but it's definitely more an argument for accessibility accommodations rather than against a rule about painting.
I could just imagine you going to some twelve year old new to the hobby "You're painting is crap and you don't get 10 points"
yukishiro1 wrote: The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs.
Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.
I agree, there is some fine tuning required, but most of them aren't looking too bad, and isn't the point of secondaries to tailor them to each game anyways?
Spoletta wrote: Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.
Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.
The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.
I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.
8th:
Unit of infantry with character behind.
Non flying unit tries to charge the pair. Declares both as long as they make it to one they can attack both during fight phase.
9th:
Because of multi charge change there was a worry Heroic Intervening heroes would be immune to retribution.
Credit to them for seeing and addressing it on the first pass.
Spoletta wrote: Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.
Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.
The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.
I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.
8th:
Unit of infantry with character behind.
Non flying unit tries to charge the pair. Declares both as long as they make it to one they can attack both during fight phase.
9th:
Because of multi charge change there was a worry Heroic Intervening heroes would be immune to retribution.
Credit to them for seeing and addressing it on the first pass.
Honestly it should have always been the way the rule worked.
I just had a thought: fight twice strats better see a CP drop. It's a LOT harder to use those effectively now and they should be cheaper to compenesate.
I haven't seen a single person in this thread suggest that they would evaluate quality in deciding whether someone's army met the requirements (except people opposed to the change doing so in jest). Please don't make straw man arguments, it doesn't add to the discussion.
Battle ready isn't a subjective call, either. It's objective - did you paint with three colors and base? If so, it qualifies. It doesn't depend on quality. There is no way to "paint too badly" and not meet the requirement.
There are valid reasons to be against the rule, but that is really not one of them.
Spoletta wrote: Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.
Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.
The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.
I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.
8th:
Unit of infantry with character behind.
Non flying unit tries to charge the pair. Declares both as long as they make it to one they can attack both during fight phase.
9th:
Because of multi charge change there was a worry Heroic Intervening heroes would be immune to retribution.
Credit to them for seeing and addressing it on the first pass.
Honestly it should have always been the way the rule worked.
I just had a thought: fight twice strats better see a CP drop. It's a LOT harder to use those effectively now and they should be cheaper to compenesate.
Have they talked about strategem costs being part of the Errata? You are right that absolutely should be adjusted. Also any strat that mods Overwatch should be similarly adjusted to account for the new approach.
Eldarain wrote: Have they talked about strategem costs being part of the Errata? You are right that absolutely should be adjusted. Also any strat that mods Overwatch should be similarly adjusted to account for the new approach.
They have not, but I'd be a bit surprised if they left that out of the FAQs.
EDIT: If they don't make them cheaper, then they need to let you attack stuff you didn't declare as a charge target, otherwise the strat only works defensively or if you start your turn in combat and that's just weird.
tneva82 wrote: Why not have vp's for fluffy armies, behaviour, yelling waaaghs etc while we are at it?
Remember all those rules people hated from the start of AoS? We should bring those back. Makes just about as much sense as winning a game because you painted something.
I actually couldn't wait to get home from work to bring this up, but you beat me to it. The community absolutely hated stuff like "in order to use this ability, you must yell "blood for the blood god!" as loud as you can" and other crap. The community hated it so much that GW (rightfully) removed it from the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs.
Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.
I agree, there is some fine tuning required, but most of them aren't looking too bad, and isn't the point of secondaries to tailor them to each game anyways?
Yeah i think the minuite these secondary missions hit the table top we are going to see massive winners and loosers as some Codex's give away max points like candy while others will be impossible to max any of the secondarys against.
AKA some armies are going to be starting the game knowing they have to outscore their opponents list by 10-20VP which is going to be almost impossible.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....
Doesn't mean much.
The leaker showed that he had the indomitus box. The points are not in the indomitus box, they are in the CA2020.
We were leaked some pages of a random unidentified document that we know for sure that it wasn't the CA2020. So those leaks don't hold much water.
Are you expecting them to personally hand deliver it to you with a signed certificate of authenticity? It's clearly playtester points costs, so no it won't be in an official document format and likewise they may not be final.
Have they talked about strategem costs being part of the Errata? You are right that absolutely should be adjusted. Also any strat that mods Overwatch should be similarly adjusted to account for the new approach.
Like the Tau Rule, most of those strats just state "the unit can overwatch (with this or that benefit on top)".
I'd assume the strats stay the same and thus give the respective armies another strat to overwatch with.
There is potentially a big problem in the Blast Weapon rule with units that shoot multiple d3 shots.
A Thunderfire cannon will fire the maximum of 12 shots automatically against an MSU of 10 termagants, all from 48" away, no Los, no cover, 2+ to hit, no questions asked. The Nid player cannot do anything to mitigate this, he cannot even field less than 10 termagants.
Equally, an Exorcist will shoot flat 9 krak missiles against ANY unit with 6 or more models. See that unit of 10 intercessors? Pow 9 missiles into them, again, no questions asked.
i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
topaxygouroun i wrote: There is potentially a big problem in the Blast Weapon rule with units that shoot multiple d3 shots.
A Thunderfire cannon will fire the maximum of 12 shots automatically against an MSU of 10 termagants, all from 48" away, no Los, no cover, 2+ to hit, no questions asked. The Nid player cannot do anything to mitigate this, he cannot even field less than 10 termagants.
Equally, an Exorcist will shoot flat 9 krak missiles against ANY unit with 6 or more models. See that unit of 10 intercessors? Pow 9 missiles into them, again, no questions asked.
This has the potential to be too strong.
Think you need to reread that its minimum 3 not minimum 3 per die.
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Because it's "part of the hobby" or something nebulous like that.
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Because painted armies have also been giving scores (and even trophies) in tournaments for the last 40,000 years. You say the skill and listbuilding is tested, I say the painting and modelling side is also tested. This is a multi-layer hobby. I'm all for it.
It's respect for your opponent who spent months painting, it's respect towards the TO for preparing nice tables and terrain, and it's very nice if I don't have to face the next meta power army every other tournament just because someone bought 3 boxes of the new hotness plus some superglue.
Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.
as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....
Doesn't mean much.
The leaker showed that he had the indomitus box. The points are not in the indomitus box, they are in the CA2020.
We were leaked some pages of a random unidentified document that we know for sure that it wasn't the CA2020. So those leaks don't hold much water.
you can argue that those were outdated or not from the CA but playtester documents
yet Missions are from the CA book so he must have this one too
but if you call them fake, you cannot take the rules serious as well
how do you know that the guy who made up a points document did not made up the RB pages as well to spread controversial rules?
someone with this kind of skill can easily do it
so either both or non is fake
The leaked missions are the ones from the rulebook. The GT missions are a separate set, so no, he doesn't have that book.
By the way they are different posters with different conducts.
This one has no problems making a photo of every single page of a book. The point leaker took a couple of photos of a screen and tha's it. He was a teaser, not a leaker.
Also, as you correctly noted, those points were likely not final.
By the way, I'm not an expert so I can't talk in merit, but it seems like those point values are photoshopped.
Put all this together and the credibility of the document is below low.
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Because it's "part of the hobby" or something nebulous like that.
Don't get me wrong, i find a min painting requirement perfectly acceptable, my issue is the implication that you get a free secondary or not through it kinda, which is ... questionable i guess?
vice versa i don't mind when tournaments also award prices for the best looking army (ies)
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Because painted armies have also been giving scores (and even trophies) in tournaments for the last 40,000 years. You say the skill and listbuilding is tested, I say the painting and modelling side is also tested. This is a multi-layer hobby. I'm all for it.
Not my issue, my issue is that you have one category crossing into the other,
That's like Heavy weight lifting but your score get's affect by how well you swam before, an completly diffrent discipline.
Not my issue, my issue is that you have one category crossing into the other,
That's like Heavy weight lifting but your score get's affect by how well you swam before, an completly diffrent discipline.
