Tyel wrote: Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.
One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++
Which is, after all, how it will be played by pretty much everyone.
I don't like to moan (and I know I just joined in), but please can this 1+ save stuff move to a separate thread?
The Tournament missions book is a separate purchase from the points book.
You got a source for that as I thought they said CA2020 is the points and the tournamenr missions it's liek CA 2019 with the points book and the missions book but you buy them as a pair.
The Tournament missions book is a separate purchase from the points book.
You got a source for that as I thought they said CA2020 is the points and the tournamenr missions it's liek CA 2019 with the points book and the missions book but you buy them as a pair.
Re-reading the leaked sales list, you're correct. Mis-read it the first time, my mistake.
Tyel wrote: Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.
One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++
Which is, after all, how it will be played by pretty much everyone.
I don't like to moan (and I know I just joined in), but please can this 1+ save stuff move to a separate thread?
Based on gw track record they will more likely cap sh to 2+
Just for information, is the increase to armour in Crusade is a Merit for Infantry (I suppose)? Or it is for Characters? To what it is attached to?
Because, you know, there are also Quaestoris Knight with a 2+ save in the game... Arguing that a 1+ = 2++ may have such consequences too...
Generally speaking I don't understand why cap at 1 with such bad wording the minimum results possible... It really smells of marketing or sales constraints rather than a game design choice.
Just Characters. so it does indeed look like you could get a 1+ Sv Knight. You'd have to use a stratagem to make the Knight a character, however, as the Crusade rules disable that part of the Knight Lance and Traitoris Lance abilities.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The mystery of the "No Longer Available" objective markers has been solved.
We have new ones:
Funnily enough, I just spotted that (after missing it on an earlier read through of the page). That mini popemobile might be good for a Preacher/Missionary conversion.
Tyel wrote: Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.
One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++
Another one is to say you can never improve your save to 1+.
I mean, I looked at my (supposedly “designed with 9th ed in mind”) codex Sisters of Battle, and we have two ways to improve a Canoness armor save. One is a relic, that gives a straight 2+ save. The other is a warlord trait, that improves the armor save by one. But the warlord trait specifies “To a maximum of 2+”, which solves the issue. They could just generalize this.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The mystery of the "No Longer Available" objective markers has been solved.
We have new ones:
I don't care for necrons objective on a table with no necrons army, and not even fan of the other objective, but I love the pulpit (not for an objective, for conversions!)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I don't care for necrons objective on a table with no necrons army, and not even fan of the other objective, but I love the pulpit (not for an objective, for conversions!)
I don't know, it makes sense to me. Like a Mechanicus and Ork army fighting over the scraps of Necron tech, or something.
Edit: I do get that it is weird in every battle though.
'I don't know, Dave; perhaps the staff we made for the Silent King just isn't big enough, y'know?'
'Fear not Steve; for we shall make an even bigger staff - a staff so big that it will have to be used as an objective marker it's so huge!'
Wouldn’t surprise me if inherent 2+ save models n0 longer had access to storm shields anymore. This is GW and maybe assault terminators are this editions legends...
Uriels_Flame wrote: Wouldn’t surprise me if inherent 2+ save models n0 longer had access to storm shields anymore. This is GW and maybe assault terminators are this editions legends...
Yeah, that's not happening. There are these things called Deathwing Knights, one of the better kits in the DA line. Plus Assault terminators with storm shields are in same box with Lightning Claws. But hey, much easier to ditch them than add a simple line in an FAQ, right? lol
bullyboy wrote: ...Deathwing Knights, one of the better kits in the DA line.
I happened to see those model the other day, and burst out laughing at how bad they look. I guess that is just how opinions work though, can't please everyone. My only real gripe is the bare, hooded heads, which look comically silly to me. Give them helmets and they are awesome models.
Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.
It's not FAQ yet but at least they're aware of the problem and giving a hint as how to solve this in the meantime.
Even if most sensible people see no problems with this rule in the first place
Aaranis wrote: Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.
It's not FAQ yet but at least they're aware of the problem and giving a hint as how to solve this in the meantime.
Even if most sensible people see no problems with this rule in the first place
Its pretty much people that just want to whine about something that still bring it up
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Does anyone who is spending a good $500-$1k on their army really care about a couple bucks for an app?
This question baffles me. Just because I may spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on one product does not preclude me from being frugal about other parts of the hobby, or other products altogether.
Aaranis wrote: Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.
That was a given anyway- datasheets don't reference each other.
But it doesn't deal with strats, relics, abilities and so on that can improve saves. So if they really don't want 1+ saves rolling around, they have to deal with that as well.
Though its _really_ easy if they don't- last sentence of step 4. Saving Throw changes to: Any roll of 1 fails, modified or unmodified.
