Jburch wrote: This thread has gotten huge, and there is so much information it is hard to sift through it al, so sorry if my question has been asked.
I am going to go pick up the book from my local shop today. Do I need to buy the tactical objective cards also? Are they needed now for all the missions in the book?
Most of the important info (including info for your question, if I'm not mistaken) is in the first post.
But short answer, no.
Actually if you want to play the maelstrom missions you will need the deck, or at least print it from the book.
The fifth mission requires the deck since the objectives are secret.
That's not correct. You can keep the dice roll secret (as per Mission 5 rules)
Spoletta wrote:Oh this one is good! It is specified that you can assault stuff you can't hurt!!
Hormagaunts galore! Guardsmen blobs holding off Taloses! Kroot keeping Biomancy MCs from charging my FW lines!
Spoletta wrote:Also it is specified that a model attacking with an unwieldy weapon piles in at I1.
FNP does not work on D strenght.
Hm, we already did the I1 pile in. Didn't know it was wrong
FnP to no D... Are D weapons Instant Death or just prevent FnP?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Sniper rule lost rending and pinning. It's now S4 against vehicles and vp2 on a wound roll of 6.
Snipers only useful against light skimmers and the back of Rhino-chassis... makes sense, but still sad to see it go.
Now, losing Pinning? That makes a lot of sense to snipers!
Wow! You mean you can pin/suppress a unit with the goal of making your assault against them more effective?!? This alone is enough to give me a tiny shred of faith back in the rules design. I have no idea if this will actually change much in the reality of the [meta]game, but just the fact that the principle can POSSIBLY EXIST in a game is a monumental landmark in the rules for me.
WrentheFaceless wrote: The UK has its release after the US? My shop got them today, or is the 24th the Official street date?
Official street date is the 24th afaik.
According to the guys at my FLGS (in the USA), they were apparently told (by GW) that they could start selling at 1pm today. We were all a little surprised by this, given that GW has been quite a bit more strict about street dates in the last year or two.
Vector Strike wrote: Still good against Tyranids. Gotta search for D sources outside Apoc... or is there none, IKs aside?
Sanctic psychic power #6
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Vector Strike wrote: Still good against Tyranids. Gotta search for D sources outside Apoc... or is there none, IKs aside?
Well Lord of War are standard, but Knights and 6 on the Sanctic table are D weapons
Thanks. I was aware of Vortex, but I don't know if I'm willing to use GKs (find their codex quite confusing) as allies.
LoW are standard, but my fellas rather not use it until we're more acquainted with the rules. When we'll open the gates of big minatures, Tigersharks AX-1-0 will soar the skies... or any other good D source
So have they actually done anything to alleviate the fact that each Codex has a couple of units that are crazy OP that you always want to take, and a lot of units that suck so badly it's pointless to take them? I've read a lot of changes about the rules, and Unbound, but nothing addressing the actual issues of the game that penalizes someone, for example, for wanting to take regular CSMs instead of Plague Marines (or not wanting anything Nurgle in general), or not wanting Heldrakes, or liking Fire Warriors instead of going Farsight Bomb.
Am I right in that none of that has changed (yet, at any rate)?
Vector Strike wrote: Still good against Tyranids. Gotta search for D sources outside Apoc... or is there none, IKs aside?
Sanctic psychic power #6
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Vector Strike wrote: Still good against Tyranids. Gotta search for D sources outside Apoc... or is there none, IKs aside?
Well Lord of War are standard, but Knights and 6 on the Sanctic table are D weapons
Thanks. I was aware of Vortex, but I don't know if I'm willing to use GKs (find their codex quite confusing) as allies.
LoW are standard, but my fellas rather not use it until we're more acquainted with the rules. When we'll open the gates of big minatures, Tigersharks AX-1-0 will soar the skies... or any other good D source
Well anyone can take sanctic cept Daemons, you just perils on doubles if you're not a GK.
WayneTheGame wrote: So have they actually done anything to alleviate the fact that each Codex has a couple of units that are crazy OP that you always want to take, and a lot of units that suck so badly it's pointless to take them? I've read a lot of changes about the rules, and Unbound, but nothing addressing the actual issues of the game that penalizes someone, for example, for wanting to take regular CSMs instead of Plague Marines (or not wanting anything Nurgle in general), or not wanting Heldrakes, or liking Fire Warriors instead of going Farsight Bomb.
Am I right in that none of that has changed (yet, at any rate)?
Fire Warriors aren't that bad; Vespids are
GW could use player's battle reports (of games happening in their stores, of course) to identify situations they didn't forsee/wanted to happen and launch FAQs to quell them. Or even launch a Living Forgotten Realms kind of program! Good Forge the Narrative stories could be added to the main story and stuff. Working together with the community (first at England, then Europe, US and overseas wher GW have stores)
Spoletta wrote:The new missile lock USR is kinda strange.
It no longer mentions missiles, but it works on any weapon with the single shot rule, and as already spoilered it twinlinks if you don't have an area.
Spoletta wrote:If you have both scout and infiltration you can first infiltrate and then move.
Only to aircraft or to ANY single shot? That would make Tentaclids, Hunter-Seeker and Seeker missiles AWESOME (and much more cost-effective)
And I think an scout/infiltrate unit was already able to infiltrate and then scout in 6th
It doesn't mention aircraft, neither it did in 6E, also those missile don't have the missile lock rule. Sure the DA flyer will twinlink against ground targets.
Also we have some changes on barrage:
1) No longer pinning
2) It can shoot under minimum range if it is direct fire.
If anyone tried to tell me that my battle brother wasn't able to disembark from an ally's transport, I'd smack them upside the head. That doesn't need a FAQ, just some common sense...
rabidguineapig wrote: If anyone tried to tell me that my battle brother wasn't able to disembark from an ally's transport, I'd smack them upside the head. That doesn't need a FAQ, just some common sense...
Spoletta wrote:The new missile lock USR is kinda strange.
It no longer mentions missiles, but it works on any weapon with the single shot rule, and as already spoilered it twinlinks if you don't have an area.
Spoletta wrote:If you have both scout and infiltration you can first infiltrate and then move.
Only to aircraft or to ANY single shot? That would make Tentaclids, Hunter-Seeker and Seeker missiles AWESOME (and much more cost-effective)
And I think an scout/infiltrate unit was already able to infiltrate and then scout in 6th
It doesn't mention aircraft, neither it did in 6E, also those missile don't have the missile lock rule. Sure the DA flyer will twinlink against ground targets.
Ah. Thought any single-use weapon would get Missile Lock now (as I bolded up there).
WayneTheGame wrote: So have they actually done anything to alleviate the fact that each Codex has a couple of units that are crazy OP that you always want to take, and a lot of units that suck so badly it's pointless to take them? I've read a lot of changes about the rules, and Unbound, but nothing addressing the actual issues of the game that penalizes someone, for example, for wanting to take regular CSMs instead of Plague Marines (or not wanting anything Nurgle in general), or not wanting Heldrakes, or liking Fire Warriors instead of going Farsight Bomb.
Am I right in that none of that has changed (yet, at any rate)?
Frankly you're talking about issues with codexes more than with the core rules there.
Spoletta wrote:The new missile lock USR is kinda strange.
It no longer mentions missiles, but it works on any weapon with the single shot rule, and as already spoilered it twinlinks if you don't have an area.
Spoletta wrote:If you have both scout and infiltration you can first infiltrate and then move.
Only to aircraft or to ANY single shot? That would make Tentaclids, Hunter-Seeker and Seeker missiles AWESOME (and much more cost-effective)
And I think an scout/infiltrate unit was already able to infiltrate and then scout in 6th
It doesn't mention aircraft, neither it did in 6E, also those missile don't have the missile lock rule. Sure the DA flyer will twinlink against ground targets.
Also we have some changes on barrage:
1) No longer pinning
2) It can shoot under minimum range if it is direct fire.
Oh man barrage lost the pinning USR? That explains the points drop on Biovores, then.
rabidguineapig wrote: If anyone tried to tell me that my battle brother wasn't able to disembark from an ally's transport, I'd smack them upside the head. That doesn't need a FAQ, just some common sense...
It is well establish that Hive Tyrants can join but not Leave Tyrant Guard like an IC because of similar language. GW even confirmed it in a FAQ with the previous Tyranid Codex.
Any changes to the reroll rules? Specifically concerning rules like Preferred Enemy requiring a 1 to grant the reroll but (allegedly) granting a blanket reroll entitlement for blast scatter rolls.
On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.
Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.
People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.
Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?
So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.
WrentheFaceless wrote: The UK has its release after the US? My shop got them today, or is the 24th the Official street date?
Official street date is the 24th afaik.
According to the guys at my FLGS (in the USA), they were apparently told (by GW) that they could start selling at 1pm today. We were all a little surprised by this, given that GW has been quite a bit more strict about street dates in the last year or two.
- H8
Just got a call from my FLGS and they have my copy waiting, gonna pick it up on my way home from work today. Not sure if they give two feths about any restriction GW might set though...
Garion wrote: I'm reading the "hot to choose your army" section of the book and I can't find anything that say that if you take multiple combined arms detachments (the old, standard FOC of 6th ed) you must pick all of them from the same codex (of faction if you like) and add the 1HQ+2Troops mandatory units in each detachment
all the units inside a combined arms detachments must be have the same faction but that's all.
So it look like we can make armies like this
1st combined arms detacments from the Eldar Faction (and mark this as the primary detactment)
2nd combined arms detacments from the Tau Faction
3rd combined arms detacments from the Chaos Space Marines Faction
One Allied Detacment from the Dark Eldar Faction
Am I missing something?
You *are* missing something... Faction != codex. So for your 2nd detachment, you can mix and match from Tau and Farsight, because both books are in the same faction. 3rd detachment can mix and match between CSM and Crimson SLaughter.
etc..
uhm... Tau (codex) and Farsight are in the Tau Faction, CSM (codex) and Crimson are in the CSM Faction so you are basically saying the same thing. Or are you just pointing out that this is even worse than what it look like?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I am pointing out that it is even worse. You can take a CSM detachment, but lets say the Hellbrute in Crimson Slaughter has better stats, you can use that one in the CSMFOC.
Hatemonger wrote: On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.
Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.
People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.
Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?
So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.
- H8
I agree with this point of view. They need to increase sales, and letting you use whatever you want helps that. If they monitor what is selling more and less, they could work on those least-selling models to improve its appearance (first reason to a newcomer to buy) and its rules (to keep people buying it)
ClassicCarraway wrote: Any changes to the reroll rules? Specifically concerning rules like Preferred Enemy requiring a 1 to grant the reroll but (allegedly) granting a blanket reroll entitlement for blast scatter rolls.
At a first glance it doesn't seem to let preferred enemy reroll blasts, but i'm not expert enough with rules to assure that.
Also while i was looking for that i noticed this in the reroll section:
" If a combination of rules would make you reroll both the failure and success of a roll then don't reroll at all" Will this solve the Coteaz vs Coteaz problem?
coredump wrote: Sorry I wasn't clear. I am pointing out that it is even worse. You can take a CSM detachment, but lets say the Hellbrute in Crimson Slaughter has better stats, you can use that one in the CSMFOC.
I've been asking around about this. If we can mix and match units in the same Detachment, can we select Relics from both Codex and Supplement in the same Detachment? Instead of using 2 detachments for a CM with Shield Eternal and other with a CM bearing Gorgon's Chains (Raukaan supp), can I spend my 2 HQ slots in the same Detachment, one with a Shield Eternal CM and the other one with Gorgon's Chain?
Hatemonger wrote: On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.
Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.
People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.
Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?
So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.