Well, think of Warhammer like triathlon or decathlon instead of like weigh lifting. You get more points if you get good in multiple things.
Not my issue, my issue is that you have one category crossing into the other,
That's like Heavy weight lifting but your score get's affect by how well you swam before, an completly diffrent discipline.
Well, think of Warhammer like triathlon or decathlon instead of like weigh lifting. You get more points if you get good in multiple things.
and yet the performance of your matches don't influence your painting score, so no i can't do that.
topaxygouroun i wrote: There is potentially a big problem in the Blast Weapon rule with units that shoot multiple d3 shots.
A Thunderfire cannon will fire the maximum of 12 shots automatically against an MSU of 10 termagants, all from 48" away, no Los, no cover, 2+ to hit, no questions asked. The Nid player cannot do anything to mitigate this, he cannot even field less than 10 termagants.
Equally, an Exorcist will shoot flat 9 krak missiles against ANY unit with 6 or more models. See that unit of 10 intercessors? Pow 9 missiles into them, again, no questions asked.
This has the potential to be too strong.
Think you need to reread that its minimum 3 not minimum 3 per die.
Not my issue, my issue is that you have one category crossing into the other,
That's like Heavy weight lifting but your score get's affect by how well you swam before, an completly diffrent discipline.
Well, think of Warhammer like triathlon or decathlon instead of like weigh lifting. You get more points if you get good in multiple things.
and yet the performance of your matches don't influence your painting score, so no i can't do that.
See the issue now?
Dont geddit. If you fail in your matches, you won't get to the podium anyways, so having the perfect painted army does not count. But if you want to get the medal, you gotta be good in all the aspects.
Not Online!!! wrote: No, most tournies give out SEPARATE categories. In general a reward for the best painted army.
Now, you get potential up to 10 pts for painted armies in the OTHER category, aka playing the game.
SO basically the other side is still unafected, whilest the game side suddendly should get affected?
Because out of the 120 players that attended the tournament, about 5 or 6 actually care on best painted trophy, but about 80+ care about winning best general I'd reckon.
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Most big tourneys already have a minimum requirement for painted battle ready so I don't get why this is suddenly an issue. This is just codifying it somewhat and smaller tourneys are free to ignore this if they want.
It is also a rule in AoS and AoS players didn't get so salty about this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: No, most tournies give out SEPARATE categories. In general a reward for the best painted army.
Now, you get potential up to 10 pts for painted armies in the OTHER category, aka playing the game.
SO basically the other side is still unafected, whilest the game side suddendly should get affected?
You do realize you will not be eligible to enter any of the known tournaments without a painted army?
I get the feeling that the people who are complaining about this don't really engage in tournaments.
It is also not scoring for best painted army. It's a binary score rule about if it is painted or not.
Most big tourneys already have a minimum requirement for painted battle ready so I don't get why this is suddenly an issue. This is just codifying it somewhat and smaller tourneys are free to ignore this if they want.
It is also a rule in AoS and AoS players didn't get so salty about this.
because it makes live for WAAC Players who buy the flavour of the week of ebay for Seal Clubbing the local crowed in the FLGS so much harder if they Need to care about the paint Job as well
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Most big tourneys already have a minimum requirement for painted battle ready so I don't get why this is suddenly an issue. This is just codifying it somewhat and smaller tourneys are free to ignore this if they want.
It is also a rule in AoS and AoS players didn't get so salty about this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: No, most tournies give out SEPARATE categories. In general a reward for the best painted army.
Now, you get potential up to 10 pts for painted armies in the OTHER category, aka playing the game.
SO basically the other side is still unafected, whilest the game side suddendly should get affected?
You do realize you will not be eligible to enter any of the known tournaments without a painted army?
I get the feeling that the people who are complaining about this don't really engage in tournaments.
It is also not scoring for best painted army. It's a binary score rule about if it is painted or not.
Not Online!!! wrote: i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...
Because it's "part of the hobby" or something nebulous like that.
Don't get me wrong, i find a min painting requirement perfectly acceptable, my issue is the implication that you get a free secondary or not through it kinda, which is ... questionable i guess?
vice versa i don't mind when tournaments also award prices for the best looking army (ies)
This 10 points for battle ready is pretty much irrelevant, because it requires base, shade, technical, or contrast and technical. Did you use drybrush, and/or edge highlights ? No more battle ready. Did you use contrast, but not technical ? No more battle ready. I dont think anyone will score those points, unless they paint their army exactly like that.
If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
Also, as you correctly noted, those points were likely not final.
By the way, I'm not an expert so I can't talk in merit, but it seems like those point values are photoshopped.
Put all this together and the credibility of the document is below low.
there is a difference between outdated and fake and from a General Point of view, the rulebook pictures can be photoshoped as well
a reason why it is most likely not a fake is how the non box-set SM releases are handled
CA comes along with the rulebook, so Long before the Codex and was going to get printed before it
the new stuff is listed as part of Indominus which makes sense if there are models along the box outside a Codex release
someone making a fake days ago would not have known that and would more likley have put them into Space Marine category
still possible an outdated playtest document rather than a CA digital version
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
I think people are getting way too hung up on what the RAW wording of this is vrs the clear intention, from GW streaming rules etc.
They want painted armies as they look way better on stream even if they aren't the best paint job its way better than shuffling grey plastic around for streaming.
They are live streaming events on Twitch via their offical account you can't be shocked that they are trying to give in game incentives for being twitch stream ready.
Is Army Painted? Yes get points
Is Army Painted like an army of Gold demon entries? Yes get 10 Points
Is Army painted but you clearly have the ability of a house Painter? Yes you get 10 points.
Is your Army commision Painted? Yes get 10 points.
Is Army Base coated Only? YES get 0 Points and no steam games for you
Is your Armt Grey plastic? Yes get 0 Points and no stream games for you either.
Be poor Slaanesh. Play against mehreens. Manage to somehow survive the shooting onslaught, the eradicators, the blast weapons, the centurions, the aggressors, the thunderfires and the executioner tanks. Somehow make it into combat with your last Keeper of Secrets. Finally, your time has cometh. Aeons of hatred and excess have led you to this moment. Your ASF sword thirsts and your claws are eager to taste blood.
Marine players uses Judicar.
Quit the game and throw your models in the trashbin.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Be poor Slaanesh. Play against mehreens. Manage to somehow survive the shooting onslaught, the eradicators, the blast weapons, the centurions, the aggressors, the thunderfires and the executioner tanks. Somehow make it into combat with your last Keeper of Secrets. Finally, your time has cometh. Aeons of hatred and excess have led you to this moment. Your ASF sword thirsts and your claws are eager to taste blood.
Marine players uses Judicar.
Quit the game and throw your models in the trashbin.
Unfortunately that pretty much looks liek it wilk be everyone's experience vrs Marines for the first 6 months or more of 9th.
It is not a free secondary if the tournament already requires everybody to have a painted army. You know how many more points your opponent gets over you with a painted army when you have a painted army? 0. That's the sum. That's the magical sum everybody is freaking over. If you enter any decent tournament this is an autoscore as you already have the minimum and that means everyone gets the same 10 points for each game.
Also, the people complaining about what constitutes as "Battle Ready". Please for the love of Hel just participate in a real tournament. You might actually enjoy it and meet amazing people. You might also discover that TOs are human beings that are not donkey-caves.
GW even made contrast for people who will put minimal effort into painting 3 colors on your models. They even made technical paints to make basing easier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: I think people are getting way too hung up on what the RAW wording of this is vrs the clear intention, from GW streaming rules etc.
They want painted armies as they look way better on stream even if they aren't the best paint job its way better than shuffling grey plastic around for streaming.
They are live streaming events on Twitch via their offical account you can't be shocked that they are trying to give in game incentives for being twitch stream ready.