Aaranis wrote: Concerning this 1+ save story. I've read on Facebook the WH staff saying that Indomitus models get their own datasheets with their own gear, and that for now it must be considered different than already existing datasheet, even if they have the same name. So Terminators and the likes who carry a Storm Shield do NOT use the Indomitus profiles but their own.
It's not FAQ yet but at least they're aware of the problem and giving a hint as how to solve this in the meantime.
Even if most sensible people see no problems with this rule in the first place
Which doesn't actually solve anything since you can get 1+ with box models...
If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Does anyone who is spending a good $500-$1k on their army really care about a couple bucks for an app?
This question baffles me. Just because I may spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on one product does not preclude me from being frugal about other parts of the hobby, or other products altogether.
If the app doesn't provide me value equivalent to, or greater than, it's cost, I won't buy it. That's how commerce works.
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.
That's a reading failure on the part of whoever said that, because the Blast rule isn't even vaguely ambiguous.
If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it
always makes a minimum of 3 attacks. So if, when determining how
many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in
less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead
There's no way to get Heavy 3d6=minimum 9 out of that, no matter how you torture the language.
I'm with Voss on this one. The playtesters just misunderstood the rule. I thought the same thing when I first read the Blast rule, but after rereading it, I figured out what was meant. I also agree that we should table the 1+ save discussion for now. It's pointless to argue about a theoretical rules interaction that may or may not even be possible in a matchplay setting.
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.
That's a reading failure on the part of whoever said that, because the Blast rule isn't even vaguely ambiguous.
If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it
always makes a minimum of 3 attacks. So if, when determining how
many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in
less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead
There's no way to get Heavy 3d6=minimum 9 out of that, no matter how you torture the language.
It is if their original playtesting packet was ' blast just gives like, extra shots and junk' instead of the actual official rule they printed.
Also, not for nothing but that seems really stupid. Yeah, 10 models is 3 shots for a Conflagration missile but 11 is 18.
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.
Odd that the Tabletop Tactics group have been calling minimum 3 shots, then. Which playtesters were saying otherwise?
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Based on what the playtesters have said about Blast, there's at least one more rule like this. Apparently they were all under the impression that blast turned 3d6 shots into 9 against a 10 man unit, when RAW it has no meaningful effect because it's always at least 3 attacks, not always 3 attacks per diceroll.
Odd that the Tabletop Tactics group have been calling minimum 3 shots, then. Which playtesters were saying otherwise?
I think the tabletop tactics interpretation in terms of intent is correct, the way it is written is just poor.
You are also not privy to conversations play testers have had with the rules writers when giving feedback and asking questions. The question may very well have been asked.
I mean, they may have also gotten a differently worded version of the rule, provided playtest feedback that appeared to show something different to what the rule was intended to do by the designers, and the designers reworded it to remove that interpretation.
You know.
Playtesting?
And then the playtesters made a mistake in their review, not realizing that the wording had changed.
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!
In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, they may have also gotten a differently worded version of the rule, provided playtest feedback that appeared to show something different to what the rule was intended to do by the designers, and the designers reworded it to remove that interpretation.
You know.
Playtesting?
And then the playtesters made a mistake in their review, not realizing that the wording had changed.
I'm not sure if it is true or not but I have aldo heard that at one point either in ith or 9th edition playtesting GW was giving out different rulesets to different groups to test out different ideas. It may well have been they were testing it differently that what has turned up in the new rulebook.
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!
In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.
If a Blast weapon targets a unit that has between 6 and 10 models, it always makes a minimum of 3 attacks� So if, when determining how many attacks are made with that weapon, the dice rolled results in less than 3 attacks being made, make 3 attacks instead� For example, if a Grenade D6 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more models, and you roll a 2 to determine how many attacks are made, that roll is counted as being a 3 and that weapon makes three attacks against that unit�
I think it is 3x per roll. That is the direct quote from the rules on the site.
Doesn't each roll count as a separate attack also, meaning a 3D6 blast weapon makes 3x separate attacks, 1x for each roll?
The wording is poor, but it is absolutely not clear cut on how to interpret it as some people are suggesting. It can be argued both ways.
Good news for Deathwatch. Might be interesting to see if you can rope these units into Intercessors.
On Blast - its weird. Because RAW, its clear a 3D6 shot weapon just benefits from a minimum of 3 shots versus a 6-10 model squad.
But on Twitch I think Stu Black definitely gave the impressive this would be a minimum of 9 hits. So, as said, I think you will see a fairly quick FAQ covering this, one way or the other.
jullevi wrote: New objectives look nice but the bases look 50mm instead of 40mm. I would be happy to be wrong.
They literally just made objectives 40mm in size. Why would they then go and release a set of new objectives on 50mm bases?