- H8
While the structure of the rules can lead to thinking about this, in my neck of the woods new players are not so, glassy-eyed, so to speak. The rules don't matter to attracting new players here to 40k because they can't stop laughing hard enough at the ridiculous pricing of the models and the game book itself. Especially when they are intelligent enough to see the prices on almost all other full color wargame rulebooks being in the $30-$40 range. Secondly, nobody here is playing 40k at the store anymore - 6th edition took good care of that. So new players are being exposed more to Bolt Action, Flames of War, and a regular smattering of skirmish games like Hell Dorado, Infinity and Malifaux. The rules are more what are driving many veteran players away. The stupidly high pricing is what is keeping many new players away. As one of these kids once said to an old fart like me as he held a $30 plastic space librarian and an $11 metal model from another game, "Dude, no game is so good to spend $30 on a cheap plastic guy."
I think the other very big thing that is preventing the inlfux of new blood is GW's decision to eliminate the onboarding games. I think many longer term veterans probably got into 40k the same way - through one of the original gateway games. I got into GW through Talisman and into 40k through Space Hulk. A good friend of mind found his way into 40k through Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus. These were inexpensive ways to get into the GW hobby. But new players today are immediately faced with the daunting task of an overly-complex game with a very expensive army building proposition staring at them from day one. There is nothing to get them started with the thought, "While I am in now, might as well keep going," like many did with Space Hulk or other gateway games.
Additionally, many players can barely build an army from the store anymore because GW moved so much direct. Look at HQ models, more than 95% of them are only available through GW direct. So that is another deterrent. In fact, it seems GW has put up a lot of deterrents lately to attracting new players, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that there are so few.
So while veterans may still get the glassy-eyes over the models, new players have a much greater selection of models (and games) to select from for wargaming than many of us did when we started and thus GW models do not make them drool - the high pricing has them making more of a "ooohh, really" sound more than anything.
Hatemonger wrote: On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.
Anyway, it got me thinking: I wonder if the new "open" style army org is directed at lowering the barrier to entry. From the very beginning, one of the goals of Allies has been to give a kind of gateway drug to a new army. You like those new Ogryns and their tankbus, but you're not sure you want to commit to a whole guard army? No problem, use them as Allies.
People always analyze a new starter box or Battleforce to see whether you get a "legal army", i.e. whether the contents fit in a standard FoC. Well, what if that just didn't matter any more? Now when they put out their new Strikeforce Ultra box, guess what? It contains a legal starter army. Anyone buying that box can put their models on the table and play a "legitimate" army.
Even easier, though: some kid walks into the store, sees 40k for the first time, and gets all glassy-eyed over the amazing models they have for [insert army here]. He doesn't know any better, so he buys three random boxes that he thinks are the coolest. If he shows up ready to put those models on the table, what are people going to say? Does he have to rely on someone being gracious to the newbie who doesn't have the minimum HQ and Troops, or can he just plonk them all down and rightfully claim it's a legal army?
So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.
- H8
Interesting commentary. As a new player I can see the points here. Finding an HQ unit was a problem initially for my Tau army. At first I had no battlesuits and only Inf with no Etherials. I was going to just use a fire warrior as a fireblade. Now of course I have some battlesuits, so I have a model to use as a Commander.
Luckily for me, I have a good job, but this game has wrecked my gaming budget. I have played all of 2 turns and spent over $450 now. For that $450 I can do 500 points of Space Marines (but no current Codex), 500 points of Orks (with no Codex yet), and abut 1,000 points of Tau. That is a pretty high bar to entry.
For the money I spent on Warhammer 40K I could have backed probably 6 to 8 great board games on Kickstarter, Bought 4 big box FFG games, or started a new RPG with tons of supplements. I could have gotten back into heroclix too. The worst part is there is a ton more stuff I want to buy for Warhammer 40K. Sigh.
One good thing is that at least in our area one game store runs 500 point mission nights every Tuesday. There were like 15 people (3 of us new BTW) the only time I have made it there. So at least with 40K I know I will have people to play with. (Unlike a lot of my kickstartered board games that I love but never play...)
Hatemonger wrote: On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.
...
So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.
- H8
I agree that a new edition with more freedom opens up chances for new players. It becomes more "I like these kits" and not "I have to adhere to these rules -- what kits can I have?"
I think a huge part of the perceived lack of new players is that we saw a huge influx of players in 5th edition and that wave has fallen off. There isn't much 40k stuff that breaches into the realm of public consciousness, but Dawn of War 2 had a HUGE hand in making people interested in the hobby and expanding from there. There's been a good three year lull since any other media came out that put 40k back in the spotlight.
Honestly, GW need a proper marketing team and a better social media presence. The board game space is booming right now and there's a gap in the market where they can make 40k a gateway drug into the full hobby if they play it out right. The price point of the starter boxes are fine by our crazy standards, but they need to find a way to get something on the shelves in the $30-40 range where it can become an impulse buy, while also ensuring a game can be 1-1.5 hrs long and played together.
So they buff Pinning but then nerf it by taking it away from all the normal methods of causing the test....
How is pinning buffed?
The whole "can't shoot OW when GtG" piece. Its a buff for assault armies, but unfortunately, it looks like most methods to actually cause pinning tests have been removed.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
Do Broodlords have the Synapse to begin with? I thought Dominion specifically added +6 to the range of Synapse. If Broodlords don't have Synapse, then Dominion wouldn't do anything for them I'd imagine.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
Do Broodlords have the Synapse to begin with? I thought Dominion specifically added +6 to the range of Synapse. If Broodlords don't have Synapse, then Dominion wouldn't do anything for them I'd imagine.
Or it would increase the range from 0" to 6". Probably needs an FAQ
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
Do Broodlords have the Synapse to begin with? I thought Dominion specifically added +6 to the range of Synapse. If Broodlords don't have Synapse, then Dominion wouldn't do anything for them I'd imagine.
Might need a FAQ. He'd be the first pskyer that doesn't have a synapse range, but could cast dominion.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
In the brief looks I've taken at the rules since last night, there is a bit of text which states that the ML limits how many powers a psyker can cast in a turn, but I haven't yet found any text which expands on that. Maybe they just mean that, since a ML 1 dude only knows 2 powers, and he can't recast the same power in the same turn, he's de facto limited to casting 2 by his ML.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
There is no such limit.
So a psyker can cast as many powers as he knows and has dice for even if its over his mastery level? Just not the same one twice?
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
Do Broodlords have the Synapse to begin with? I thought Dominion specifically added +6 to the range of Synapse. If Broodlords don't have Synapse, then Dominion wouldn't do anything for them I'd imagine.
Or it would increase the range from 0" to 6". Probably needs an FAQ
Just pulled up the codex (love ebooks!). Broodlords do not have the special rule Synapse Creature, and Dominion only adds to synapse range, it doesn't grant the special rule. No synapse, no benefit.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
In the brief looks I've taken at the rules since last night, there is a bit of text which states that the ML limits how many powers a psyker can cast in a turn, but I haven't yet found any text which expands on that. Maybe they just mean that, since a ML 1 dude only knows 2 powers, and he can't recast the same power in the same turn, he's de facto limited to casting 2 by his ML.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
Do Broodlords have the Synapse to begin with? I thought Dominion specifically added +6 to the range of Synapse. If Broodlords don't have Synapse, then Dominion wouldn't do anything for them I'd imagine.
Or it would increase the range from 0" to 6". Probably needs an FAQ
Just pulled up the codex (love ebooks!). Broodlords do not have the special rule Synapse Creature, and Dominion only adds to synapse range, it doesn't grant the special rule. No synapse, no benefit.
Fair play.
Well then I'll just wish list for an errata making them a synapse creature - but that won't happen. Haha.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
In the brief looks I've taken at the rules since last night, there is a bit of text which states that the ML limits how many powers a psyker can cast in a turn, but I haven't yet found any text which expands on that. Maybe they just mean that, since a ML 1 dude only knows 2 powers, and he can't recast the same power in the same turn, he's de facto limited to casting 2 by his ML.
Hm, I stand corrected then.
Maybe. I still have a lot of reading to do. I saw the text "The number of psychic powers a Psyker can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level" and skimmed to see if that was elaborated on. Haven't found anything yet, but I haven't had time to really get into the meat of the book...I suspect that I won't find any hard limit stated unequivocally, just that you can't cast a power more than once per turn from the same caster.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
There is no such limit.
So a Warlock could cast two powers?
Can they be the same power?
No.
EDIT TO ADD: I wonder how long it'll be before some TFG tries to claim that his warlock can use conceal, reveal, destructor AND renewer all in one turn from the same WL, though.
Unseeablething wrote: Wait a minute... Do broodlords gain Dominion? Can a broodlord get a synapse range?
yes... but I believe a model is still limited to cast a number of psychic powers equal to its ML, as they too know such number (battle focus notwithstanding).
So it's a choice between Dominion and The Horror each turn you want to cast something
First I've heard someone claim that. So far people have just been talking about Warp charges when it comes to ML.
Hatemonger wrote: On another note, I was talking to some of the employees at my FLGS last night. We were kibitzing (ok, complaining) about GW's policies, changes to the game, etc. and one thing they mentioned was a serious lack of new players. There have always been old players drifting out of gaming or moving to different games, but now there seems to be less new blood to replace them. I know, it's anecdotal, your local scene may be different, YMMV.
...
So, you can argue about what this means for the state of the game, or GW as a company, but there is definitely at least some good in it, from the perspective of just encouraging more people to play the game.
- H8
I agree that a new edition with more freedom opens up chances for new players. It becomes more "I like these kits" and not "I have to adhere to these rules -- what kits can I have?"
I think a huge part of the perceived lack of new players is that we saw a huge influx of players in 5th edition and that wave has fallen off. There isn't much 40k stuff that breaches into the realm of public consciousness, but Dawn of War 2 had a HUGE hand in making people interested in the hobby and expanding from there. There's been a good three year lull since any other media came out that put 40k back in the spotlight.
Honestly, GW need a proper marketing team and a better social media presence. The board game space is booming right now and there's a gap in the market where they can make 40k a gateway drug into the full hobby if they play it out right. The price point of the starter boxes are fine by our crazy standards, but they need to find a way to get something on the shelves in the $30-40 range where it can become an impulse buy, while also ensuring a game can be 1-1.5 hrs long and played together.
More excellent points here. I hope (but doubt) that GW is listening.
Based on what I am reading here (not having really played 40K more than 2 turns) is that the game is getting some rule bloat and taking longer to play. I think they will need to address that someday, but unfortunately, a quicker game generally requires less models (i.e. lower sales.) If they could simplify the game to make an 1850 pt battle take 2 hrs or less that would be awesome. But at the same time, they don't want to lose the flavor of Warhammer 40K.
Right now 40K has quite a few computer projects out there. Full Control has done a GREAT Space Hulk game that mirrors the board game very well. (So much so I might just sell my 3rd edition set.) There is also a new 3rd person shooter coming. More importantly Slitherine Games is doing 40,000 Armageddon, which will be a turn based strategy game with Orks, Guard, and 3 or 4 chapters of Space Marines. They are using a modified Panzer Crops engine, which is pretty popular. And I think the game will be on Steam. All those things should help get more people exposure to 40K. Still, it is no Dawn of War, but at least these are more possibilities.
Overall I agree that GW needs better social media. Do they even have a Twitter account? I have always wondered why they don't host their own forums too. (Of course this thread probably is a good example of why they don't...)
ClockworkZion wrote: Off to pick up my book(s) and start my reviews. You kids have fun.
No ! Don't go! We love you!
Go, be off with you. I don't love you, not at all.
The fact that Ahriman now gets FIVE powers, that I kind of love. It'll be even nicer if the little chart of which army gets which disciplines (which shows CSM get Div...not TK, for some odd reason, though) gets me a FAQ for the CSM codex allowing the blasted head of the whole Corvidae cult to use his cult's signature powers.