Is Army Painted? Yes get points
Is Army Painted like an army of Gold demon entries? Yes get 10 Points
Is Army painted but you clearly have the ability of a house Painter? Yes you get 10 points.
Is your Army commision Painted? Yes get 10 points.
Is Army Base coated Only? YES get 0 Points and no steam games for you
Is your Armt Grey plastic? Yes get 0 Points and no stream games for you either.
Most big tourneys already have a minimum requirement for painted battle ready so I don't get why this is suddenly an issue. This is just codifying it somewhat and smaller tourneys are free to ignore this if they want.
It is also a rule in AoS and AoS players didn't get so salty about this.
because it makes live for WAAC Players who buy the flavour of the week of ebay for Seal Clubbing the local crowed in the FLGS so much harder if they Need to care about the paint Job as well
This^^
The weight-lifting strawman is also bogus -
40K should be seen as an art, rather than a pseudo-science.
Moreover, the empahsis on "deck..." er... "listbuilding" - if you want to play a card game, play a card game.
If you don't want to care of modeling and painting, presentation and theme, INTERNAL balance and realism, why play a minitatures wargame wherein so much if not most of one's time is spent considering exactly these aspects?
I just don't get it. Sure, one COULD look at 40K so one-dimensionally.
Or, one could look at it as a triathlon, or decathlon as one poster suggested above.
So far, I am all for the 9th ed changes - still too gamey, arbitrary and abstract for its own good, but better from what I can see.
If this painting angle, army comp and sportsmanship, yada, if all of this comes back into the hobby at the level of organized events, I might even consider attending another one in this lifetime.
Be poor Slaanesh. Play against mehreens. Manage to somehow survive the shooting onslaught, the eradicators, the blast weapons, the centurions, the aggressors, the thunderfires and the executioner tanks. Somehow make it into combat with your last Keeper of Secrets. Finally, your time has cometh. Aeons of hatred and excess have led you to this moment. Your ASF sword thirsts and your claws are eager to taste blood.
Marine players uses Judicar.
Quit the game and throw your models in the trashbin.
It will probably work just like the Armor of Russ.
Q: Can the Armour of Russ relic force a charging unit to attack
after all other units have done so?
A: Yes, unless that chosen unit has an ability that allows
it to fight first in the Fight phase, in which case it instead
fights as if it didn’t have that ability
So It will be mildly annoying to an army of always strikes first. If they charge they still strike first.
Most big tourneys already have a minimum requirement for painted battle ready so I don't get why this is suddenly an issue. This is just codifying it somewhat and smaller tourneys are free to ignore this if they want.
It is also a rule in AoS and AoS players didn't get so salty about this.
because it makes live for WAAC Players who buy the flavour of the week of ebay for Seal Clubbing the local crowed in the FLGS so much harder if they Need to care about the paint Job as well
This^^
The weight-lifting strawman is also bogus -
40K should be seen as an art, rather than a pseudo-science.
Moreover, the empahsis on "deck..." er... "listbuilding" - if you want to play a card game, play a card game.
If you don't want to care of modeling and painting, presentation and theme, INTERNAL balance and realism, why play a minitatures wargame wherein so much if not most of one's time is spent considering exactly these aspects?
I just don't get it. Sure, one COULD look at 40K so one-dimensionally.
Or, one could look at it as a triathlon, or decathlon as one poster suggested above.
So far, I am all for the 9th ed changes - still too gamey, arbitrary and abstract for its own good, but better from what I can see.
If this painting angle, army comp and sportsmanship, yada, if all of this comes back into the hobby at the level of organized events, I might even consider attending another one in this lifetime.
Even MtG requires sleeves on cards so even they want you to put something over the base item to play with it.
Only going to say one thing about this current discussion point…
Stop being fething pedantic prats and trying to cause issue where it is not needed. All this bull about “if you highlight you don’t get points” is ridiculous. Sure, GW could have worded it better to say “at least Battle Ready standard” etc, but anyone that tries to say “you don’t get the points because you are now Parade Ready instead of Battle Ready”, is just trying to cause an argument for the sake of it.
As for unpainted armies, most events across the world, whether GW, ITC or ETC have had a painting standard. If you want to take part in these going forward, expect that requirement to still be there. If your local store/group want to run a local event without it, that is fine, just run the missions out of 90 points rather than the 100. Just don’t expect to go to a major event with an unpainted army and be able to take part.
As for the new rules, it is going to take a bit of time for everyone to digest the changes and put them into play correctly. Movement has now become more important that it was before – both in the movement phase and all additional moves in the other phases. 1/2” engagement range is also an interesting change and will certainly take away from large combat blobs and give elite units more of a chance (i.e. no more just drowning under weight of dice where below average rolls will kill you).
No Airwing detachment is interesting and is certainly one of the biggest changes in regards to army building from 8th to 9th. Personally, I’m not too bothered about it, but, if you’re one of the players with 9 Aeldari flyers etc then it is unfortunate as the max you can now take is 6 (after spending CP to take 3 battalions)
Secondaries are also going to be interesting. People will now have to think about army building if they want to attempt to get the max 45 points.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
See, this is what I was initially worried about. Why am I being penalized? Then I thought about what 'penal' means, from penance. And doesn't this bring me home to praying over a hundred yellow guardsmen (and women).
Be poor Slaanesh. Play against mehreens. Manage to somehow survive the shooting onslaught, the eradicators, the blast weapons, the centurions, the aggressors, the thunderfires and the executioner tanks. Somehow make it into combat with your last Keeper of Secrets. Finally, your time has cometh. Aeons of hatred and excess have led you to this moment. Your ASF sword thirsts and your claws are eager to taste blood.
Marine players uses Judicar.
Quit the game and throw your models in the trashbin.
It will probably work just like the Armor of Russ.
Q: Can the Armour of Russ relic force a charging unit to attack
after all other units have done so?
A: Yes, unless that chosen unit has an ability that allows
it to fight first in the Fight phase, in which case it instead
fights as if it didn’t have that ability
My point was more like "If everything else wasn't enough, here's to more ways to frack up melee armies in the new edition".
At this point I am really really worrying about melee armies not being able to even drop on the table.
So It will be mildly annoying to an army of always strikes first. If they charge they still strike first.
The paint thing is a load of rubbish. 10 points isn’t really enough to have an actual impact on the outcome most of the time (not that it should have an impact) but enough to (as shown here) alienate people and cause arguments. It’s fine as a prerequisite for events but shouldn’t be in the main rules. People are even saying here that it can just be ignored in friendly games and will only really apply for events, so, what exactly is the point of it? It already was a thing for most events.
All it’s made me want to do is not play 40k. Might be ‘mellow dramatic’ but I’d rather play a game where I can paint at my own pace and not be penalised with a petty little 10pt deficit.
I give out separate raffle prizes for fully painted armies. Making fully painted required or part of winning the main prize tends to hinder turnout, while best painted tends to get dominated by the same one or two people every time.
yukishiro1 wrote: I haven't seen a single person in this thread suggest that they would evaluate quality in deciding whether someone's army met the requirements (except people opposed to the change doing so in jest). Please don't make straw man arguments, it doesn't add to the discussion.
Battle ready isn't a subjective call, either. It's objective - did you paint with three colors and base? If so, it qualifies. It doesn't depend on quality. There is no way to "paint too badly" and not meet the requirement.
There are valid reasons to be against the rule, but that is really not one of them.
Well, my armies are fully painted, but if someone tries to make an argument that my models are TOO painted to receive any points, I will calmly pack up my suitcase and go home.
1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.
2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.
If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.
Not Online!!! wrote: No, most tournies give out SEPARATE categories. In general a reward for the best painted army.
Now, you get potential up to 10 pts for painted armies in the OTHER category, aka playing the game.
SO basically the other side is still unafected, whilest the game side suddendly should get affected?