Trickstick wrote: I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Except it's come up other times before, and GW has ruled both ways. This situation isn't new, to us or GW.
stato wrote: Is the plasma pipe in the image a new piece? (image of the new battlefield / battlezone box) Dont recall seeing it before.
tneva82 wrote: If anything that indicates gw conslders 1+=2++ fair play
I think that it is far more likely that this falls under the many RAW things where the designers are shocked that anyone could think of that interpretation, and we get a really sarcastic FAQ at some point.
Seeing they have known this for about 1.5 years and spare they can hardly claim surprise...
They knew of this the moment they wrote that ss rule. That or they are idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oguhmek wrote: Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...
No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.
So it's fine primaris marines get 2++? After all you get that with box set models
This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!
In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.
yes, this was known, it was mentioned in the stream first day.
This pretty much means that Deathwatch is radically changing. They have no Lts, but now they will. They have no Ancients, but now they will. Interestingly, these snap fit models won't take a DW shoulder pad....kinda like the Phobos boys from the start collecting set. Something is in the air for Deathwatch, and I'm not sure I'm going to like it.
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
All of the Custodes. Who can all have stormshields too. An army of 2++ would be pretty hilarious.
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!
In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.
yes, this was known, it was mentioned in the stream first day.
This pretty much means that Deathwatch is radically changing. They have no Lts, but now they will. They have no Ancients, but now they will. Interestingly, these snap fit models won't take a DW shoulder pad....kinda like the Phobos boys from the start collecting set. Something is in the air for Deathwatch, and I'm not sure I'm going to like it.
If that's the case they're probably going to get a reworked passive bonus, which is absolutely a BOON.
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
All of the Custodes. Who can all have stormshields too. An army of 2++ would be pretty hilarious.
Oh yeah, forgot about those. But I still think there's a general trend away from 2+ saves in most armies.
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!
In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.
yes, this was known, it was mentioned in the stream first day.
This pretty much means that Deathwatch is radically changing. They have no Lts, but now they will. They have no Ancients, but now they will. Interestingly, these snap fit models won't take a DW shoulder pad....kinda like the Phobos boys from the start collecting set. Something is in the air for Deathwatch, and I'm not sure I'm going to like it.
If that's the case they're probably going to get a reworked passive bonus, which is absolutely a BOON.
The way GW has been balancing things recently I wouldn't be shocked if its a Flat Additional -1AP against faction "Xenos"
Because you know just more AP in the game is great for balance.
jullevi wrote: New objectives look nice but the bases look 50mm instead of 40mm. I would be happy to be wrong.
They literally just made objectives 40mm in size. Why would they then go and release a set of new objectives on 50mm bases?
Lack of communication between different departments? As I said, those don't look like current 40mm bases at all. Sides of the bases aren't messed up and ratio between height and width looks off.
I wish I had bought another set of Sector Imperialis objectives before they went OOP.
Warhammer Community wrote:Before we go any further, it’s worth pointing out that the Deathwatch are set to gain access to ALL of the new units in the awesome Indomitus set.** So, if you’re looking to reinforce your consummate all-rounders with a core of deadly Primaris melee specialists, such as Bladeguard Veterans and Assault Intercessors, you’ll soon be good to go!
In any case, here are a few units around which you’ll be able to build a powerful Deathwatch strike force in the new edition.
yes, this was known, it was mentioned in the stream first day.
This pretty much means that Deathwatch is radically changing. They have no Lts, but now they will. They have no Ancients, but now they will. Interestingly, these snap fit models won't take a DW shoulder pad....kinda like the Phobos boys from the start collecting set. Something is in the air for Deathwatch, and I'm not sure I'm going to like it.
If that's the case they're probably going to get a reworked passive bonus, which is absolutely a BOON.
The way GW has been balancing things recently I wouldn't be shocked if its a Flat Additional -1AP against faction "Xenos"
Because you know just more AP in the game is great for balance.
Oh don't get me I expect any new bonus to be absolutely stupid.
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
Stormonu wrote: What's the issue with a 1+ save? A natural 1 still fails and AP -4 turns it into a 5+, correct?
you've gotta be trolling... check the last 30 pages, twas explained 10 times now.
I've got a question thought... came up in the ork tactics thread
so flyers can fly of the table and come back as stratigic reserves right?
strategic reserves states that models must be setup wholly within 6" on any battlefield edge (not in the enemy deployment zone)
Since most flyers (only the small SM one comes to mind as an exeption) are bigger than 6"
does that mean they cannot be set up anywhere???
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Just Characters. so it does indeed look like you could get a 1+ Sv Knight. You'd have to use a stratagem to make the Knight a character, however, as the Crusade rules disable that part of the Knight Lance and Traitoris Lance abilities.
All the "Characters" lists specifically prohibit Monsters and Vehicles from accessing them.
Stormonu wrote: What's the issue with a 1+ save? A natural 1 still fails and AP -4 turns it into a 5+, correct?
No. It changes the dice roll not the save. This isn’t directed at you, but if people could just read through posts before asking this question *again* it would have just been left a few pages ago.