The nice thing about the Jink change is that you don't already have to be moving in order to get it. That means that I am going to be far less paranoid about getting first turn with my Wave Serpents.
shade1313 wrote:EDIT TO ADD: I wonder how long it'll be before some TFG tries to claim that his warlock can use conceal, reveal, destructor AND renewer all in one turn from the same WL, though.
This more or less happened when the Eldar codex came out (the conceal/reveal being able to be cast at the same time by a single warlock, IIRC). I don't know why, because the codex clearly says each cast must choose only one of the options before making the roll. What can be discussed is if conceal/reveal is an entire power - so, if a warlock tries to cast it as Reveal, can another cast it as Conceal? I don't think so, as both have the same 'psychic slot'
vadersson wrote:More excellent points here. I hope (but doubt) that GW is listening.
Based on what I am reading here (not having really played 40K more than 2 turns) is that the game is getting some rule bloat and taking longer to play. I think they will need to address that someday, but unfortunately, a quicker game generally requires less models (i.e. lower sales.) If they could simplify the game to make an 1850 pt battle take 2 hrs or less that would be awesome. But at the same time, they don't want to lose the flavor of Warhammer 40K.
Right now 40K has quite a few computer projects out there. Full Control has done a GREAT Space Hulk game that mirrors the board game very well. (So much so I might just sell my 3rd edition set.) There is also a new 3rd person shooter coming. More importantly Slitherine Games is doing 40,000 Armageddon, which will be a turn based strategy game with Orks, Guard, and 3 or 4 chapters of Space Marines. They are using a modified Panzer Crops engine, which is pretty popular. And I think the game will be on Steam. All those things should help get more people exposure to 40K. Still, it is no Dawn of War, but at least these are more possibilities.
Overall I agree that GW needs better social media. Do they even have a Twitter account? I have always wondered why they don't host their own forums too. (Of course this thread probably is a good example of why they don't...)
Thanks,
Duncan
To add, there's a small action game called Kill-Team in steam now. It was launched one week before Space Marine, but only for consoles.
A Space Wolf game is coming as well (but it's weird), as a FPS space hulk with deathwing. Oh, and a chess game!
shade1313 wrote:The fact that Ahriman now gets FIVE powers, that I kind of love. It'll be even nicer if the little chart of which army gets which disciplines (which shows CSM get Div...not TK, for some odd reason, though) gets me a FAQ for the CSM codex allowing the blasted head of the whole Corvidae cult to use his cult's signature powers.
Dunno... looks like saw more on this and the rulebook has no extra permissions on such matters. CSM has Divination marked because of Crimson Slaughter supplement, as SM has it too because of Tigurius and Mantis Warriors (FW). I won't bet on CSM getting more Divination before a Tzeentch/Thousand Sons supplement
Lobukia wrote: Really surprised they took pinning away from sniper rifles. Bummer
Remember, GW doesn't play the same game the rest of us play. They probably had one game where one of the authors brought a sniper-heavy list and won, so their opponent nerfed sniper rifles to "fix" the problem. The fact that everyone else considers sniper rifles laughably weak and only uses them when they're voluntarily crippling their own list to go easy on a newbie doesn't matter to them.
You'll see the same thing happening with psykers: the WD article talks about how psykers needed to be more powerful because everyone at GW always uses things like melee captains and chaplains instead. Meanwhile out in the real world librarians are pretty much the only HQ in C:SM unless you're taking a bike army, and the new rules make powerful units even more powerful.
Auswin wrote: I agree that a new edition with more freedom opens up chances for new players. It becomes more "I like these kits" and not "I have to adhere to these rules -- what kits can I have?"
I don't get this all. When I was a new player, I wanted to start my collection, and was somewhat overwhelmed. The FOC guided me, and helped me pick out my first models. If I was interested in playing a game, and I asked how do I build an army? And they told me, pick whatever models you want, it would have discouraged me strongly. Structure is important to gameplay. Removing structure removes balance, fun, and New Player friendlyness.
Imagine if the next move was to do away with turn order. Instead of Reserves-Move-Psychic-Shoot-Assault, the game became move units whenever you feel like it. Bring in reserves at any time. Assault first and then shoot.
Gameplay would suffer in the same way that list building and collecting would suffer under an unbound system. Would it be easier to learn the rules? Probably. Would it be more friendly to newer players? Certainly not.
Auswin wrote: I agree that a new edition with more freedom opens up chances for new players. It becomes more "I like these kits" and not "I have to adhere to these rules -- what kits can I have?"
I don't get this all. When I was a new player, I wanted to start my collection, and was somewhat overwhelmed. The FOC guided me, and helped me pick out my first models. If I was interested in playing a game, and I asked how do I build an army? And they told me, pick whatever models you want, it would have discouraged me strongly. Structure is important to gameplay. Removing structure removes balance, fun, and New Player friendlyness.
Imagine if the next move was to do away with turn order. Instead of Reserves-Move-Psychic-Shoot-Assault, the game became move units whenever you feel like it. Bring in reserves at any time. Assault first and then shoot.
Gameplay would suffer in the same way that list building and collecting would suffer under an unbound system. Would it be easier to learn the rules? Probably. Would it be more friendly to newer players? Certainly not.
mercury14 wrote: So a Warlock can cast conceal and then destructor in a turn? And then chuck a spear?
I have not yet found any reason to believe otherwise. It's going to come down to deciding what are the best uses for your dice.
Another thing that I noticed is that you can "jump" from psyker unit to psyker unit while casting without completing the phase for one unit and then move to another one like you do for shooting for example.
So, for example, you can cast one power with your Farseer, cast another power with a Spiritseer in another unit and the cast another one with that first Farseer
EDIT TO ADD: I wonder how long it'll be before some TFG tries to claim that his warlock can use conceal, reveal, destructor AND renewer all in one turn from the same WL, though.
Just tell him he can just conceal, not reveal... Make sure they know...
mercury14 wrote: So a Warlock can cast conceal and then destructor in a turn? And then chuck a spear?
I have not yet found any reason to believe otherwise. It's going to come down to deciding what are the best uses for your dice.
Another thing that I noticed is that you can "jump" from psyker unit to psyker unit while casting without completing the phase for one unit and then move to another one like you do for shooting for example.
So, for example, you can cast one power with your Farseer, cast another power with a Spiritseer in another unit and the cast another one with that first Farseer
I expected as much... thought I guess I wouldn't have been surprised if they made you finish one caster at a time.
Remember, GW doesn't play the same game the rest of us play. They probably had one game where one of the authors brought a sniper-heavy list and won, so their opponent nerfed sniper rifles to "fix" the problem. The fact that everyone else considers sniper rifles laughably weak and only uses them when they're voluntarily crippling their own list to go easy on a newbie doesn't matter to them.
You'll see the same thing happening with psykers: the WD article talks about how psykers needed to be more powerful because everyone at GW always uses things like melee captains and chaplains instead. Meanwhile out in the real world librarians are pretty much the only HQ in C:SM unless you're taking a bike army, and the new rules make powerful units even more powerful.
Yeah, I think you're completely correct. And that second comment just completely mindboggled me when I first read it. Even the people I know who probably never read an actual tactics article in their life never bothered taking unnamed captains. It was either a Librarian, Special Character (Sicarious was popular with a few mates) and the absolute most you saw a chaplain was one with a jump pack leading a 10 man assault marine squad.
rabidguineapig wrote: If anyone tried to tell me that my battle brother wasn't able to disembark from an ally's transport, I'd smack them upside the head. That doesn't need a FAQ, just some common sense...
That was the exact same train of thought I had.
"What?"
SMACK !!!
"You win. I can't enjoy playing against this level of stupid"
That doesn't sound too shabby. Would've still preferred to keep pinning though as in reality, being shot at by snipers is going to be more than enough encouragement to keep your head down!!
Peregrine wrote: You'll see the same thing happening with psykers: the WD article talks about how psykers needed to be more powerful because everyone at GW always uses things like melee captains and chaplains instead. Meanwhile out in the real world librarians are pretty much the only HQ in C:SM unless you're taking a bike army, and the new rules make powerful units even more powerful.
I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?
Garion wrote: It's true. Interceptor no longer allow that
Erm... does that mean that helldrakes can't use it's Baleflamer while flying???
you're thinking Skyfire. Interceptor allowed a weapon with Skyfire rule (like the quad-gun from aegis defence line) to shoot at land targets with normal BS. Now it doesn't give this permission anymore - BS full only against skimmers, flyers and swooping FMCs.
That is the problem. AA is very costly and was only made viable because of it also being able to shoot at ground targets. This allowed everyone to effectively counter flyers. If this is lost, now, flyers get a big buff.
Holy crap, even our youngbloods would be better rules writers than those "vets" GW has employed.
Soul Grinders just became a almost must have for Daemon Armies. You can have 6 of them now and then give them all 4+ Reroll 1s. That's pretty fun! Oh and the rest of your army can just summon more dudes.
Hollismason wrote: Soul Grinders just became a almost must have for Daemon Armies. You can have 6 of them now and then give them all 4+ Reroll 1s. That's pretty fun! Oh and the rest of your army can just summon more dudes.
Or you spend all your warp charges to cast it, slowly kill of your own models through perils, or risk rolling minimum as the opponent uses the majority of his dice to counter it.
Online Download for rulebook is available right now just FYI. btw its 10 dollars cheaper on black library then games-workshop. Got is for 59.99. It said pre-order but allowed download lmao.
Tomb King wrote: Online Download for rulebook is available right now just FYI. btw its 10 dollars cheaper on black library then games-workshop. Got is for 59.99. It said pre-order but allowed download lmao.
Sigvatr wrote: That is the problem. AA is very costly and was only made viable because of it also being able to shoot at ground targets. This allowed everyone to effectively counter flyers. If this is lost, now, flyers get a big buff.
Holy crap, even our youngbloods would be better rules writers than those "vets" GW has employed.
Were they? Icarus las was dirt cheap for 35 points, basically T7 2 Wound 3+ armor gun.
Quad was costlier at 50, but when you think about the Hydra (70) or Stalker (75), both of which dont have Interceptor, you'll realize that the ADL gun emplacements were a steal for being effective against ordinary targets too.
Tomb King wrote: Online Download for rulebook is available right now just FYI. btw its 10 dollars cheaper on black library then games-workshop. Got is for 59.99. It said pre-order but allowed download lmao.
Haven't seen it posted, but slight IC change, the wording is now "They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures" instead of the previous vehicle squadron/single model unit wording
Sigvatr wrote: That is the problem. AA is very costly and was only made viable because of it also being able to shoot at ground targets. This allowed everyone to effectively counter flyers. If this is lost, now, flyers get a big buff.
Holy crap, even our youngbloods would be better rules writers than those "vets" GW has employed.
yes ADL costly 50pts for a missive wall and quad auto cannon with sky fire interceptor I always felt so hard done by... IG and SM aa tanks cost more and never had interceptor. now maybe a few more things will get interceptor for what is was meant for instead of it being used to attack out of turn randomly at units rolling on to the board or teleporting in.
Sigvatr wrote: That is the problem. AA is very costly and was only made viable because of it also being able to shoot at ground targets. This allowed everyone to effectively counter flyers. If this is lost, now, flyers get a big buff.
Holy crap, even our youngbloods would be better rules writers than those "vets" GW has employed.
yes ADL costly 50pts for a missive wall and quad auto cannon with sky fire interceptor I always felt so hard done by...
Garion wrote: Now we need only the FAQ... I wonder where they will put them on the website...
Hopefully on the front page of GW in big bold letters
GW doesn't do FAQs anymore..... new site doesn't allow it.... besides, they can't sell FAQs so why would they do them? Heck, they don't even do their glorified retail store - Games Day for free.