Because out of the 120 players that attended the tournament, about 5 or 6 actually care on best painted trophy, but about 80+ care about winning best general I'd reckon.
Ah but there's no more best general category. Playtesting becomes also issue as there's external point source affecting games. Is one side winning more because players of that faction are low on painting. Especially likely to make new armies and units appear bad
Ah but there's no more best general category. Playtesting becomes also issue as there's external point source affecting games. Is one side winning more because players of that faction are low on painting. Especially likely to make new armies and units appear bad
if 40k became taht balanced that the only factor in one Codex is winning more often than others is because there are more painted armies around, I will make a big Party and all of you are invited
In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.
I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.
Guessing a day 1 FAQ as well. Mr. Chicken and any LoC for that matter will be casting 3 smites a turn out to 36" on a 3+, 4+, 5+ respectively. And super-smiting on 9+. One can only hope it's intended that way.
In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.
I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.
Guessing a day 1 FAQ as well. Mr. Chicken and any LoC for that matter will be casting 3 smites a turn out to 36" on a 3+, 4+, 5+ respectively. And super-smiting on 9+. One can only hope it's intended that way.
And Mr. Magnus will be casting supersmites on a 3+, 3+, 3+, 3+. And quadruplesmites on a 10+.
GW: You'll be amazed at how many missions we've made, there's 18 for matched play alone...
Me: No, that's 1 mission with 18 different placements of objectives. You know, a thing which used to have infinite variety because players got to decide where to place them.
This combined with having to intimately know my opponent's army list in order to choose the correct secondaries is exactly why I didn't enjoy the ITC event I went to.
Thank goodness they included the Crusade missions. The Matched Play missions have left me very uninterested.
p5freak wrote: Its possible that some pages have not been leaked, where smite is limited to once per psyker for every turn.
As a T.Sons player, I pray to Tzeentch this is the case, because I wouldn't want to imagine the alternative and what I would do to my opponents in such a case.
Just spent a bit of time looking at the Secondaries.
I predict that it is going to be INCREDIBLY rare that anyone will get even close to the 45 max points in a standard game unless you are able to reliably alpha strike or table your opponent in the 1st 2 turns, whilst also picking up secondary points.
I’ll personally be surprised if we see an average of anywhere close to 30 point.
Kdash wrote: Just spent a bit of time looking at the Secondaries.
I predict that it is going to be INCREDIBLY rare that anyone will get even close to the 45 max points in a standard game unless you are able to reliably alpha strike or table your opponent in the 1st 2 turns, whilst also picking up secondary points.
I’ll personally be surprised if we see an average of anywhere close to 30 point.
Some people will give them away alot, but other armies will give away a maximum of very low as your have to go all in on the manovering secondarys against them.
I'm most disappointed that their isnt one for killing mutiwound models or thin their ranks being based on wounds unless you are vehical or monstor.
Kdash wrote: Only going to say one thing about this current discussion point…
Stop being fething pedantic prats and trying to cause issue where it is not needed. All this bull about “if you highlight you don’t get points” is ridiculous. Sure, GW could have worded it better to say “at least Battle Ready standard” etc, but anyone that tries to say “you don’t get the points because you are now Parade Ready instead of Battle Ready”, is just trying to cause an argument for the sake of it.
As for unpainted armies, most events across the world, whether GW, ITC or ETC have had a painting standard. If you want to take part in these going forward, expect that requirement to still be there. If your local store/group want to run a local event without it, that is fine, just run the missions out of 90 points rather than the 100. Just don’t expect to go to a major event with an unpainted army and be able to take part.
As for the new rules, it is going to take a bit of time for everyone to digest the changes and put them into play correctly. Movement has now become more important that it was before – both in the movement phase and all additional moves in the other phases. 1/2” engagement range is also an interesting change and will certainly take away from large combat blobs and give elite units more of a chance (i.e. no more just drowning under weight of dice where below average rolls will kill you).
No Airwing detachment is interesting and is certainly one of the biggest changes in regards to army building from 8th to 9th. Personally, I’m not too bothered about it, but, if you’re one of the players with 9 Aeldari flyers etc then it is unfortunate as the max you can now take is 6 (after spending CP to take 3 battalions)
Secondaries are also going to be interesting. People will now have to think about army building if they want to attempt to get the max 45 points.
well, msu units already had the benefit in CC, since you could most often attack with the entire unit. Blobs on the other hand were more restricted by the 1" rule. I literally NEVER ended up in a position in which all my boyz could attack. Now its even more fethed up. And i cannot by all that is holy, figure out WHY this was needed... well... beyond Tournament players beeing salty about orks winning a couple of events
i mean... really... CC was aproblem because of elite MSU's like shining spears and smash captains... hordes were NEVER effective in CC besides tarpitting units (which is already nerfed by the fall back strat, new coherency rules and nerfed multicharges)
The rule of 3 is still in there, and it specifies also that all the demon princes count as a single datasheet and that the brood brothers and AM units are the same datasheet.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".
It's not part of basic matched play rules.
I think it's part of the matched play mission pack in the main rulebook, unless you have seen a different leak as the narative and matched play mission's leaks I have seen are all BRB.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".
It's not part of basic matched play rules.
I think it's part of the matched play mission pack in the main rulebook, unless you have seen a different leak as the narative and matched play mission's leaks I have seen are all BRB.
Ah. Ok. I thought that was the GT Pack. My bad.
Isn't the full page of new Astartes points from the Chapter Approved Points book?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".
It's not part of basic matched play rules.
I think it's part of the matched play mission pack in the main rulebook, unless you have seen a different leak as the narative and matched play mission's leaks I have seen are all BRB.
Ah. Ok. I thought that was the GT Pack. My bad.
Isn't the full page of new Astartes points from the Chapter Approved Points book?
Roumer is either old playtesting points as it doesnt line up with the power ratings or faked.
Am I going mad or do vehicles and monsters never gain the +1 save or -1 to be hit from cover due to the way Terrain Category and Terrain Traits combine?
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.
Zustiur wrote: Am I going mad or do vehicles and monsters never gain the +1 save or -1 to be hit from cover due to the way Terrain Category and Terrain Traits combine?
correct It's infantry or GTFO only tmthibg is atleast you get obscuring
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
stormcraft wrote: Soo....Rerolls before Modifieres seems to be just gone?
I dont find anything about Rerolls at all in the leaks.
There are key pages missing. For example, I'm guessing that re-rolls are covered in that really basic section you get before the rules we have, where it explains things like measuring and what a unit is.
I hope it's gone though. I am hopeful it is, as the main reason seemed to be how powerful re-rolls were when combined with large modifiers. Now, with the modifier limits, that is less of a problem.
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.
I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!
Kdash wrote: Just spent a bit of time looking at the Secondaries.
I predict that it is going to be INCREDIBLY rare that anyone will get even close to the 45 max points in a standard game unless you are able to reliably alpha strike or table your opponent in the 1st 2 turns, whilst also picking up secondary points.
I’ll personally be surprised if we see an average of anywhere close to 30 point.
I like that tbh. Makes you choose between gambling on the harder to max out ones versus going for some easier points that have a lower ceiling.
Some of them seem imbalanced, but we'll see how it shakes out.
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.
I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!
Latro_ wrote: Bloody hell the painting debate on this thread!
1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.
2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.
If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.
You do this:
walk off.
Which we now get to the crux of the issue:
If something needs to be houseruled because of situations like this, there's an issue with implementation in the first place and you should be questioning why the rule is there.
Latro_ wrote: Bloody hell the painting debate on this thread!
1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.
2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.
If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.
You do this:
walk off.
Which we now get to the crux of the issue:
If something needs to be houseruled because of situations like this, there's an issue with implementation in the first place and you should be questioning why the rule is there.
I dont know any groups of gamers that do casual and dont have stuff like this, woudlent call it house ruling persay.