Regarding the Deathwatch, you can’t physically add the Deathwatch pads to the Indomitus models. When was the last time GW allowed you to include a unit in your army, that actually required you to physically cut up a model to make it match every other unit in said army?
RedNoak wrote: Since most flyers (only the small SM one comes to mind as an exeption) are bigger than 6"
does that mean they cannot be set up anywhere???
In 9th a based model is wholly within 6" if all of its base is wholly within 6". All other parts don't matter anymore.
If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.
As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.
RedNoak wrote: Since most flyers (only the small SM one comes to mind as an exeption) are bigger than 6"
does that mean they cannot be set up anywhere???
In 9th a based model is wholly within 6" if all of its base is wholly within 6". All other parts don't matter anymore.
Pretty sure it's stated that flyers ignore this part and come on anywhere on the table
Stormonu wrote: What's the issue with a 1+ save? A natural 1 still fails and AP -4 turns it into a 5+, correct?
I’ll explain a short version, cos I know it can be a pain reading through this forum.
Basically, cos a modifier only changes the result of the dice roll, and only an unmodified roll of a 1 fails, a modified roll of a 1 succeeds, and you can’t go below 1.
So even -100AP will reduce the save to a modified roll of a 1, which succeeds.
Stormonu wrote: What's the issue with a 1+ save? A natural 1 still fails and AP -4 turns it into a 5+, correct?
No. I'm not sure what edition of 40K people were playing last, but AP doesn't modify the model's save- it modifies the roll.
That how it works in 9th, that's how it worked in 8th and that's even how it worked in 8th edition fantasy. Its been entirely consistent since 40k switch backed to save modifiers: you compare the modified roll to the model's save characteristic, and it fails if the result of the roll is less than the model's save.
The _only_ difference is 9th specifies that only unmodified 1s automatically fail, whereas with 8th and fantasy, any 1 failed, even if there were modifiers.
Stormonu wrote: What's the issue with a 1+ save? A natural 1 still fails and AP -4 turns it into a 5+, correct?
No. I'm not sure what edition of 40K people were playing last, but AP doesn't modify the model's save- it modifies the roll.
That how it works in 9th, that's how it worked in 8th and that's even how it worked in 8th edition fantasy. Its been entirely consistent since 40k switch backed to save modifiers: you compare the modified roll to the model's save characteristic, and it fails if the result of the roll is less than the model's save.
The _only_ difference is 9th specifies that only unmodified 1s automatically fail, whereas with 8th and fantasy, any 1 failed, even if there were modifiers.
Actually, in 8th modified 1's passed, as shown by the WS 1+ Succubus FAQ
Necronmaniac05 wrote: If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.
As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.
I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "
RedNoak wrote: so flyers can fly of the table and come back as stratigic reserves right?
strategic reserves states that models must be setup wholly within 6" on any battlefield edge (not in the enemy deployment zone)
Since most flyers (only the small SM one comes to mind as an exeption) are bigger than 6"
does that mean they cannot be set up anywhere???
Flyers get different rules for coming on from strategic reserves, they get proper deepstrike, e.g. anywhere but 9" away. Advanced rules pg 257.
Not saying this to you, but I think there are a lot of people reading the little core rule book and thinking they are wicked smart. Until we have a full copy of the full rulebook with all the advanced rules (and I'd probably say a full copy of all FAQs) I wouldn't try to come up with any complicated strategies yet.
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
All of the Custodes. Who can all have stormshields too. An army of 2++ would be pretty hilarious.
But don't they have different rules for their storm shields?
Stormonu wrote: What's the issue with a 1+ save? A natural 1 still fails and AP -4 turns it into a 5+, correct?
No. I'm not sure what edition of 40K people were playing last, but AP doesn't modify the model's save- it modifies the roll.
That how it works in 9th, that's how it worked in 8th and that's even how it worked in 8th edition fantasy. Its been entirely consistent since 40k switch backed to save modifiers: you compare the modified roll to the model's save characteristic, and it fails if the result of the roll is less than the model's save.
The _only_ difference is 9th specifies that only unmodified 1s automatically fail, whereas with 8th and fantasy, any 1 failed, even if there were modifiers.
Actually, in 8th modified 1's passed, as shown by the WS 1+ Succubus FAQ
Shrug. So its even more consistent.
Point is, in modern 40k, AP modifies the roll, not the save characteristic, and its done that since it was reintroduced to the game. It should not be a surprise at this point.
The backwards 'you add the inverse negative number from save modifiers to the armor save to have a worse higher save' [5+ -1 becomes 6+, because AD&D THAC0 'logic'] thing from 1st and 2nd edition hasn't been used in decades.
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
All of the Custodes. Who can all have stormshields too. An army of 2++ would be pretty hilarious.
But don't they have different rules for their storm shields?