GW gives nothing, nada, nilch, zippo away anymore. Well, unless you spend $100 first, then they will throw in a free marine that costs them 5 cents to make....
zhutch wrote: To clarify with the "battle brothers can't disembark" debate....
The rules say "FOR EXAMPLE".. as in that list is not exhaustive. Battle brothers could of course disembark from each others transports
I think GW clearly thought (and they are right), that most people playing the game have an IQ higher than 12 and would understand with that intelligence that if you can embark on a vehicle you can also disembark from it as well without having to tell you something that freakin' obvious.
zhutch wrote: To clarify with the "battle brothers can't disembark" debate....
The rules say "FOR EXAMPLE".. as in that list is not exhaustive. Battle brothers could of course disembark from each others transports
I think GW clearly thought (and they are right), that most people playing the game have an IQ higher than 12 and would understand with that intelligence that if you can embark on a vehicle you can also disembark from it as well without having to tell you something that freakin' obvious.
"My pauldrons are stuck in the chimera sorry. i cant leave the vehicle."
Garion wrote: Now we need only the FAQ... I wonder where they will put them on the website...
Hopefully on the front page of GW in big bold letters
GW doesn't do FAQs anymore..... new site doesn't allow it.... besides, they can't sell FAQs so why would they do them? Heck, they don't even do their glorified retail store - Games Day for free.
GW gives nothing, nada, nilch, zippo away anymore. Well, unless you spend $100 first, then they will throw in a free marine that costs them 5 cents to make....
Garion wrote: Now we need only the FAQ... I wonder where they will put them on the website...
Hopefully on the front page of GW in big bold letters
GW doesn't do FAQs anymore..... new site doesn't allow it.... besides, they can't sell FAQs so why would they do them? Heck, they don't even do their glorified retail store - Games Day for free.
GW gives nothing, nada, nilch, zippo away anymore. Well, unless you spend $100 first, then they will throw in a free marine that costs them 5 cents to make....
/sarcasmoff
I could do with a GW Zippo ... where do I go to get the free one of those?
OT: I bought the new rules and am just beginning to peruse the books.
Leerjawise wrote: Haven't seen it posted, but slight IC change, the wording is now "They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures" instead of the previous vehicle squadron/single model unit wording
If this is the complete wording, then ICs can now join people like Mephiston and Castellan Crowe.
Garion wrote: Now we need only the FAQ... I wonder where they will put them on the website...
Hopefully on the front page of GW in big bold letters
GW doesn't do FAQs anymore..... new site doesn't allow it.... besides, they can't sell FAQs so why would they do them? Heck, they don't even do their glorified retail store - Games Day for free.
GW gives nothing, nada, nilch, zippo away anymore. Well, unless you spend $100 first, then they will throw in a free marine that costs them 5 cents to make....
/sarcasmoff
Except FAQs came out immediately with 6th ed, not sure why the delay in faqs since last september would negate that edition comes with FAQs right after?
I did run across that all of the GW buildings (Manufactorum, Shrine of the Aquila, etc.) all have special rules attached to them ... kinda nice way to sell some extra kits, interesting business model there.
WrentheFaceless wrote:Except FAQs came out immediately with 6th ed, not sure why the delay in faqs since last september would negate that edition comes with FAQs right after?
Would you two please stop being helpful? We are trying to have a GW hate-fest here!
Leerjawise wrote: Haven't seen it posted, but slight IC change, the wording is now "They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures" instead of the previous vehicle squadron/single model unit wording
If this is the complete wording, then ICs can now join people like Mephiston and Castellan Crowe.
Sweet corpse empera that means i can make my black library marine (all chapter masters and captain lv models) unit in unbound SQEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I wonder what other fun things we can do.
I can walk a culexus assassin with a tanking body that needs a LD check just to shoot it.
Holy moly thinking about it, a culexus assassin with 2 GK librarians, and 3IG primarus psykers attached would make for a assault 7 ap2 attack at 12" but cannot be shot unless you pass a ld3 LD check (add two more GK techmarines for 2 more assault and more warpcharges. Then they also can generate a boat load of warp charges.
WrentheFaceless wrote:Except FAQs came out immediately with 6th ed, not sure why the delay in faqs since last september would negate that edition comes with FAQs right after?
Would you two please stop being helpful? We are trying to have a GW hate-fest here!
Toburk wrote: I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?
No, not really I guess.
Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.
Spoletta wrote: It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.
Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?
Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.
Guys, we are able to pick any number of detachments, right? As long as we respect the minimum 1 HQ + 2 Troops from each. And there is no restriction of faction between them, right?
I mean, can I pick a detachment of Space Marines and other of Eldar not using Allies? Or is there a rule preventing you to pick the detachments from another faction, if not allied?
I ask this because if you can, anyone can pick 4 Heralds or a Warlock council, as it is technically your 'primary' detachment... or am I mistaken?
Leerjawise wrote: Haven't seen it posted, but slight IC change, the wording is now "They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures" instead of the previous vehicle squadron/single model unit wording
I wish they had an exception that let me put heralds on chariots into my cavalcade...
Toburk wrote: I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?
No, not really I guess.
Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.
Spoletta wrote: It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.
Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?
Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.
My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!
Pro-tip: when trying to be clever on the internet, it helps if you actually respond to what was said instead of spinning off into strawmanland.
Toburk wrote: I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?
No, not really I guess.
Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.
Spoletta wrote: It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.
Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?
Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.
My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!
Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?
I mean, ST3+6+D3 ended up being a minimum of 10 and max of 12. I totally get that potential 12 > guaranteed 10, but practically and realistically how often were you really getting rear armor on a vehicle and penning it with sniper rifles.
I guess I'm trying to discern how much of this is "This change hurts me," and how much is "This got demonstrably worse in a very situational condition."
Auswin wrote: Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?
I mean, ST3+6+D3 ended up being a minimum of 10 and max of 12. I totally get that potential 12 > guaranteed 10, but practically and realistically how often were you really getting rear armor on a vehicle and penning it with sniper rifles.
I guess I'm trying to discern how much of this is "This change hurts me," and how much is "This got demonstrably worse in a very situational condition."
Auswin wrote: Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?
I mean, ST3+6+D3 ended up being a minimum of 10 and max of 12. I totally get that potential 12 > guaranteed 10, but practically and realistically how often were you really getting rear armor on a vehicle and penning it with sniper rifles.
I guess I'm trying to discern how much of this is "This change hurts me," and how much is "This got demonstrably worse in a very situational condition."
I suspect it's mostly the latter.
It's mostly "This weapon, which was already pretty terrible, was made worse for no discernible reason."
The only reason a design team would make a weapon less effective (whether overall or against certain targets) is that they believe it is too effective (overall or against those targets). It seems likely that this conclusion was drawn from in-house test games in which sniper rifles were found to be very good at... well something anyway. However, this would indicate that the test games played by the design team do not reflect an intelligent use of the rules/mechanics of the game, hence the derision flung their way.
wow is the hobby book HUGELY disappointing. some nice photos, but basically a hardcover version of the white dwarf of a year ago, including the advertisements for books, novels, and datasheets!
I suppose mostly playing Dark Eldar I come from a different perspective, but it was pretty obnoxious to easily lose a transport and potentially a bunch of troops to low-cost snipers because vehicles happen to be made out of paper.
DE are paper, I get that -- heck losing raiders to boltguns suck. However, worst case scenario they'd get wrecked and my troops survived. On no fewer than three occasions I've lost transports and had an explosion result that took out roughly 150 pts from a 60pt scout squad without my opponent having to throw weight of fire or a significant heavy weapon in my direction.
Toburk wrote: I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?
No, not really I guess.
Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.
Spoletta wrote: It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.
Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?
Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.
My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!
That is not at all what Peregrine was saying.
I think it adequately summarises the extreme sillyness of how he puts across his point.
Not that's it a particularly good one anyway, because as every Peregrine post like this does, it completely ignores any and all prospect of GW doing anything right at all, which is especially relevant when he's comparing them to fast food workers, which is a clear insult on levels of intelligence.
Removing rending from sniper rifles makes perfect sense; they retained the relevant part of it but should not be able to penetrate tanks. However, removing pinning is questionable, and seems like unnecessary nerf.
Toburk wrote: I caught that comment too. Doesn't 6th edition make so much sense now that we know GW's internal meta was chaplain heavy, melee Space Marine lists?
No, not really I guess.
Honestly, some of it does. 6th had a lot of assault nerfs, and that would be explained by GW's special snowflake metagame being all about melee marine lists. Someone probably thought that shooting needed to improve so shooting-focused lists wouldn't get tabled as often, and they were all too hilariously stupid to spend even a few minutes looking at how their customers play the game to realize how wrong they were about everything.
Spoletta wrote: It did lose rending, it just got AP2 on 6 to wound in it's place.
Wow. GW, you are a bunch of ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?
Anyone with any sense at all knows that sniper rifles are garbage in 6th, and completely ineffective against vehicles. And yet somehow someone at GW concluded that they needed to be nerfed even more? The only plausible explanation is that someone got tabled by a sniper-heavy army and got their revenge by nerfing their opponent's army in the new edition.
My toy soldiers aren't as effective as they used to be?! Grrr grrr incompetent and uneducated morons!
Pro-tip: when trying to be clever on the internet, it helps if you actually respond to what was said instead of spinning off into strawmanland.
Pro-tip: When looking for an excuse to cry "strawman, strawman!" You should probably distinguish between when the flaws of an attitude are pointed out rather than the flaws of an argument.
What Peregrine says is probably true in regards to the unneeded nature of the nerf itself, but his attitude is just poor and ignores the overall picture.
Crimson wrote: Removing rending from sniper rifles makes perfect sense; they retained the relevant part of it but should not be able to penetrate tanks. However, removing pinning is questionable, and seems like unnecessary nerf.
This, I totally get. Removing pinning doesn't make sense.
I suppose ultimately I just feel like sometimes (and GW certainly is guilty of this) too many players look at everything from an imperium-centric point of view.
Like, yes your 60pt scout squad took a hit -- but my 45 pt base Kabalite Warrior squad would kill for better leadership, S4/T4, a 36" weapon that can be AP2 on a 6 and 4+ armor.
no_to_co wrote: Argh! Where is the iPad version? Still says pre-order.
You will have to wait.
It was important for the PDF version to available so it could be leaked worldwide and convince people it's worth seperating them from their $85 to get the hardcopy.
---------
One question for those who have a copy in hand, what size is the book ?
I don't recall what put the idea in my head, but I'm worried I'll be dropping $85 for 3 little journal sized books
buddha wrote: Some odd things in the rulebook I noticed.
- No fortifications are listed that I could see (might be an idiot). Currently no way to take something like an aegis defense line.
- I.
I seem to recall a line talking about fortifications being in Stronghold Assault, and to consult that book.
It does. I'm just surprised it didn't have the standard fortifications as listed in the 6th BRB in it. Without the stronghold assault book, no way to take fortifications currently. Kinda a douche move actually.
adamsouza wrote: Is stronghold assault a book that currently exists, or is it something they plan on selling us down the line ?
It's a book that came out about 9 months ago or so. Most people were claiming it wasn't mandatory and if someone wanted to use it, they can refuse to play them. So now GW incorporated it into the book so it's "official" now. I am sure it will say want to use this, look in the Stronghold book to use it.
adamsouza wrote: Is stronghold assault a book that currently exists, or is it something they plan on selling us down the line ?
It's a book that came out about 9 months ago or so. Most people were claiming it wasn't mandatory and if someone wanted to use it, they can refuse to play them. So now GW incorporated it into the book so it's "official" now. I am sure it will say want to use this, look in the Stronghold book to use it.