Its a bit like terrain. The new terrain classifications are great if you spend £££ on GW terrain you know what traits they have. If you are at home with ye mates with your homebrew terrain you need to agree now what traits they all have, are the new terrain rules broken because you have to do this?
If i go to a tourney i'd expect (now) that all terrain has little cards next to it with traits like i'd expect them to want my army painted
another example is: I'v gotta go home at 3pm... lets play for 2hrs and stop the game then okie? - yea sure
at at tourney i'd expect it to be 2hrs get to turn x or no one scores
not really house rules and also not how the game is said to be played either.
its this wonderful thing called communication and a social contract
Latro_ wrote: Bloody hell the painting debate on this thread!
1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.
2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.
If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.
You do this:
walk off.
Which we now get to the crux of the issue:
If something needs to be houseruled because of situations like this, there's an issue with implementation in the first place and you should be questioning why the rule is there.
Because the marketing for this hobby requires it to "look pretty", people are drawn to the cool models and settings initially so having large mounds of grey plastic in most games detracts from this.
The rule is basically to shepherd people to paint their stuff so it looks nicer so onlookers will be more drawn in. Same reason tourneys with GW backing needed everyone to use battle ready armies for streams.
I’m miffed the new captain doesn’t have a relic blade standard or volkite pistol.
Why does a Lt have a better side arm?
There should at least been given the option to upgrade on his table.
I really hoped GW would have stopped the the tight butthole approach on wargear, or at least loosened a bit
In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.
I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.
Psychic Actions, a psycher can only do one psychic power per turn.
Psychic Actions aren't casting spells though.
Psychic Actions are stuff like "psychic interrogation" you do for Mission Points. E.g. the Psi-Equivalent of doing ITC-Engineers with your Spellslinger.
In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.
I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.
Psychic Actions, a psycher can only do one psychic power per turn.
Psychic Actions aren't casting spells though.
Psychic Actions are stuff like "psychic interrogation" you do for Mission Points. E.g. the Psi-Equivalent of doing ITC-Engineers with your Spellslinger.
yukishiro1 wrote: The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs. Assassinate is another one that will be easy to max for certain lists against other lists.
Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max no matter what, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.
Since secondaries are revealed prior to reserves I would punch all my soft stuff into reserves against someone angling for kill more. Then let them ride to turn 3 and rob the opportunity.
ERJAK wrote: Which would get worse over time. Your bad painters, slow painters, or just people who are really busy will get sick of playing their only painted list and stop showing up.
It's why we don't have paint points in any of our locals. We're lucky to get 10 people as it is. Tell them you have to paint your army and you'll be lucky to keep 4.
I've been to one tournament in my life. It was during the dark times of 7th, so Eldar/Tau Riptide soup spam made everything exceptionally unfun, but that aside I was disappointed that only one of the armies was painted (and I say that as someone who brought an unpainted army). That said, even I understood that if that had been a requirement, it would have been a tournament with one person in it, which means it wouldn't've been a tournament at all.
It is so disappointing that GW has chosen to implement a rule during a time when game companies are trying to increase accessibility (sometimes to extreme degrees, like the recent Last of Us 2's various visual impairment modes).
Keep acting dramatic you two. You keep pretending this is a requirement, it's not. You can still play in either of your scenarios. You just get 90 points. Anyone petty enough to not attend an event in their local shop do to it is a WAAC person your better off not gaming with. BTW in HBMC's fake example if 1 guy in X has a painted army you could easily figure out who the best general was by dropping the 10 entire points from the one guys score and comparing lol. But apparently that jerk shouldn't be able to win best overall despite being the only guy to put effort into his army.
That's the funny thing here. For years folks with a chip on their shoulder in events cried about chipmonking and painting at events despite there being best general. They just wanted their end of the hobby to dominate the spotlight rather then then overall. Nothing in this scoring system would stop anyone even in a pick up game from figuring out who the best general was. It's literally a 10 point reduction on one guy.
Might have missed this in the painting discussion.
My interpretation of the 9th edition fight phase order is this:
There are three speeds.
Ludicrous Speed - Charging units, Always Strikes First units.
Normal Speed - Normal non charging units.
Slow Speed - Units under some sort of fights last or fights slow effect.
Players then alternate picking eligilbe units to fight, "Defender" picks first.
First they alternate between Ludicrous Speed units. So if the Defender has any, they get to choose one. But, if the Defender just has Normal Speed units then none of those units are eligible yet. So they will get attacked by all the Attackers Ludicrous Speed units.
Thus ASF is very powerful when being charged. Is anyone else interpreting it this way?
This does seem to give a lot of power to Slaanesh Daemons, Emperor's Children and Ynnari (under soulburst).
BlaxicanX wrote: The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.
Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.
Well, that's a bit of an unfair analogy, isn't it?
Battle Ready isn't a quality standard, it's just a "did you do this?" It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done. So the analogy would be to just playing, not to what your W/L ratio was.
So it would be like saying "you get an additional 10 points in the painting competition if you played in the tournament too."
Which I agree is also silly...but it's less silly than your analogy.
Actually this blows holes in their own argument about applying the reverse to painting. You literally have to play in an event to win best painted army. So actually a guy wanting to win best painted army already has had to play the game whether he cares for it or not. You can't just waltz in off the street at an event and win best painted army. So actually this just makes it more evqual.
You CAN enter painting competitions if they are held at the convention. But they have nothing to do with 40k even and have multiple systems and sometimes companies.
But as usual they have to create a dishonest scenario.
Not really. The opposite example would be that to win the painting competition you have to score well in games.
A person who's just in it for the painting (other than being probably able to just find a pure painting comp - entering a tournament just for painting seems like a lot of effort) can literally throw every game and still get best painted.
My interpretation of the 9th edition fight phase order is this:
There are three speeds.
Ludicrous Speed - Charging units, Always Strikes First units.
Normal Speed - Normal non charging units.
Slow Speed - Units under some sort of fights last or fights slow effect.
Players then alternate picking eligilbe units to fight, "Defender" picks first.
First they alternate between Ludicrous Speed units. So if the Defender has any, they get to choose one. But, if the Defender just has Normal Speed units then none of those units are eligible yet. So they will get attacked by all the Attackers Ludicrous Speed units.
Thus ASF is very powerful when being charged. Is anyone else interpreting it this way?
This does seem to give a lot of power to Slaanesh Daemons, Emperor's Children and Ynnari (under soulburst).
Your interpretation is mostly correct. The defender won't ever have chargers though (unless they introduce some sort of counter-charge mechanic), so your chargers would go first, then the defender would get to choose the first "normal" combat.
Agreed on the last point. I think that's what they were aiming for, making those rules more impactful.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Not really. The opposite example would be that to win the painting competition you have to score well in games.
A person who's just in it for the painting (other than being probably able to just find a pure painting comp - entering a tournament just for painting seems like a lot of effort) can literally throw every game and still get best painted.
Same can't be said with this new rule.
That really isn't the opposite, to win best painted army you must be in the tournament, but you can win that accolade with next to no strategic ability and lose every game. This is the equivalent to saying you can win best general even if you paint terribly, but you have to paint to partake - except it isn't, you're just getting 10 points fewer for an unpainted army. A good general will still win the games and the tourneys with an unpainted army.
If you're not very good at 40k and don't want to paint then there are 2 ways to start improving your scores, but painting will be a fairly low impact 10 points.
My interpretation of the 9th edition fight phase order is this:
There are three speeds.
Ludicrous Speed - Charging units, Always Strikes First units.
Normal Speed - Normal non charging units.
Slow Speed - Units under some sort of fights last or fights slow effect.
Players then alternate picking eligilbe units to fight, "Defender" picks first.
First they alternate between Ludicrous Speed units. So if the Defender has any, they get to choose one. But, if the Defender just has Normal Speed units then none of those units are eligible yet. So they will get attacked by all the Attackers Ludicrous Speed units.