Yes. You still use the rules on their datasheets until an update happens. Which, since the current codexes are supposed to be usable as is, shouldn't happen until those books get redone.
IanVanCheese wrote: This raises an interesting point. What was the last new unit GW put out that it gave a 2+ save to? Like without relics or anything, just a straight 2+.
Primaris don't have any afaik. No sisters, No GSC (obviously lol, they made of paper). Was it the Lord of Contagion?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Just Characters. so it does indeed look like you could get a 1+ Sv Knight. You'd have to use a stratagem to make the Knight a character, however, as the Crusade rules disable that part of the Knight Lance and Traitoris Lance abilities.
All the "Characters" lists specifically prohibit Monsters and Vehicles from accessing them.
That's certainly true for the Battle Traits, but I don't see any mention of that for the Crusade Relics.
Oguhmek wrote: Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...
No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.
Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.
kodos wrote: So reading the DW article, does it mean they are screwed as soon as someone does not play the minimum siuzed tables
yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?
If you want to play competitive tournaments you're going to play small. It does make a difference. Obviously most people follow suit, but the garage hammer guys can do whatever the hell they want.
Oguhmek wrote: Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...
No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.
Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.
They can update the lore in the next BRB or in the next SM codex though.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.
As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.
I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "
It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.
Oguhmek wrote: Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...
No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.
Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.
They can update the lore in the next BRB or in the next SM codex though.
It's possible, but we'd see BRB leaks about Marines being phased out in the lore (along with another time jump I'm betting). Thing is that most of the Marine molds are less than 10 years old. I just don't see GW, a company known for using molds dating back to 2nd edition, tossing those out and not selling Old Marines.
I wouldn't stress it until they make all the Old Marines direct only. That'll be your first warning sign.
oni wrote: Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?
Not likely. GW is trying to speed the game up, not slow it down.
yeah, they try but without understanding what slows the game down, and with per single model wound allocation and indicidual armour rolls being a thing, something like more dice rolls just because it sounds cool and/or to avoid a problem created within the core rules for no reason is not unlikely but would fit the style of current rules design
I mean, to be fair, 2D6 on 3+ wouldn't actually slow the game down. You still have to allocate wounds and save individually, you can't fast roll saves.
Oguhmek wrote: Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...
No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.
Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.
Yes. They did also just release new Chaos Terminators.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.
As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.
I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "
It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.
Oguhmek wrote: Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...
No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.
Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.
They can update the lore in the next BRB or in the next SM codex though.
It's possible, but we'd see BRB leaks about Marines being phased out in the lore (along with another time jump I'm betting). Thing is that most of the Marine molds are less than 10 years old. I just don't see GW, a company known for using molds dating back to 2nd edition, tossing those out and not selling Old Marines.
I wouldn't stress it until they make all the Old Marines direct only. That'll be your first warning sign.
Winters of DZTV read the BRB and he said there hasn’t been any advance in the story. If things will change in the future, who knows?
Since when did story have anything to do with Primaris? I mean, nobody really believes that it was the story that motivated Primaris, rather than getting every space marine player to replace their collection, right?
Story follows business decisions, it doesn't prompt them.
They can always cook something up easily enough when the time finally comes to tell the boiled frogs that they've been boiled.
Heaven forbid a publicly owned company makes money.
If you had stock in GW you'd want them coming out with new models all the time.
Video games are a good example. The game companies that want to continue making shareholders happy release DLC and season passes for their games. Otherwise, with no updates to games the games eventually end up in the discount bin.
Why can't story be used to create new units? It's a far fetched conspiracy to say GW leadership tells the sculptors "quick, invent some new marine, we need money. We'll flesh out the story later."
Perhaps some fluff writer thought "hey, wouldn't it be cool if there were marines that were more badass than current marines? I'll run it by the boss tomorrow and see what he says?"
I swear, 99% of Dakkadakka run around wearing tinfoil hats when it comes to anything related to GW.
godswildcard wrote: Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this
-AP modifies the dice result
-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified
-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails
-A failed save results in damage suffered
-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.
-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.
What am I missing?
The last stage. A dice cannot be modified to below a roll of a 1. So, a weapon with, say, an AP of -4 (say a meltagun) fires at a Terminator unit with Stormshields (Hence a 1+ armour save), chooses to roll Armour saves and roll a 3. Apply the Ap of -4 to that roll, drops it to a 1 (since minimum of 1 for rolls). You compare the final result to the save Characteristic, Did the final result equal of exceed the Save Characteristic? In this case the roll of a 1 IS equal to the save characteristic and so has passed their save. A roll of a 2 would be the same.
godswildcard wrote: Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this
-AP modifies the dice result
-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified
-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails
-A failed save results in damage suffered
-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.
-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.
What am I missing?
The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.
I'm in the camp that if my opponent says his TH/SS terminators have a 2++ save I'm going to not play that person. It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended but RAW vs RAI will always be a thing so nobody is right and everybody is wrong.