$33 for 48 pages ? WTF
They through CODEX in front of it, so now it's all official like.
Plus, this way they suckered anyone who bought, or built, fortifications in 6E to buy the book for 7E legal datasheets
ClockworkZion wrote: What's the point of a nice looking army if you know how badly you'll be tabled before the game starts?
Hence why I started playing some game which name I will not mention, that allows me to have a nice very thematic army that includes some of the weakest model in the faction, and I am still able to do some nice results in tournament . I am pretty sure there are plenty of other games around which allows the same thing, actually.
I never understood that gak, and never cared about it either. Nobody had a problem with it.
ClockworkZion wrote: I love the models and the setting but depending on this edition and how it goes together I may just move to collecting/painting things I want to collect and paint and just flip the bird to the game itself until it changes.
Well, if you do not play, why do you care about (not) being tabled? Now you lost your only excuse not to buy that awesome Sister model .
buddha wrote: - I couldn't stop laughing at the "Impure thoughts" quote with the sister of battle as the picture.
Has the Precision Shots rule been clarified for the sake of the Imperial Guard's "Take Aim!" order? Or does it still suggest in a vague way that all shots rather than just 6's get to choose their wounds?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: [
Hence why I started playing some game which name I will not mention, that allows me to have a nice very thematic army that includes some of the weakest model in the faction, and I am still able to do some nice results in tournament . I am pretty sure there are plenty of other games around which allows the same thing, actually.
Warmahordes? How about Dropzone Commander. Lets start naming other alternatives. Why will you not mention them? We are not in a GW store we can say there is other games that exist outside of GW.
Kelly502 wrote: Has anyone played through a battle or two yet? If so how did it go?
FLGS began to sell the book for a few of us the long timers,( because saturday he can't be open, and have to do something private matters related), so my mates allready had a few games like 3 or 4.
General concensus is that the 7th ed rebalance some stuffs, doesn't break too much, at least stuffs that din't need it, and all in all they are satisfied, even if the general opinion is that 65euro for some rules tweakings here and there and the addition of a new Phase, its a bit of a rip off.
Its something akin to 3rd Ed Experimental Assault rules and Lesser Psychic Powers, something that have been done in chapter Approved in the WD, was more then sufficient.
Here its the exact same situation, except they labeled it 7th Ed and made you pay for it.
Just flipped throught the hobby and fluff books, since i suspected that nothing major would be changed, spoted what might be the futur orks cover, like mentioned in theAppropriate thread.
Now the new rules, are much more clearer, and well written, i suspect that there might be some errors here and there, but i din't see any for now.
The book design is a bit bleak and too much "Iphone"-y for my taste, but i can understand that the 6th book designe was a nightmare for the digital books, with all the images and backgrounds and texts that would move around etc;
This book designe is cleaner and neat, even if it is borring.
It will take a will to have new habits when handling it, the USR section is in the 150-170 page range and the pages numbers are on the upper side of the pages not the bottom like usual.
I know it might sound stupid, but when you are acustomed to looking instinctly to the bottom of the page, and you found nothing, and it takes you a few secs to realise that theyr arn't on this part of the page anymore, it become annoying.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Has the Precision Shots rule been clarified for the sake of the Imperial Guard's "Take Aim!" order? Or does it still suggest in a vague way that all shots rather than just 6's get to choose their wounds?
It was mentioned by someone earlier that yes, the Precision shots special rule now only allows you to choose your target on a 6. So IG don't get blobs of super snipers anymore.
ClockworkZion wrote: What's the point of a nice looking army if you know how badly you'll be tabled before the game starts?
Hence why I started playing some game which name I will not mention, that allows me to have a nice very thematic army that includes some of the weakest model in the faction, and I am still able to do some nice results in tournament . I am pretty sure there are plenty of other games around which allows the same thing, actually.
Warmachine, Hordes, X-Wing, MtG, 40k and Fantasy are the games of choice here. Not counting RPGs of course.
ClockworkZion wrote: I love the models and the setting but depending on this edition and how it goes together I may just move to collecting/painting things I want to collect and paint and just flip the bird to the game itself until it changes.
Well, if you do not play, why do you care about (not) being tabled? Now you lost your only excuse not to buy that awesome Sister model .
I think you need glasses because I commented about the limited selection of models was a problem for me too.
Not getting my book til tommorow but curious about the Daemon / Chaos thing, does this mean that Chaos auto get their gods Primarus + the Primaris of another Discpline and get to roll or their Chaos Gods discipline takes the place of that primaris, because if true then Daemons can never summon daemons or use the Summoning spell, LoL.
What I mean is
Herald of Tzeentch - LVL 3 , Chooses Daemonlogy
Gets Flickering Fire Automatically
Gets Summoning because if Focuses in Daemonology
Then Get's to roll 3 Times
So he knows 5 powers
OR
Herald of Tzeentch LVL 3
Gets Flickering Fire Automatically
Then because he already has a Free Primaris
Rolls 3 times on the chart
One way means more spells, the other way means Daemons and Chaos Space Marines can never ever cast the Summoning Spell. Which is HILARIOUS.
I would if I'd bothered to buy the 6th ed book. I've been out of the game for a long time and have been intending to get back into it but was distracted by other games (LOTR SBG)- went so far as to the 6th ed Space Marine codex last December.
If you willingly went in blind and bought it before reading reviews or even some of the confirmed information we have, then it's your own fault honestly.
Seriously, people need to take a step back and make informed purchases instead of saddling themselves with buyer's remorse all the time.
It just pushes me away from getting into the game. The attitude is just all sorts of "ugh" for me.
I see this a lot and really don't understand it. Nothing about Page 5 seems like it would invoke that feeling.
Do you know what Page 5 says (without Googling or looking)?
It starts off by telling you to play with some (metaphorical) balls. The tone of the whole thing comes off as a bit aggressive and in your face and I just don't like it.
I have a rulebook within 6' of me for the game and while I've tried to give the game a fair shake that page 5 gak is just one of many things I don't like about the game.
It starts off by telling you to play with some (metaphorical) balls. The tone of the whole thing comes off as a bit aggressive and in your face and I just don't like it.
I have a rulebook within 6' of me for the game and while I've tried to give the game a fair shake that page 5 gak is just one of many things I don't like about the game.
Nope, it ends with "Play like you've got a pair", which if you read the rest, is tongue in cheek. Do you know what else it says?
I'm watching the SG stream while working and while they're doing a great job I can't understand why the heck they decided to kick it off with BA vs. Crons.
It's one of the most one-sided matchups there is right now, accentuated by four doom scythes and very little influence in the psychic phase -- because crons.
I dunno, seems like a really odd way to showcase the new edition.
Sounding, no doubt, like an incorrigible grognard here I suppose.
Maybe I missed someone else commenting on it, but it would appear that the new Malific powers mark another death knell for the richness of the Chaos of 40k past...
All the Daemonic units are summoned in measures of 5 and 10?
There once was a day when fluff was the backbone of the game...
But I guess that's all to better allow players to forge a narrative. Or something.
Every bit of potential good news I've heard about v7 seems to get rapidly swamped by yet another sign that the richness of what once was 40k is being diluted, changed for the sake of copyright(tm), and/or retconed or grim darked out of existence.
The simple fact is that the 40k rules are, at their core, nothing more than 1970's-era Donald Featherstone mechanics overlaid with layer after layer of kludged-on chrome. There is very, very little in the mechanics of the game which make it a compelling experience when compared to the more sophisticated sets of rules that are on the market today. The background is really what made the game, but GW seems determined to undermine that in favor of their current path where the fluff approaches incomprehensible grim dark self-parody. Which, I suppose, works with their avowed target audience, but it is, in the end, mighty thin gruel.
In my recent games of 40k, I've enjoyed myself because of the people I game with, not because of the rules. More precisely I've enjoyed them because of the people and *despite* the rules.
I honestly haven't decided if my long term relationship with 40k, going back to the Rogue Trader-era, is really over yet but I'd say, at the very least the magic is gone, we're on a trial separation, seeing other people, and I'm trying to decide if its worth it to stick together for the sake of the kids.
It starts off by telling you to play with some (metaphorical) balls. The tone of the whole thing comes off as a bit aggressive and in your face and I just don't like it.
I have a rulebook within 6' of me for the game and while I've tried to give the game a fair shake that page 5 gak is just one of many things I don't like about the game.
Nope, it ends with "Play like you've got a pair", which if you read the rest, is tongue in cheek. Do you know what else it says?
It doesn't read that tongue in cheek to me. Probably because I've know to many people who are legitimately like that. And if you're asking if I've got it memorized, I don't. I don't want to either because I don't care.
You're not going to sell me on the game, especially not in a rumor thread for 40k. Don't bother PMing me about how great you think the game is either because I don't want to hear it. The ridiculious levels of "YOU SHOULD LIKE WARMACHINE! WHY YOU NO LIKE WARMACHINE? WARMACHINE IS THE GREATEST!" I've run into has put me off of dealing with the community too. And it's hardly a parody of parts of the community when after having said I wasn't that interested in Warmachine in an older thread I had two people start to badger me about playing.
Seriously, I just don't like it, so drop it because I'm not eating your Green Eggs and Ham Sam-I-Am.
cygnnus wrote: Maybe I missed someone else commenting on it, but it would appear that the new Malific powers mark another death knell for the richness of the Chaos of 40k past...
All the Daemonic units are summoned in measures of 5 and 10?
There once was a day when fluff was the backbone of the game...
I guess that's all to better allow players to forge a narrative.
Every bit of potential good news I've heard about v7 seems to get rapidly swamped by yet another sign that the richness of what once was 40k is being diluted, copyrighted (tm), and/or retconed out of existance.
Valete,
JohnS
While I agree that the chaos fluff seems to be getting watered down, I do see the logistical point of making the summoned units an even 10. No favoritism for one and its convenient that the box set has 10 models (hardly coincidental)
It doesn't read that tongue in cheek to me. Probably because I've know to many people who are legitimately like that. And if you're asking if I've got it memorized, I don't. I don't want to either because I don't care.
You're not going to sell me on the game, especially not in a rumor thread for 40k. Don't bother PMing me about how great you think the game is either because I don't want to hear it. The ridiculious levels of "YOU SHOULD LIKE WARMACHINE! WHY YOU NO LIKE WARMACHINE? WARMACHINE IS THE GREATEST!" I've run into has put me off of dealing with the community too. And it's hardly a parody of parts of the community when after having said I wasn't that interested in Warmachine in an older thread I had two people start to badger me about playing.
Seriously, I just don't like it, so drop it because I'm not eating your Green Eggs and Ham Sam-I-Am.
First, you can drop the aggression. I'm not being pugilistic and I'm not trying to convert you to the game. I don't know you and if you decide to play Star Wars, 40k, Warmahordes, etc etc. it has no effect on me or on my life...and there is no reason to spam emoticons. So, no, I'm not badgering you about playing. You seem very disinterested in the game--so that would be the last person I would want to play against.
The reason I ask--is that I've seen that repeated a few times and it's nonsensical to me. Half of "Page 5" is dedicated to winning graciously, losing graciously and not diminishing another player because you beat him at toy soldiers. In fact, to paraphrase as I don't have the page in front of me, I believe it states "..we all come here out of a common need to play/have fun so give respect to each other". That's pretty much the best gaming attitude I can imagine. So, if I see that (what I believe) misrepresented--I usually ask what about Page 5 upsets someone--as it's usually the mythology of Page 5 more than the actual content.
How this relates to 40k (and the new rule set) is that with what we've seen leaked so far--we can see two different companies having two, very real, differences on game design. One is "Have a pint, you can make it fair" the other is "We'll make everything fair, anything goes because of that". I used to be a believer in the "Just make it fair"..until I realized there was so much grey in "fair" that I felt like I was doing the job of game design just to play a game. It appears this rule set is more of the same. Anyways...