Thus ASF is very powerful when being charged. Is anyone else interpreting it this way?
This does seem to give a lot of power to Slaanesh Daemons, Emperor's Children and Ynnari (under soulburst).
Any bets on which army gets the first special rule that lets them go plaid?
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
Yes.
You guys are just the silliest people on the planet.
My interpretation of the 9th edition fight phase order is this:
There are three speeds.
Ludicrous Speed - Charging units, Always Strikes First units.
Normal Speed - Normal non charging units.
Slow Speed - Units under some sort of fights last or fights slow effect.
Players then alternate picking eligilbe units to fight, "Defender" picks first.
First they alternate between Ludicrous Speed units. So if the Defender has any, they get to choose one. But, if the Defender just has Normal Speed units then none of those units are eligible yet. So they will get attacked by all the Attackers Ludicrous Speed units.
Thus ASF is very powerful when being charged. Is anyone else interpreting it this way?
This does seem to give a lot of power to Slaanesh Daemons, Emperor's Children and Ynnari (under soulburst).
Any bets on which army gets the first special rule that lets them go plaid?
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
Yes.
You guys are just the silliest people on the planet.
Didn't see it mentioned (but then again, I blinked and this thing added about 20 pages), but is it going to be all power swords going to +1S, or just the MC ones (which usually just adds that point of damage)? If so, that's a change I like.
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.
I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!
nope
yeah but fielding a guard bat and a blood angels patrol is the same cost as fielding a deathskull bat and a evilsunz patrol
Monodexes dont get eny benefit for fielding mono armies
Ahh we need the most important leaks now: the points for all factions.
Indomitus doesn't contain the booklet containing the points (Munitorum something) and stores haven't received it alongside Indomitus, so I doubt we'll see leaks before release on the 11th.
dogfender wrote: I’m miffed the new captain doesn’t have a relic blade standard or volkite pistol.
Why does a Lt have a better side arm?
There should at least been given the option to upgrade on his table.
I really hoped GW would have stopped the the tight butthole approach on wargear, or at least loosened a bit
So he can take chapter relics or thr burning blade and have an even cooler sword of course.
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.
I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!
nope
yeah but fielding a guard bat and a blood angels patrol is the same cost as fielding a deathskull bat and a evilsunz patrol
Monodexes dont get eny benefit for fielding mono armies
If you're using 2 klans in 2 detachments, you're doing it to game an advantage the same as the guard player.
bullyboy wrote: Didn't see it mentioned (but then again, I blinked and this thing added about 20 pages), but is it going to be all power swords going to +1S, or just the MC ones (which usually just adds that point of damage)? If so, that's a change I like.
You could be right. Might be the saving grace for melee this edition. Of course if it winds up being marines only...we riot.
I guess they're giving the rules away for free today...just got the email.Also, the missile bunker...with super missiles. Lol, GW, come on...at least try.
bullyboy wrote: Didn't see it mentioned (but then again, I blinked and this thing added about 20 pages), but is it going to be all power swords going to +1S, or just the MC ones (which usually just adds that point of damage)? If so, that's a change I like.
You could be right. Might be the saving grace for melee this edition. Of course if it winds up being marines only...we riot.
wait wait wait. Power swords get +1 str? Where is that from?
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
Yes.
You guys are just the silliest people on the planet.
Just grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.
This phase is always good for a fireworks show with every new edition. Six months from now, all the stuff people are losing their minds over will be forgotten, and new (potentially legitimate) issues will have taken their place.
But this particular show might be the all-time best. It's been fun to watch. Some of the tears are just delicious.
bullyboy wrote: Didn't see it mentioned (but then again, I blinked and this thing added about 20 pages), but is it going to be all power swords going to +1S, or just the MC ones (which usually just adds that point of damage)? If so, that's a change I like.
You could be right. Might be the saving grace for melee this edition. Of course if it winds up being marines only...we riot.
wait wait wait. Power swords get +1 str? Where is that from?
Asking for my Scarab Terminator friends.
In the leaks the master crafted power swords were S+1 D2 instead of just D2 like in the marine book.
While a model is within 1" horizontally
and 5" vertically of an enemy model, those models are within
Engagement Range of each other
Charges only need to end within an 1" still it seems.
Also 5" vertical should help prevent some nonsense. Though not being able to charge the top floor of a two story building with a Carnifex is still annoying.
bullyboy wrote: Didn't see it mentioned (but then again, I blinked and this thing added about 20 pages), but is it going to be all power swords going to +1S, or just the MC ones (which usually just adds that point of damage)? If so, that's a change I like.
You could be right. Might be the saving grace for melee this edition. Of course if it winds up being marines only...we riot.
wait wait wait. Power swords get +1 str? Where is that from?
Asking for my Scarab Terminator friends.
In the leaks the master crafted power swords were S+1 D2 instead of just D2 like in the marine book.
Ooooooh baby. Gimme. Probably still won't make Scarabs good, but...
utterly stunning, give them to me now. Also like the sound of their rules - translocation protocols is gonna be teleporting our units around the place, probably between towers.
Huh. There is no way to charge aircraft- you can't end a move within engagement range of aircraft. There are exceptions for models with fly to pile in, consolidate or heroically intervene, but... not charge.
But a charge fails if you don't end the charge in engagement range of all targets, which you can't do due to the aircraft rules, so you can't get to the pile in step.
You can theoretically charge a model next to an aircraft and pile into the aircraft with flyers, but the restrictions on chargers only attacking charge targets still exists, so you can't actually attack.
And next turn, the aircraft can make a normal move and leave without penalty. I'm not sure what the point of allowing pile in & etc is.
Astartes chainswords confirmed as -1AP. Question is whether or not all astartes get them, or just loyalist scum. My chosen and raptors are very interested by this.
Abaddon303 wrote: There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?
You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.
I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!
nope
Well that's a bummer although I can't for the life of me find that section in the leaked documents? There's even a breakout box to the side that talks about an intercessor using the imperium keyword in a detachment.
Another question, there's a distinction between reinforcements and strategic reserves. The rules only seem to talk about the turn restrictions for strategic reserves, the reinforcement section of the movement phase does not put any restrictions in place. Does that mean deep strike turn one could be back on? And confirm summoning is okay turn one?
Measured from base ? What about baseless vehicules ?
Measured from base.
For baseless ("such as many vehicles"), the closest point of any part of the model ("this is called measuring from the hull"), so the hull is officially 'everything'... unless it has a base, in which case you always use that.
Interestingly this has some carry on effects for 'wholly within' if your turret or antenna sticks out of the aura, the model doesn't get the benefit.
Voss wrote: Huh. There is no way to charge aircraft- you can't end a move within engagement range of aircraft. There are exceptions for models with fly to pile in, consolidate or heroically intervene, but... not charge.
But a charge fails if you don't end the charge in engagement range of all targets, which you can't do due to the aircraft rules, so you can't get to the pile in step.
You can theoretically charge a model next to an aircraft and pile into the aircraft with flyers, but the restrictions on chargers only attacking charge targets still exists, so you can't actually attack.
And next turn, the aircraft can make a normal move and leave without penalty. I'm not sure what the point of allowing pile in & etc is.
I don't see where you can't charge the flyer. It says that you can't use a move in the movement phase and stop within the engagement range, but surely the charge phase charge is different?
Measured from base ? What about baseless vehicules ?
Measured from base.
For baseless ("such as many vehicles"), the closest point of any part of the model ("this is called measuring from the hull"), so the hull is officially 'everything'... unless it has a base, in which case you always use that.
Thanks ! Battlewagons will reach anywhere except for the highest ruins huh huh.
This is the best thing about 9th, that and "loss" of overwatch, and the loss of "fly fallback shoot"
Voss wrote: Huh. There is no way to charge aircraft- you can't end a move within engagement range of aircraft. There are exceptions for models with fly to pile in, consolidate or heroically intervene, but... not charge.