They are explicitly aware of the consequences of having a 1+ save in their game having confirmed it's function in AoS and removing the ability for Orks to have it in 8th.
If 2+ units get the shield rules we've seen it's either intended or they only have themselves to blame for needing to address it as they know how it works under their mechanics.
godswildcard wrote: Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this
-AP modifies the dice result
-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified
-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails
-A failed save results in damage suffered
-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.
-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.
What am I missing?
The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.
I'm in the camp that if my opponent says his TH/SS terminators have a 2++ save I'm going to not play that person. It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended but RAW vs RAI will always be a thing so nobody is right and everybody is wrong.
You're wrong. It's very much intended. We have literally two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th Edition 40k to show that a 1+ test is effectively immune to negative modifiers. Or are you saying the Dark Eldar FAQ isn't a good indication of intent?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: They are explicitly aware of the consequences of having a 1+ save in their game having confirmed it's function in AoS and removing the ability for Orks to have it in 8th.
If 2+ units get the shield rules we've seen it's either intended or they only have themselves to blame for needing to address it as they know how it works under their mechanics.
Still a non issue until we see units it affects.
And they FAQed Succubus with WS 1+ to work exactly how the rules (+ Modify FAQ) say it does.
godswildcard wrote: Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this
-AP modifies the dice result
-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified
-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails
-A failed save results in damage suffered
-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.
-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.
What am I missing?
The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.
I'm in the camp that if my opponent says his TH/SS terminators have a 2++ save I'm going to not play that person. It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended but RAW vs RAI will always be a thing so nobody is right and everybody is wrong.
You're wrong. It's very much intended. We have literally two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th Edition 40k to show that a 1+ test is effectively immune to negative modifiers. Or are you saying the Dark Eldar FAQ isn't a good indication of intent?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: They are explicitly aware of the consequences of having a 1+ save in their game having confirmed it's function in AoS and removing the ability for Orks to have it in 8th.
If 2+ units get the shield rules we've seen it's either intended or they only have themselves to blame for needing to address it as they know how it works under their mechanics.
Still a non issue until we see units it affects.
And they FAQed Succubus with WS 1+ to work exactly how the rules (+ Modify FAQ) say it does.
I don't memorize FAQ's for all armies, only my own. Don't play AoS.
Doesn't matter. Until its clarified by GW I'm not going to play someone who does that. To each his/her own I guess.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.
As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.
I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "
It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.
To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.
General Kroll wrote: How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.
Storm Shield discussions with a native rumor 2+ continuation save end up being entirely immune to all self-moderation in contributor behavior penalties, only failing on a Natural Mod roll.
Gork (and possibly Mork) help us all if we end up with a Day 1 FAQ reroll.
godswildcard wrote: Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this
-AP modifies the dice result
-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified
-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails
-A failed save results in damage suffered
-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.
-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.
What am I missing?
The last stage. A dice cannot be modified to below a roll of a 1. So, a weapon with, say, an AP of -4 (say a meltagun) fires at a Terminator unit with Stormshields (Hence a 1+ armour save), chooses to roll Armour saves and roll a 3. Apply the Ap of -4 to that roll, drops it to a 1 (since minimum of 1 for rolls). You compare the final result to the save Characteristic, Did the final result equal of exceed the Save Characteristic? In this case the roll of a 1 IS equal to the save characteristic and so has passed their save. A roll of a 2 would be the same.
Very fast-moving discussion lately, no wonder I missed all this.
Okay, so I'm following now, but the armor save itself - wouldn't the +1 Armor save also then modify the roll, not the armor value? Thus, the Terminator would have a 2+ save, but a +1 to the roll (for the shield), and then a -4 to the roll (for AP) hence an overall -3 to save on a 2+ armor? If that's not the case, can someone point out in the new rules where the armor save, not the roll is directly affected?
General Kroll wrote: How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.
It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.
godswildcard wrote: Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this
-AP modifies the dice result
-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified
-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails
-A failed save results in damage suffered
-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.
-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.
What am I missing?
The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.
Nope. There is zero confusion. Some folks just don't like it. An unmodified 1 always fails, and otherwise a save roll has to be less than the save characteristic to fail. But a result can't be modified below 1, so 1+ always succeeds except on a natural 1.
The rule itself is unambiguous and isn't actually a change from 8th edition. Its just that a lot of people never encountered the combos that allowed it in 8th.
For 9th, GW introduced a new 1+ save combo right in the Crusade rules, and people are concerned that custodes and terminators will get the new primaris stormshield rules, which would provide a lot of 1+ saves to Marines and Custards... if and when their datasheets change.
Very fast-moving discussion lately, no wonder I missed all this.