It starts off by telling you to play with some (metaphorical) balls. The tone of the whole thing comes off as a bit aggressive and in your face and I just don't like it.
I have a rulebook within 6' of me for the game and while I've tried to give the game a fair shake that page 5 gak is just one of many things I don't like about the game.
Nope, it ends with "Play like you've got a pair", which if you read the rest, is tongue in cheek. Do you know what else it says?
It doesn't read that tongue in cheek to me. Probably because I've know to many people who are legitimately like that. And if you're asking if I've got it memorized, I don't. I don't want to either because I don't care.
You're not going to sell me on the game, especially not in a rumor thread for 40k. Don't bother PMing me about how great you think the game is either because I don't want to hear it. The ridiculious levels of "YOU SHOULD LIKE WARMACHINE! WHY YOU NO LIKE WARMACHINE? WARMACHINE IS THE GREATEST!" I've run into has put me off of dealing with the community too. And it's hardly a parody of parts of the community when after having said I wasn't that interested in Warmachine in an older thread I had two people start to badger me about playing.
Seriously, I just don't like it, so drop it because I'm not eating your Green Eggs and Ham Sam-I-Am.
WarmaHorde fans....the Jehovah's Witnesses of wargaming!
It starts off by telling you to play with some (metaphorical) balls. The tone of the whole thing comes off as a bit aggressive and in your face and I just don't like it.
I have a rulebook within 6' of me for the game and while I've tried to give the game a fair shake that page 5 gak is just one of many things I don't like about the game.
Nope, it ends with "Play like you've got a pair", which if you read the rest, is tongue in cheek. Do you know what else it says?
It doesn't read that tongue in cheek to me. Probably because I've know to many people who are legitimately like that. And if you're asking if I've got it memorized, I don't. I don't want to either because I don't care.
You're not going to sell me on the game, especially not in a rumor thread for 40k. Don't bother PMing me about how great you think the game is either because I don't want to hear it. The ridiculious levels of "YOU SHOULD LIKE WARMACHINE! WHY YOU NO LIKE WARMACHINE? WARMACHINE IS THE GREATEST!" I've run into has put me off of dealing with the community too. And it's hardly a parody of parts of the community when after having said I wasn't that interested in Warmachine in an older thread I had two people start to badger me about playing.
Seriously, I just don't like it, so drop it because I'm not eating your Green Eggs and Ham Sam-I-Am.
wow that's exactly my reasoning too. My group changed wh40k to wmh and I just decided not to play with them anymore. Don't like any of that gak.
Does anyone know if there will be a new starter? because if there are no rumors for it then I might as well buy the ipad version tonight. I would rather have a starter set with a minirulebook though.
AgeOfEgos wrote: First, you can drop the aggression. I'm not being pugilistic and I'm not trying to convert you to the game. I don't know you and if you decide to play Star Wars, 40k, Warmahordes, etc etc. it has no effect on me or on my life...and there is no reason to spam emoticons. So, no, I'm not badgering you about playing. You seem very disinterested in the game--so that would be the last person I would want to play against.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been badgered, harrassed and generally chewed out for not wanting to get into Warmachine. I feel I gave it a fair shake (I mean I actually own the rulebook and bought a starter set so it's not like I just read some stuff online and decided to hate the game). I've just run into too many unagreeable fans who can't understand that sometimes people don't like the things they like and won't drop it. That was quite honestly not aggression, that was me going out of my way to eliminate any possibility I could be talked into the game before I had to go down that road. AGAIN. I've been there, got the t-shirt and don't want to go back.
AgeOfEgos wrote: The reason I ask--is that I've seen that repeated a few times and it's nonsensical to me. Half of "Page 5" is dedicated to winning graciously, losing graciously and not diminishing another player because you beat him at toy soldiers. In fact, to paraphrase as I don't have the page in front of me, I believe it states "..we all come here out of a common need to play/have fun so give respect to each other". That's pretty much the best gaming attitude I can imagine. So, if I see that (what I believe) misrepresented--I usually ask what about Page 5 upsets someone--as it's usually the mythology of Page 5 more than the actual content.
Even if you want to call it tounge in cheek frankly there is just stuff I don't like about the tone of the way page 5 is. From accusing people who've ever said something was too powerful of being "wussies" to refering to people as "ruthless bastards" and "cold-hearted killers" doesn't sell me on the community. Even in jest it sounds like they're saying the game only attracts the most emotionally screwed up and sociopathic of players. That doesn't sell me on the game, that tells me I should have the cops on speed-dial with someone breaks out a Warmachine army because they're unhinged and might hurt someone.
3,4 and 5 aren't bad, they're actually good points but the whole thing being topped off with "Play like you've got a pair" just whiplashes it back to the same adolescent, testosterone laiden tone that just doesn't sell me on the game. I don't want a game that tells me that I should be mentally ripping someone limb from limb, regardless of the tone. It just doesn't sell me on the game and is just one of a number of things that just kept me from really getting into the game.
AgeOfEgos wrote: How this relates to 40k (and the new rule set) is that with what we've seen leaked so far--we can see two different companies having two, very real, differences on game design. One is "Have a pint, you can make it fair" the other is "We'll make everything fair, anything goes because of that". I used to be a believer in the "Just make it fair"..until I realized there was so much grey in "fair" that I felt like I was doing the job of game design just to play a game. It appears this rule set is more of the same. Anyways...
40k's approach has been like that for literally decades now. They don't sell an "aggressive" game. They sell one where the "Spirit of the Game" says that you should try and make the game enjoyable for yourself and your opponent. Now, could it use a much better ruleset to go with that? Sure. But the more laid back and less aggressive style GW has isn't a bad one. The style is fine, the substance needs more work.
I don't think you guys are entirely at odds here... you acknowledge the problem as one, it's just the reaction that is different. Put up with the crap for the good moments, or good moments ruined by too much putting up with crap. Frankly personally I don't see a problem with either perspective so long as it is your perspective and not something you use to judge others and cause even more conflict.
For the record, I have no interest in playing WarMahordes. Heard it's a good system, but I just don't like the aesthetics which is a big part of it for me. So, there is generally the same spectrum of preference among the Mods as there is in the rest of the users...
Anyways, this thread is getting a bit nuts. Everyone needs to calm down, right away or the party will be over. The release of a new edition is guaranteed to bring out the most entrenched people in both camps, and you are most definitely going to face all the 'greatest hits' comments from both white knights and haters. Repeatedly. If you can't live with that, you probably shouldn't be reading this thread anymore lol. Yes I know it sucks that some people are so black and white, but it doesn't change that they exist and however unproductive it may be, everyone has a right to their opinions... all you have to do is be polite about it. So, please, let's get back to addressing arguments and not he quality or intent of the person posting them.
Auswin wrote: Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?
Because they went from getting a 10-12 from a 6 to pen to getting a 10 from a 6 to pen. It's a clear and unnecessary nerf, and only someone as unbelievably stupid as GW's rule authors could think that it's a good idea.
Also, the fact that sniper rifles were already bad against vehicles is kind of the point. They were garbage already and nobody used them, so making them even worse makes no sense at all.
Mr.Omega wrote: Not that's it a particularly good one anyway, because as every Peregrine post like this does, it completely ignores any and all prospect of GW doing anything right at all
I'll stop ignoring the prospect of GW doing anything right when they start to show some hint that they're capable of doing something right other than through blind luck. So far GW haven't demonstrated that they're any better at writing rules than the average 5 year old smearing paint all over a sheet of paper.
Because they went from getting a 10-12 from a 6 to pen to getting a 10 from a 6 to pen. It's a clear and unnecessary nerf, and only someone as unbelievably stupid as GW's rule authors could think that it's a good idea.
I suppose I see it making perfect sense. Penning vehicles with snipers was obviously an unintended side effect of giving them rending, even if as you said "nobody took them."
Sometimes a "nerf" is there to remove an unintended consequence, like say a 60pt unit having a semi-reliable way to explode xenos transports.
Then there's a separate discussion to be had whether finding edge cases being closed that barely anyone used anyway is an actual "nerf." Personally I don't think it is. The way I use the term is seeing a demonstrable reduction in effectiveness to something that was previously widely used. Otherwise it feels like getting upset for the sake of being upset.
I asked this previously in the but about Daemons automatically getting their Chosen Gods Primaris, if that's true and they pick another disclipine they can never get Focus, but that would mean they could never take the Primaris power unless the rule for replacing a roll with the Primaris power is still in place. Is this correct?
Auswin wrote: Unless there's something I'm missing, why exactly are sniper rifles considerably worse because of the specific change from rending on a 6 to AP2 on a 6?
Because they went from getting a 10-12 from a 6 to pen to getting a 10 from a 6 to pen. It's a clear and unnecessary nerf, and only someone as unbelievably stupid as GW's rule authors could think that it's a good idea.
Also, the fact that sniper rifles were already bad against vehicles is kind of the point. They were garbage already and nobody used them, so making them even worse makes no sense at all.
Mr.Omega wrote: Not that's it a particularly good one anyway, because as every Peregrine post like this does, it completely ignores any and all prospect of GW doing anything right at all
I'll stop ignoring the prospect of GW doing anything right when they start to show some hint that they're capable of doing something right other than through blind luck. So far GW haven't demonstrated that they're any better at writing rules than the average 5 year old smearing paint all over a sheet of paper.
Why should a Sniper Rifle be able to damage a vehicle? They are antipersonnel weapons primarily, and can damage/disable light vehicles. Nerfing Sniper Rifles against vehicles is actually a really good idea. The problem is they didn't help it at it's primary job of taking out weapons specialists and the enemies leadership.
I can see a sniper rifle being used to, say, kill the pilot or a gunner through a window or port hole. Penetrating the armor, like rolling a 1 for an armor save, doesn't necessarily mean punching through the armor but rather hitting somewhere the armor isn't protecting.
But more importantly, the problem isn't so much they're worse at anti-tank, but that they made a weak weapon weaker and gave nothing to compensate for it.
Why did sniper rifles need something to compensate for the change to rending? It's already an amazing weapon as is.
Given it's a free upgrade to an already cheap squad it's already able wound MC in a way few free weapons can, it has 36" range which is well above average, it can precise shot and becomes AP2 on 16% of wounds.
The sniper rifle is only "weak" when you've become conditioned to the reliability of S4 AP4 rapid fire bolters.
Edit: I should say that maybe my mileage using and facing snipers is different to others. I run 10 man scout squads with snipers and have faced them, it always seems my scout squads earn their points back -- sometimes more.
Auswin wrote: Penning vehicles with snipers was obviously an unintended side effect of giving them rending, even if as you said "nobody took them."
No it wasn't, because the description of sniper rifles even talked about how rending represents hitting vulnerable parts of the target (fuel tanks, sensors, etc) and rules-wise the only reason to have sniper rifles count as STR 3 against vehicles (instead of just STR 1 or whatever) is a deliberate choice to give them a small chance of damaging a vehicle.
Sometimes a "nerf" is there to remove an unintended consequence, like say a 60pt unit having a semi-reliable way to explode xenos transports.
You have a strange definition of "semi-reliable" if that counts.
Then there's a separate discussion to be had whether finding edge cases being closed that barely anyone used anyway is an actual "nerf."
Except, as explained above, it isn't an accidental edge case. And the only reason sniper rifles aren't widely used is that they're too weak. Only a absolute idiot like GW's rule authors would look at a rarely-used weapon and think "what this really needs is to be even weaker".