But a charge fails if you don't end the charge in engagement range of all targets, which you can't do due to the aircraft rules, so you can't get to the pile in step.
You can theoretically charge a model next to an aircraft and pile into the aircraft with flyers, but the restrictions on chargers only attacking charge targets still exists, so you can't actually attack.
And next turn, the aircraft can make a normal move and leave without penalty. I'm not sure what the point of allowing pile in & etc is.
I don't see where you can't charge the flyer. It says that you can't use a move in the movement phase and stop within the engagement range, but surely the charge phase charge is different?
It'll be in the Fly keywork part of the datasheets, I expect.
Voss wrote: Huh. There is no way to charge aircraft- you can't end a move within engagement range of aircraft. There are exceptions for models with fly to pile in, consolidate or heroically intervene, but... not charge.
But a charge fails if you don't end the charge in engagement range of all targets, which you can't do due to the aircraft rules, so you can't get to the pile in step.
You can theoretically charge a model next to an aircraft and pile into the aircraft with flyers, but the restrictions on chargers only attacking charge targets still exists, so you can't actually attack.
And next turn, the aircraft can make a normal move and leave without penalty. I'm not sure what the point of allowing pile in & etc is.
I don't see where you can't charge the flyer. It says that you can't use a move in the movement phase and stop within the engagement range, but surely the charge phase charge is different?
Nope. Any type of move.
The aircraft rules specifically says "Whenever a model makes any type of move... it cannot end the move in engagement range of the aircraft" There isn't any override on that in charge section- just that you can move over models and buildings.
There IS for pile-in, consolidate and heroic intervention, but you can't attack units you didn't charge, and on their turn, the only way you can get attacks off is if they leave the aircraft there... which most can't do, since min movement and all that.
Voss wrote: Huh. There is no way to charge aircraft- you can't end a move within engagement range of aircraft. There are exceptions for models with fly to pile in, consolidate or heroically intervene, but... not charge.
But a charge fails if you don't end the charge in engagement range of all targets, which you can't do due to the aircraft rules, so you can't get to the pile in step.
You can theoretically charge a model next to an aircraft and pile into the aircraft with flyers, but the restrictions on chargers only attacking charge targets still exists, so you can't actually attack.
And next turn, the aircraft can make a normal move and leave without penalty. I'm not sure what the point of allowing pile in & etc is.
I don't see where you can't charge the flyer. It says that you can't use a move in the movement phase and stop within the engagement range, but surely the charge phase charge is different?
It'll be in the Fly keywork part of the datasheets, I expect.
Nope. Fly is a keyword. It has no rules text on data sheets, its defined on the page 11 sidebar.
Voss wrote: Huh. There is no way to charge aircraft- you can't end a move within engagement range of aircraft. There are exceptions for models with fly to pile in, consolidate or heroically intervene, but... not charge.
But a charge fails if you don't end the charge in engagement range of all targets, which you can't do due to the aircraft rules, so you can't get to the pile in step.
You can theoretically charge a model next to an aircraft and pile into the aircraft with flyers, but the restrictions on chargers only attacking charge targets still exists, so you can't actually attack.
And next turn, the aircraft can make a normal move and leave without penalty. I'm not sure what the point of allowing pile in & etc is.
I don't see where you can't charge the flyer. It says that you can't use a move in the movement phase and stop within the engagement range, but surely the charge phase charge is different?
Nope. Any type of move.
The aircraft rules specifically says "Whenever a model makes any type of move... it cannot end the move in engagement range of the aircraft" There isn't any override on that in charge section.
There IS for pile-in, consolidate and heroic intervention, but you can't attack units you didn't charge, and on their turn, the only way you can get attacks off is if they leave the aircraft there... which most can't do, since min movement and all that.
Yeah, I can't even see a spot saying that Flyers can charge Aircraft...
Nope. Any type of move.
The aircraft rules specifically says "Whenever a model makes any type of move... it cannot end the move in engagement range of the aircraft" There isn't any override on that in charge section.
There IS for pile-in, consolidate and heroic intervention, but you can't attack units you didn't charge, and on their turn, the only way you can get attacks off is if they leave the aircraft there... which most can't do, since min movement and all that.
Hmm, so, perhaps no more charging flyers. I imagine if that is the case the Heldrake would get some sort of exception, but then what about hover? Has to be a mistake.
Nope. Any type of move.
The aircraft rules specifically says "Whenever a model makes any type of move... it cannot end the move in engagement range of the aircraft" There isn't any override on that in charge section.
There IS for pile-in, consolidate and heroic intervention, but you can't attack units you didn't charge, and on their turn, the only way you can get attacks off is if they leave the aircraft there... which most can't do, since min movement and all that.
Hmm, so, perhaps no more charging flyers. I imagine if that is the case the Heldrake would get some sort of exception, but then what about hover? Has to be a mistake.
Aircraft only. You can charge flyers just fine. If the Heldrake doesn't have the aircraft rule, there isn't a problem.
Hover presumably solves itself, just as it does now (but in a less wordy way). I expect Hover, Supersonic and Airborne (for example on the Stormtalon) to be FAQed. The bulk of it will simply say that you add the aircraft keyword and hover mode treats the aircraft keyword as not existing.
[*]1" horizontally, 5" vertically (e.g. on top of a ruin)[/*]
Charge:
[*]Can't move through friendly or enemy models' bases (in general, but specifically relevant when charging). Exception being aircraft, which are ignored.[/*]
[*]Old 8th rule: First model has to finish charge move within 1" of one target of the charge, maintaining coherency, can't move within 1" of units, which were not target of the charge.[/*]
[*]New 9th rule: Unit must be able to finish within Engagement Range of every target of the charge, otherwise charge fails. Can then move in any order up to charge distance, maintaining coherency, as long as fulfill the charge conditions at the end of the movement. Can't finish within 1" of enemy units that were not target of the charge.[/*]
[*]Charging through terrain: Ignore terrain features up to 1" in height, taller terrain must be climbed up/down.[/*]
[*]Units with "fly" don't ignore terrain on the charge move, but can be moved through other models' bases.[/*]
[*]No universal Overwatch, only through stratagem and/or special rules[/*]
Heroic Intervention:
[*]Same as 8th, but can be attacked by charging units, see below.[/*]
Pile-In:
[*]Same as 8th, move up to 3", finishing closer to the nearest enemy model, but stated that models touching other models cannot be moved during pile in[/*]
Consolidate:
[*]same as Pile-In[/*]
Fighting:
[*]Charging units fight first, after that, players alternate choosing units to fight, starting with the player who is currently not taking his player turn.[/*]
[*]Models pile in, then models within Engagement Range can fight, as well as models within 1/2" of models within 1/2" of enemy models.[/*]
[*]Charging units can only target units that were targets of the charge, or units that heroically intervened[/*]
[*]Declare target units of all your attacks and weapons used for those attacks, then resolve all attacks made against the first target unit, before making any attacks vs the second target and so on.[/*]
[*]If you use several different weapons for your attacks, resolve all attacks with the same weapon profile before making any attacks with a different profile.[/*]
Eldarsif wrote: To be fair it would make a bit more sense. It was always a bit weird to see superheroes jump high with a hammer and punching aircrafts out of the sky.
Most likely be FAQ-ed though. I also wonder what the text is in the larger rulebook.
The same. The leaked rules were from the rulebook. Apart from space being eaten by pictures, it had the same rules (unsurprisingly)
Surprised you can't load marines into the Starcraft... I mean Hammerfall Bunker. Guess this is the replacement for Drop Pods since you can DS from reserves without needing an actual Drop Pod?