Okay, so I'm following now, but the armor save itself - wouldn't the +1 Armor save also then modify the roll, not the armor value? Thus, the Terminator would have a 2+ save, but a +1 to the roll (for the shield), and then a -4 to the roll (for AP) hence an overall -3 to save on a 2+ armor? If that's not the case, can someone point out in the new rules where the armor save, not the roll is directly affected?
Linked here you will find the datasheet for one of the new units with one of the new Shields. In this case, it is a Relic shield, but you can easily find Storm Shields on a different leaked datasheet with the exact same wording (regarding the armor save increase, at least). The wording is VERY explicit.
Edit: Also, the linked datasheet is more relevant to Day 1 of 9th edition, since they're Space Marine characters, with all the potential relic choices that goes along with it. That character, and The new Lt Primaris, both have that Relic Shield and both have access to Relics.
Effectively 2++, 4++ if they have armor-but-not-invuln-save ignoring special properties (and not just high AP), 4+++ against Mortal Wounds). There's hard, and there's HARD.
Ordana wrote: To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.
3 WWs v Cultists
Prior:
21 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~10
Morale : 13 - 6 = 7
17 dead
68 points for 240 points spent; 28% return
Now:
36 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~17
Morale: 83% fail; 1 model plus 4
22 dead
132 points for 375 points; 35% return
So Blast weapons are presumably 25% more efficient against hordes (based on the limited info we have and a favorable morale test for old morale) than previous even with a points increase, but here's the kicker - how efficient are they without hordes on the table?
I get that people can point BCs at hordes, but do they have no vehicles to shoot? A BC kills 5.8 unprotected cultists up from 2.9 - realistically it would be 3.9 up from 1.9. Is this "wrecking them real bad"?
You mean there is Marines Broken and then New Primaris Marines Broken.
They are like Marines but more broken for less points.
But aslong as you count Yellow Marines, Green Marines, Red Marines, White Marines, Blue Marines, Black Marines, other black Marines, other Black Marines and Grey marines all as different factions then yeah it's all balanced we had 9 factions in the top 10 places.
General Kroll wrote: How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.
It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.
And not a single bit of new information has been brought into the discussion in 20 pages. Maybe it's time to let it rest until we actually see a unit capable to getting a 1+ armor save in a matched play list.
Ordana wrote: To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.
3 WWs v Cultists
Prior:
21 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~10
Morale : 13 - 6 = 7
17 dead
68 points for 240 points spent; 28% return
Now:
36 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~17
Morale: 83% fail; 1 model plus 4
22 dead
132 points for 375 points; 35% return
So Blast weapons are presumably 25% more efficient against hordes (based on the limited info we have and a favorable morale test for old morale) than previous even with a points increase, but here's the kicker - how efficient are they without hordes on the table?
I get that people can point BCs at hordes, but do they have no vehicles to shoot? A BC kills 5.8 unprotected cultists up from 2.9 - realistically it would be 3.9 up from 1.9. Is this "wrecking them real bad"?
More likely Guard now with doubel shooting Wyverns etc and all the double shooting russes they were taking any way
MSU Horde is likely going to be a thing, Like for example take a Tyranid Brigade and fill it with 120 termagants and 50 gargoyles in 10 weapon-beast strong broods.
General Kroll wrote: How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.
It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.
And not a single new bit of new information has been brought into the discussion in 20 pages. Maybe it's time to let it rest until we actually see a unit capable to getting a 1+ armor save in a matched play list.
Take LT, Captain give them Arrificer Armour Special issue wargear 2+, improved to a 1+ Armour save.
Seriously if people want to talk about this go to YMDC all the info on how to do it is in there.
General Kroll wrote: How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.
...people need a place to vent.
It's called the 'You Make Da Call' section of the forum.
I'm sure those of us who actually are looking for News and/or Rumors would appreciate not having this thread cluttered for another 20 pages of the same argument - especially since the mods have already requested it be ceased here.
General Kroll wrote: How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.
It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.
And not a single new bit of new information has been brought into the discussion in 20 pages. Maybe it's time to let it rest until we actually see a unit capable to getting a 1+ armor save in a matched play list.
I linked one a few steps up thread. Assuming there's at least one Space Marine relic that grants 2+ armor (AFAIK there's two, one generic and one linked to Ultramarines), the new Primaris Captain (and Primaris Lieutenant, not linked) will be able to have a 1+ armor save on Day 1 of release, unless there's an errata that changes something (or the new Primaris Captain can't get a relic... heh).
EnTyme wrote: Does the new Primaris Captain or Lieutenant have access to those relics?
Unless their is going to be a weird day 1 FAQ saying a charcitor in an army can nkt be given a relic from the codex any charictor can be given yes they can.
EnTyme wrote: Does the new Primaris Captain or Lieutenant have access to those relics?
Yes? The Armour Indomitus is restricted to INFANTRY and BIKER CHARACTERS, while Artificer Armour can be given to any non-VEHICLE (as per the rules for Relics) CHARACTER.