Because putting a bullet into the lens on the targeting system for the main gun on a tank (a "weapon destroyed" result from a penetrating hit) doesn't care about the vehicle's armor. Rending represents that kind of unlikely hit to a weak spot on the tank. You won't do it consistently (either fluff-wise or in the game), but it can happen.
Meh, it is what it is. We wont convince each other on this one.
You seem very attached to the "GW rules writers are idiots" narrative and appear to view everything through that lens.
I tend to think that some of the stuff is flawed and they don't play test enough to iron out the kinks, but most of the stuff is totally serviceable and fine except for some weird outliers.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I can see a sniper rifle being used to, say, kill the pilot or a gunner through a window or port hole. Penetrating the armor, like rolling a 1 for an armor save, doesn't necessarily mean punching through the armor but rather hitting somewhere the armor isn't protecting.
But more importantly, the problem isn't so much they're worse at anti-tank, but that they made a weak weapon weaker and gave nothing to compensate for it.
Games Workshop's 5th Edition Rulebook wrote:Against vehicles, sniper weapons count as Strength 3, which, combined with the rending rule, represents their chances of successfully hitting exposed crew, vision ports, fuel or ammo storage, etc.
Snipers vs. Vehicles was not and has never been an "unintended consequence" as some posters are suggesting. They've just decided to weaken them for no reason.
Honestly, I don't care because my main army (GK) doesn't have them. However I will disagree with anyone who claims that this is anything other than an unnecessary nerf.
No, it really isn't. It's a terrible weapon that only sees occasional use when you don't want to invest the points required to get a melta or plasma gun (or the unit can't take real weapons instead).
I run 10 man scout squads with snipers and have faced them, it always seems my scout squads earn their points back -- sometimes more.
Only because they're dirt cheap objective campers (in an army that otherwise doesn't have any cheap bodies) where any kills they inflict are a nice bonus. If you look at sniper rifles on any other unit they're a garbage weapon that nobody takes. The fact that sniper scouts are a way to make your objective campers contribute a bit of shooting shouldn't be used to justify nerfing an already weak option for every other unit that can take it.
Like I said earlier, funny things happen when "unnecessary" equates to "it doesn't affect MY army."
Lose a unit of blasterborn and a venom to an explosion result from a sniper rend, then see the rest of the unit run off the table and suddenly that cheap unit that "nobody uses" tripled its value out of the gate.
Whatever fluffy justification they had for hitting weak points had major implications to some xenos armies with low AV transports, especially when paired with infiltrate.
Auswin wrote: You seem very attached to the "GW rules writers are idiots" narrative and appear to view everything through that lens.
That's because GW's rule authors are idiots. They consistently make stupid changes that pretty much everyone else can immediately recognize as a bad idea, and they don't seem to even understand that they have a problem. The only other explanation is that they just don't give a about the quality of their work and throw something together in 15 minutes before the deadline so they can get back to watching porn and playing WoW.
but most of the stuff is totally serviceable and fine except for some weird outliers.
Only if you have low standards. "It is possible to play the game" shouldn't be sufficient to consider a game designer a competent professional. Judged by more demanding standards GW's rules fall laughably short.
I know it has been posted that wounds from challenges roll over to the unit, but more importantly in my mind, it works vice versa, once every other model is destroyed, the units wounds will apply to the challenge. No more having a challenged Nob making a whole unit of Boyz sitting around waiting for the combat to stop
Has anyone answered what upgrades summoned daemons like the bloodthirster can take? e.g. daemonic rewards, instruments and banners for plaguebearers? Im referring to the malefic rules that allow bringing in daemons
I think my standards are fine, really. More that I recognize the well worn trope of "I know better than those idiots" which seeps its way into everything people invest time into.
"My favorite TV show had a crap ending, I could have written better."
"The ending to video game "X" was trash... I could have done better."
"Book three in (insert series) was terrible does (insert writer) even know what they're doing anymore?"
It comes from a good place because it's being passionate about something you care about, but the resulted arrogance tends to be the same too.
Leerjawise wrote: I know it has been posted that wounds from challenges roll over to the unit, but more importantly in my mind, it works vice versa, once every other model is destroyed, the units wounds will apply to the challenge. No more having a challenged Nob making a whole unit of Boyz sitting around waiting for the combat to stop
It only goes one way. They clearly state that models not in a challenge cannot allocate wounds into a challenge.
not to inject some reality into our plastic doodsmen discussion, but modern sniper rifles have gone waaaaay past being mainly for anti-personnel. the NTW-20 is a 20mm sniper rifle developed (primarily) by south africa and is used to blow up aircraft on the ground, fuel trucks, and light armored vehicles in addition to vaporizing regular guys. this thing came out in the early 90's, and there are larger weapons today.
so, no. it's not unrealistic/unexpected for an in-game sniper rifle to be able to damage the same kind of targets in the 41st millennium, but GW does what GW wants to do. they're like the honey badger of the wargaming world.
Hollismason wrote: I asked this previously in the but about Daemons automatically getting their Chosen Gods Primaris, if that's true and they pick another disclipine they can never get Focus, but that would mean they could never take the Primaris power unless the rule for replacing a roll with the Primaris power is still in place. Is this correct?
It seems like it. I mean, because of how Chaos (well at least the Marines, I'd need to look at Daemons more closely to answer definitely) manifests powers they can't specialize in one school so they get a free Primaris to match their God. That is unless the free Primaris counts as generating a power from their respective tables allowing them to still specialize.
In short: I don't know but I'd play it by the least advantageous interpretation until we get it FAQ'd........in 2026.
Hollismason wrote: I asked this previously in the but about Daemons automatically getting their Chosen Gods Primaris, if that's true and they pick another disclipine they can never get Focus, but that would mean they could never take the Primaris power unless the rule for replacing a roll with the Primaris power is still in place. Is this correct?
It seems like it. I mean, because of how Chaos (well at least the Marines, I'd need to look at Daemons more closely to answer definitely) manifests powers they can't specialize in one school so they get a free Primaris to match their God. That is unless the free Primaris counts as generating a power from their respective tables allowing them to still specialize.
In short: I don't know but I'd play it by the least advantageous interpretation until we get it FAQ'd........in 2026.
So the option to replace a power with the primaris is still in? (I won't get my book until monday).
Auswin wrote: Lose a unit of blasterborn and a venom to an explosion result from a sniper rend, then see the rest of the unit run off the table and suddenly that cheap unit that "nobody uses" tripled its value out of the gate.
Yes, and you know what also does that? Pretty much anything with any kind of heavy weapon. You're looking at an unlikely outcome (assuming no cover that's a 2% chance per sniper rifle shot, so your 60 point scout squad has only a 9% chance of doing it under ideal circumstances) and acting like it's an average outcome. And you're also assuming that destroying the transport also means destroying the unit, which reduces the odds of it happening even more.
Whatever fluffy justification they had for hitting weak points had major implications to some xenos armies with low AV transports, especially when paired with infiltrate.
So what? Autocannons have major implications to some xenos armies, should we nerf them as well? Should we nerf pulse rifles to only count as STR 1 against vehicles because otherwise Tau can kill vehicles? After all, a 60-point squad of fire warriors is even better at killing AV 10 than a 60-point squad of sniper scouts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Auswin wrote: It comes from a good place because it's being passionate about something you care about, but the resulted arrogance tends to be the same too.
Except in this case it isn't arrogance because GW really is that incompetent. It's more like going to your local restaurant and getting a plate of moldy food with shards of broken glass in it and thinking "you know, I could probably cook something better for myself".
It only goes one way. They clearly state that models not in a challenge cannot allocate wounds into a challenge.
No, it does not clearly state that.
Verbatim:
"Outside Forces
Whilst the challenge is ongoing, other models locked in the
combat can only allocate Wounds to the models involved in the
challenge after all other enemy models that are locked in that
combat (if any) have been removed as casualties, even if the
models fighting in a challenge are the closest models"
Once the rest of the unit is dead, the wounds apply to the challenge
It only goes one way. They clearly state that models not in a challenge cannot allocate wounds into a challenge.
No, it does not clearly state that.
Verbatim:
"Outside Forces
Whilst the challenge is ongoing, other models locked in the
combat can only allocate Wounds to the models involved in the
challenge after all other enemy models that are locked in that
combat (if any) have been removed as casualties, even if the
models fighting in a challenge are the closest models"
Once the rest of the unit is dead, the wounds apply to the challenge
Sorry, skimmed past that too fast I guess. I stand corrected!
Also noting it doesn't let your models gang up on the enemy challenger, just overflow wounds into them.
Also noting it doesn't let your models gang up on the enemy challenger, just overflow wounds into them.
It does, doesn't it? All that it says is that they can't apply wounds to models in the challenges until everyone else is gone.
It doesn't say that they aren't engaged, so as long as they are within 2" of a model in base contact, every other model should get their attacks, even if the enemy leader is the only model left.
Davor wrote: Warmahordes? How about Dropzone Commander.
Yeah, Warmahorde. I know at my LGS, the owner would like to try Dropzone Commander, but lacks opponents to do so.
Davor wrote: Lets start naming other alternatives. Why will you not mention them? We are not in a GW store we can say there is other games that exist outside of GW.
In my case, because I knew naming Warmahordes would have annoyed Zion to no end, and my point was not about that specific game, it was rather about the idea that there are (many different) better games out there.
ClockworkZion wrote: It just pushes me away from getting into the game. The attitude is just all sorts of "ugh" for me.
I have hardly ever saw anyone play by them either. Or at the very least, use the same time of immature macho talk .
ClockworkZion wrote: I think you need glasses because I commented about the limited selection of models was a problem for me too.
Well, there is a cool new Sister Superior, that is better than nothing at all…
ClockworkZion wrote: Even in jest it sounds like they're saying the game only attracts the most emotionally screwed up and sociopathic of players.
I am not an emotionally screwed up sociopath, and I will brutally murder anyone who disagree with that before defiling their corpses with great prejudice to prove my point .
Automatically Appended Next Post: So, now challenge is just about changing the priority for wound allocations, without affecting in any way the models' ability to fight? Seems like a nice and fair change.
Yes, and you know what also does that? Pretty much anything with any kind of heavy weapon. You're looking at an unlikely outcome (assuming no cover that's a 2% chance per sniper rifle shot, so your 60 point scout squad has only a 9% chance of doing it under ideal circumstances) and acting like it's an average outcome. And you're also assuming that destroying the transport also means destroying the unit, which reduces the odds of it happening even more.
Whatever fluffy justification they had for hitting weak points had major implications to some xenos armies with low AV transports, especially when paired with infiltrate.
So what? Autocannons have major implications to some xenos armies, should we nerf them as well? Should we nerf pulse rifles to only count as STR 1 against vehicles because otherwise Tau can kill vehicles? After all, a 60-point squad of fire warriors is even better at killing AV 10 than a 60-point squad of sniper scouts.
Honestly I'm terribly sorry the one situational and occasionally-lackluster space marine unit is causing you such grief. It's a good thing whole swaths of the codex aren't largely pointless or overly-situational like the majority of non-SM armies deal with and are force to build around.
I play BA, GK and DA in addition to DE. So I do know what I'm talking about. Excuse me if my response to one small tweak on one occasionally-used unit doesn't cause me to cry a river.
I wonder when we will get army erratas. Apparently still no update for C:AS. But then again, GW might as well have completely forgotten it exists, I would not be surprised.
Leerjawise wrote: It does, doesn't it? All that it says is that they can't apply wounds to models in the challenges until everyone else is gone.
It doesn't say that they aren't engaged, so as long as they are within 2" of a model in base contact, every other model should get their attacks, even if the enemy leader is the only model left.
Or am I missing something?
There is nothing that allows outside forces to target the enemy challenger, just overflow wounds into him.
What's the point of a challenge if it just plays out like regular combat all the time anyways?