Also, wonder if we'll see armies comprising solely of Hammerfall Bunkers appear. With the 72" range launchers (and no facing rules to stop you from shooting something with all 8 heavy bolters/flamers), I'd give it a shot just to see if it'd work.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Necron towers are cool. The bunker's a little GI Joe for my tastes, but I'm a sucker for GW terrain so I'll probably end up getting one.
But superfrag missiles? I know super-kraks existed back in the day, but did super-frags exist (I keep typing "grags"... I have no idea why)?
Maybe you’re secretly His Grace, the Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel Vimes? He often had grags on the mind?
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers. Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Make sure you disembark before enemies engage the transport though - you can't disembark into engagement range, so watch out for fast movers following/encircling your transports and keeping your transportees hostage.
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Keep in mind this interaction of 1+ saves ignoring all AP is explicitly intended and FAQed in AOS.
I can see it getting FAQed fast, but for now there is no reason to assume that they don't have a 2++ when they ruled in that direction for the Bastiladon.
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Keep in mind this interaction of 1+ saves ignoring all AP is explicitly intended and FAQed in AOS.
I can see it getting FAQed fast, but for now there is no reason to assume that they don't have a 2++ when they ruled in that direction for the Bastiladon.
Like you said, they explicitly said that was the case for the Bastiladon, but either Terminators and Custodes get a different storm shield rule, or we have effective 2++ Termies and Bananas running about. 7th edition Invisible Deathstars anyone?
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
I can't find if there is a limit as to how many units can be put in reserve, Is it possible to put your whole army there or is it still 50% like in 8TH?
To add a little comic relief, they posted the Harlequins preview, with the absolutely amazing hot-take that Voidweavers are going to get more play in 9th because they have blast weapons. Which of course is the complete opposite of reality, because blast on that weapon is a total trap since they can't fire when falling back thanks to the new 9th edition rules (they don't get rising crescendo).
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Keep in mind this interaction of 1+ saves ignoring all AP is explicitly intended and FAQed in AOS.
Why does an unmodified 1 fail but a modified 1 succeed?
Because the rules say it does?
9th Ed Core Rules PDF, Page 5 wrote:All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers. Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.
9th Ed Core Rules PDF, Page 18 wrote:4. SAVING THROW The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.
My save is 1+, I roll a 2, AP-4 can't lower it below 1, so it is modified to a 1. 1 is not less than the model's Save characteristic, so the save is successful.
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Keep in mind this interaction of 1+ saves ignoring all AP is explicitly intended and FAQed in AOS.
Why does an unmodified 1 fail but a modified 1 succeed?
He's assuming (sight-unseen) that terminators and custodes with storm shields will be given a 1+ save. Unmodified 1s always fail, but modified rolls don't always fail, even if they end up as 1s (assuming they'd succeed on a 1+). He's assuming a corner case without verifying it actually exists.
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Nope. Any type of move.
The aircraft rules specifically says "Whenever a model makes any type of move... it cannot end the move in engagement range of the aircraft" There isn't any override on that in charge section.
There IS for pile-in, consolidate and heroic intervention, but you can't attack units you didn't charge, and on their turn, the only way you can get attacks off is if they leave the aircraft there... which most can't do, since min movement and all that.
Hmm, so, perhaps no more charging flyers. I imagine if that is the case the Heldrake would get some sort of exception, but then what about hover? Has to be a mistake.
Aircraft only. You can charge flyers just fine. If the Heldrake doesn't have the aircraft rule, there isn't a problem.
Hover presumably solves itself, just as it does now (but in a less wordy way). I expect Hover, Supersonic and Airborne (for example on the Stormtalon) to be FAQed. The bulk of it will simply say that you add the aircraft keyword and hover mode treats the aircraft keyword as not existing.
Sorry - I need to get in the habit of using the term aircraft. Good point, too - hover can change on the sheet.
Stormonu wrote: Surprised you can't load marines into the Starcraft... I mean Hammerfall Bunker. Guess this is the replacement for Drop Pods since you can DS from reserves without needing an actual Drop Pod?
Also, wonder if we'll see armies comprising solely of Hammerfall Bunkers appear. With the 72" range launchers (and no facing rules to stop you from shooting something with all 8 heavy bolters/flamers), I'd give it a shot just to see if it'd work.
Voss wrote: He's assuming (sight-unseen) that terminators and custodes with storm shields will be given a 1+ save. Unmodified 1s always fail, but modified rolls don't always fail, even if they end up as 1s (assuming they'd succeed on a 1+). He's assuming a corner case without verifying it actually exists.
True, this is all assuming their Storm Shields have the same rule as the other Storm Shield that has been shown. Given it's GW, we shouldn't assume the same wargear has the same rules between units.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I can't find if there is a limit as to how many units can be put in reserve, Is it possible to put your whole army there or is it still 50% like in 8TH?
Strategic reserve rules aren't in this mini-rulebook (like the 8th edition mini rules pamphlet, it leaves things out so you need a real rulebook for the full rules)
Looking at the leaked stuff, I don't see a limit, but there is a CP cost for each unit that goes in (not counting units that have innate rules for reserve, like teleporting, deep striking, genestealer ambush, etc)
VladimirHerzog wrote: I can't find if there is a limit as to how many units can be put in reserve, Is it possible to put your whole army there or is it still 50% like in 8TH?
It's in the matched play mission rules. Same rule as 8th: no more than half the units and points, and everything has to arrive by the end of T3 or be destroyed, unless it went back in after coming out once.
Interestingly, prepared positions does appear to simply be gone from the game.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I can't find if there is a limit as to how many units can be put in reserve, Is it possible to put your whole army there or is it still 50% like in 8TH?
Strategic reserve rules aren't in this mini-rulebook (like the 8th edition mini rules pamphlet, it leaves things out so you need a real rulebook for the full rules)
Looking at the leaked stuff, I don't see a limit, but there is a CP cost for each unit that goes in (not counting units that have innate rules for reserve, like teleporting, deep striking, genestealer ambush, etc)
yeah , i was talking about the leaks. i'd love to be able to run a null deployment night lords list
VladimirHerzog wrote: I can't find if there is a limit as to how many units can be put in reserve, Is it possible to put your whole army there or is it still 50% like in 8TH?
It's in the matched play mission rules. Same rule as 8th: no more than half the units and points, and everything has to arrive by the end of T3 or be destroyed, unless it went back in after coming out once.
Interestingly, prepared positions does appear to simply be gone from the game.
In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
Keep in mind this interaction of 1+ saves ignoring all AP is explicitly intended and FAQed in AOS.
I can see it getting FAQed fast, but for now there is no reason to assume that they don't have a 2++ when they ruled in that direction for the Bastiladon.
Like you said, they explicitly said that was the case for the Bastiladon, but either Terminators and Custodes get a different storm shield rule, or we have effective 2++ Termies and Bananas running about. 7th edition Invisible Deathstars anyone?
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
I'm not sure I get it.
Is the Storm Shield (in this instance) increasing their save to 1+, or is it adding +1 to the saving throw?
And wouldn't this:
BaconCatBug wrote: My save is 1+, I roll a 2, AP-4 can't lower it below 1, so it is modified to a 1. 1 is not less than the model's Save characteristic, so the save is successful.
...mean that the Terminator (or whatever) is essentially immune to damage. What would kill them (non-standard sources of damage notwithstanding)?
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 "is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
I'm not sure I get it.
Is the Storm Shield (in this instance) increasing their save to 1+, or is it adding +1 to the saving throw?
And wouldn't this:
BaconCatBug wrote: My save is 1+, I roll a 2, AP-4 can't lower it below 1, so it is modified to a 1. 1 is not less than the model's Save characteristic, so the save is successful.
...mean that the Terminator (or whatever) is essentially immune to damage. What would kill them (non-standard sources of damage notwithstanding)?
A natural roll of 1 on the dice would let the wound go through
out of the secondrys to make certain amies and builds auto give them away will other's will be impossible to maximise score against.