Leerjawise wrote: It does, doesn't it? All that it says is that they can't apply wounds to models in the challenges until everyone else is gone.
It doesn't say that they aren't engaged, so as long as they are within 2" of a model in base contact, every other model should get their attacks, even if the enemy leader is the only model left.
Or am I missing something?
There is nothing that allows outside forces to target the enemy challenger, just overflow wounds into him.
What's the point of a challenge if it just plays out like regular combat all the time anyways?
You don't get to say that cool "I challenge!" line. That's about it.
Unless a guy is on his own, then he gets to either avoid combat by the challenge being refused or gets to womp free hits onto a unit that can't attack him. Very Narrative. Much Forged.
It will certainly keep a 30 man Ork squad with a Nob from ever assaulting a lone model......Can Monstrous Creatures challenge in 7th?
gigasnail wrote: not to inject some reality into our plastic doodsmen discussion, but modern sniper rifles have gone waaaaay past being mainly for anti-personnel. the NTW-20 is a 20mm sniper rifle developed (primarily) by south africa and is used to blow up aircraft on the ground, fuel trucks, and light armored vehicles in addition to vaporizing regular guys. this thing came out in the early 90's, and there are larger weapons today.
so, no. it's not unrealistic/unexpected for an in-game sniper rifle to be able to damage the same kind of targets in the 41st millennium, but GW does what GW wants to do. they're like the honey badger of the wargaming world.
We're not talking about those things, we're talking about man portable I can drag this weapon in a drag bag, anti-personnel weapons used to shoot enemy combatants. Shooting a "weak" spot in a tank, or a fuel tank is preposterous! I have personally shot up vehicles and fuel tanks don't explode even when a full box of light machinegun ammo runs through it which means tracers are involved. You can shoot bad guys in civilian vehicles or technical vehicles, but tanks, armored personnel carriers generally don't have direct windows to shoot through to get the driver, it's generally a series of angled lenses he looks through, aka a periscope. So snipers, sharpshooters, long guns, whatever, are meant to take down troops. Generally effective especially when you're surrounded by a parameter of an Infantry Platoon covering you, otherwise you shoot and scoot, out of sight. So really since there are no civilian vehicles to shoot advancing troops in 40K then the fact that sniper gunners were used to take out vehicles is fixed. yay!!! I like my "camping" Scout Sniper Team!
There is nothing that allows outside forces to target the enemy challenger, just overflow wounds into him.
What's the point of a challenge if it just plays out like regular combat all the time anyways?
There is nothing that prevents outside forces from engaging the challenger either. Just allocating wounds. As Hybrid Son said, it just changes wound allocation order/priority for the models. It allows you to apply wounds to a character that could hide in the back ranks, ripping stuff apart. Also, it allows the challengers to use their own toughness and weapon skills instead of the unit majority values.
It was always kind of silly to have a horde of demons or Orks, standing in a circle going "Fight Fight FIght!" instead of getting stuck in
ntw-20 IS man portable. so is the 30mm version of it, though i personally don't want to carry either one of them.
40k has transhumans in power armor and space elves. if an anti-material rifle (which is really the more appropriate term for the larger 'sniper' rifles anyway) damaging light vehicles (which is what these weapons are used to do, and have been for the last 20+ years) is too much of a suspension of disbelief for you, well, lol, i dunno what to tell you.
but hey, enough of comparing 40k to real world weapons/tactics. we should all know by now, that way lies madness.
You don't get to say that cool "I challenge!" line. That's about it.
Unless a guy is on his own, then he gets to either avoid combat by the challenge being refused or gets to womp free hits onto a unit that can't attack him. Very Narrative. Much Forged.
It will certainly keep a 30 man Ork squad with a Nob from ever assaulting a lone model......Can Monstrous Creatures challenge in 7th?
I don't quite get your meaning. Why would the squad not assault a lone model? In both 6th and 7th, lone models cannot turn down challenges.
You don't get to say that cool "I challenge!" line. That's about it.
Unless a guy is on his own, then he gets to either avoid combat by the challenge being refused or gets to womp free hits onto a unit that can't attack him. Very Narrative. Much Forged.
It will certainly keep a 30 man Ork squad with a Nob from ever assaulting a lone model......Can Monstrous Creatures challenge in 7th?
I don't quite get your meaning. Why would the squad not assault a lone model? In both 6th and 7th, lone models cannot turn down challenges.
The big squad with a nob assaults a single Daemon Prince with a bunch of attacks that has a higher initiative (all of them have a higher initiative than orks) The Daemon Prince makes a challenge. Two choices.
1. Accept. The nob gets killed and the excess wounds kill a few more boyz. The boys cannot attack or engage the prince.
2. refuse. The only guy with a real chance to hurt the Prince can't attack it.
That was why I asked about Monstrous creatures.
The big squad with a nob assaults a single Daemon Prince with a bunch of attacks that has a higher initiative (all of them have a higher initiative than orks) The Daemon Prince makes a challenge. Two choices.
1. Accept. The nob gets killed and the excess wounds kill a few more boyz. The boys cannot attack or engage the prince.
2. refuse. The only guy with a real chance to hurt the Prince can't attack it.
That was why I asked about Monstrous creatures.
That's how it used to be, and it sucked. But luckily, as I said earlier, wounds can be applied to the challengers if there are no other models in the opposing unit. So boyz are no longer prevented from attacking.
The boys will still attack the prince while he is in a challenge. He just is the last to be allocated wounds if there are other models the boyz can fight.
I.E. a character who refuses a challenge cannot allocate wounds to the challenger unless there are no other viable targets.
Personally, I don't think lone models should be able to use challenges to their advantage at all. One guy shouldn't be able to force ANY elements of the enemy out of combat; it's not like the majority of races actually give a feth about showing honor in combat or respecting their foes.
EDIT: Because channel means the same thing as challenge, apparently.
Shooting seems like it's going to be a long drawn out mess.
If a 50 man unit has all lasguns and are shooting at a squad of boyz. 20 shooters have range on five orks, 10 have range on nine orks, 7 have range on eleven orks, 8 have range on fourteen orks and 5 have range on twenty five orks.
According to the new shooting rules, wouldn't you have to shoot and resolve casualties, first the 20, then the 10, then the 7, then the 8, then the 5? The first 20 shooting can't cause casualties on any models beyond the five that are in range.
Auswin wrote: It's a good thing whole swaths of the codex aren't largely pointless or overly-situational like the majority of non-SM armies deal with and are force to build around.
So now you're going to resort to "it's a bad change, but STFU because my codex is worse"?
So I do know what I'm talking about.
No, you really don't. You wildly exaggerated the effectiveness of sniper rifles against vehicles (I notice you didn't respond at all to the correct odds that I posted) and ignored the fact that Tau troops with pulse rifles are even better than sniper scouts against vehicles.
Excuse me if my response to one small tweak on one occasionally-used unit doesn't cause me to cry a river.
First of all, it's not about one unit. Sniper scouts aren't the only unit in the game that has sniper rifles. For example, lots of IG squads can take them but never do because sniper rifles suck. Now the few people that used that upgrade (for fluff reasons or whatever) got nerfed for no good reason.
Second, the point isn't that this one change is going to ruin an otherwise-good game. It's that the change is incredibly stupid, and no competent game designer could consider it a good idea. It's an example of the fact that either GW's rule authors are incompetent morons and/or they don't give a about the quality of their product.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kelly502 wrote: I have personally shot up vehicles and fuel tanks don't explode even when a full box of light machinegun ammo runs through it which means tracers are involved.
That's nice. Have you shot up fuel tanks with laser or plasma weapons (IG/SM and Tau sniper rifles, respectively)?
You can shoot bad guys in civilian vehicles or technical vehicles, but tanks, armored personnel carriers generally don't have direct windows to shoot through to get the driver, it's generally a series of angled lenses he looks through, aka a periscope.
And what happens if you put a laser shot into that periscope? Dead driver. Or what about when that plasma shot hits the first lens of the periscope for the main gun's sights and destroys it, leaving the gunner blind?
You resolve all weapons of the same type at the same time. All have the maximum kill range for their weapon type.
So for your example all of the lasguns would be resolved at once, and they would all be in range of all 25. This is clearly stated in the rules on page 35 under out of range
"If none of the firing models are in range of a particular model in the target unit then wounds cannot be allocated to it"
Idolator wrote:Shooting seems like it's going to be a long drawn out mess.
If a 50 man unit has all lasguns and are shooting at a squad of boyz. 20 shooters have range on five orks, 10 have range on nine orks, 7 have range on eleven orks, 8 have range on fourteen orks and 5 have range on twenty five orks.
According to the new shooting rules, wouldn't you have to shoot and resolve casualties, first the 20, then the 10, then the 7, then the 8, then the 5? The first 20 shooting can't cause casualties on any models beyond the five that are in range.
No you wouldn't, it is by the gun type (so lasguns in this case) not by individual models. So all the lasgun wounds would be applied until there are no more models in range of ANY of the lasguns. Then you would move on to, for instance, bolters, or whatever weapons are left.
Oh Geezuss.... I stepped off real world into armchair toy soldierism... bad idea...
...the idea was sniper rifle vs armored transports....
Yes I agree that comparing real worl vs 40k was pretty dumb. Although the concept of a sniper team sitting on an objective shooting Orks, and Eldar at distance compared to the real use of a sniper is a similar concept. God I just won't leave it alone....
Back to the thread I think the argument was about nerfed snipers being nerfed again... However I would argue that if it can't effect vehicles then not a nerf...
Also someone mentioned playing 3 or 4 games already and they and their mates enjoyed the games. I expected to pick up a rule set at my local Friday... But no GW order... About the digital versions, I have the Legion of The Damned, and the 40K skirmish game on my iPad. I also bought a couple of digital White Dwarfs. They are a neat thing, but a real book is more my bag. However the updates and such that are always to be expected, would be easier to maintain digitally. I think my happiness lies in the paper version. Just need to find one!
Any one else played some games? Give us some feed back about the play, how'd it go?
I may have missed it if it was mentioned in this thread, but the Sweep Attack ability seems to be lost from Chariots.
I think the Necron one still does it, though? Since it is described in the Codex?
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote: I may have missed it if it was mentioned in this thread, but the Sweep Attack ability seems to be lost from Chariots.
I think the Necron one still does it, though? Since it is described in the Codex?
Pending an FAQ, I'd say yes the Necrons still get theirs. Seeing as they have the only Skimmer Chariot AFAIK they were the only ones using that rule anyways.
reading the new book and says "unless otherwise stated, all pyskers other than bugs can generate powers from demonology"
Would that count for or against special characters since they are "locked" into certain disciplines? Like typhus only nurgle or be'lakor only telepathy. Just the way it's worded making it confusing if they are "otherwise stated" or not.
Deathwhisper wrote: reading the new book and says "unless otherwise stated, all pyskers other than bugs can generate powers from demonology"
Would that count for or against special characters since they are "locked" into certain disciplines? Like typhus only nurgle or be'lakor only telepathy. Just the way it's worded making it confusing if they are "otherwise stated" or not.
"unless otherwise stated, all pyskers other than bugs can generate powers from demonology"
special characters since they are "locked" into certain disciplines
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote: I may have missed it if it was mentioned in this thread, but the Sweep Attack ability seems to be lost from Chariots.
I think the Necron one still does it, though? Since it is described in the Codex?
Pending an FAQ, I'd say yes the Necrons still get theirs. Seeing as they have the only Skimmer Chariot AFAIK they were the only ones using that rule anyways.
edit: already answered, burning chariot of tzeentch
ing idiots. How can such painfully stupid people still be employed at a job more complicated than flipping burgers? In fact, how do they even handle demanding tasks like remembering to breathe regularly?