The Primaris Lieutenant is an INFANTRY CHARACTER.
To quote my post in YMDC:
BaconCatBug wrote: So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.
Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation. The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.
Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".
Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.
In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.
Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.
You have to roll more dice, which takes longer. Maybe not much longer, but every tiny thing adds up.
Are you serious?
Rerollable rerolls, everything with an invulnerable save, psykic shenanigans, trying to remember this snowflake unit’s special rule as opposed to that unit ...
Seriously? Rolling two dice?
Frankly there needs to be more 2d6 rolls. The storm shield fiasco is evidence for that...
jivardi wrote: It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended...
But again, and I can't believe how often this has been said in this thread alone, this situation isn't new and GW have ruled ---both--- ways in the past. They have sometimes said it is working as intended, other times they have FAQ'd it. So saying "It's not intended" isn't true.
jeff white wrote: Rerollable rerolls, everything with an invulnerable save, psykic shenanigans, trying to remember this snowflake unit’s special rule as opposed to that unit ... Seriously? Rolling two dice?
Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.
You do know you can't roll a bunch of D6 saves at once either, right? You cannot fast roll saves. Not in 9th, not in 8th.
Tyran wrote: I'm pretty sure everyone fast roll saves as units with multiple Save characteristics are quite rare.
The problem is that now you apply wounds to a single model until it fails a roll. So we're basically at Wound groups from 5th all over again, except even worse because you can't roll each group simultaneously.
bullyboy wrote: You now how many people actually care about this stormshield discussion? 1+
Damn, we have just under 3 weeks of this to go, what else can they possibly drip feed us now?
Isn't the app out on Saturday? Is that is going to be a massive info dump, as it has the points?
That is going to be the big thing of how do we get the point's as they said codex's in 9th would have some sort of unlock code for the App. I must admit I am half expecting the app to be up and down in availability for the first weeks hence them droppibg it ahead of time so all its doing on the 25th is verifying everyones CA2020 code to show the points.
BaconCatBug wrote: In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.
Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.
Well, you can, because most people work out how many times they've been wounded, then roll saves, then remove the models. Yes, I know, you apply wounds to models before rolling saves, but the opposite is generally far faster. The former only really matters in the case of being wounded by various different types of weapons, but if my unit takes 6 identical Bolter wounds, I'm going to roll saves and then apply wounds.
BaconCatBug wrote: In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.
Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.
Why not? You don't check coherency until the end of your turn anyway.
Once you’ve taken (even if passed and unwounded) a save on a model you have to allocate all remaining attacks against it for the rest of the phase (unless it dies). So which model is taking saves is important for positioning, wargear etc.
Also with coherency, if you know how many models you are taking off (which you strictly shouldn’t) you have more scope for fettling the coherency of models you have left than you would if you only allocated one at a time.
BaconCatBug wrote: In 9th, with the new coherency rules and the cascade effect it can cause by breaking it, no, you can't.
Which models you choose to take wounds is IMPORTANT. Moreso than in 8th.
Well, you can, because most people work out how many times they've been wounded, then roll saves, then remove the models. Yes, I know, you apply wounds to models before rolling saves, but the opposite is generally far faster. The former only really matters in the case of being wounded by various different types of weapons, but if my unit takes 6 identical Bolter wounds, I'm going to roll saves and then apply wounds.
It wont make a difference a lot of the time but for some units it's going to be rediculous important. As will be the order of resolving your shooting.
If you have say vanguard vets and 2 models have a storm shield, I shoot at them with my tactical squad with a lascannon.
If I shoir the lascannon first you either auto loose a model or allocate the wound to one with the storm shield, if he passes his 3++, i no2 shoot my bolters any wounds must be allocated to the same model. I can then shoot intercessors or such until Stormshield dye 1 is dead. Yiu can then allocate as you choose, I can then use a unit with 2 lascannons to pull the same trick.
The other issue is if I shoot unit A with my unit 1 shooting and cause 3 wounds then shoot unit 2 at unit B and unit 3 and unit A again the possitioning and how you remove casualties will be super critical as you either end up with a blob or you screen is no longer in coherency and you'll loose more models later in the turn.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.
As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.
I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "
It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.
To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.
A battlecannon averages 1.05 more wounds to Orks standing out in the open.
Even the Wyvern isn't killing as much as it's 24 shots would suggest. Against unbuffed Orks it kills an average of 7.5 Orks. Shooting twice brings that up to 15 but now morale doesn't hurt the unit as much while before you were likely to use the unit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah... outside of BCB I don't know anyone who's ever played the wound/save allocation rules like that.
I mean, that's an exercise in pure tedium. Forget that...
It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.
Unfortunately the Marine units it works against out side of DW and their insane you get to break the core rule of only 1 toughness value (and generaly save) in the same squad are not tge new undercosted stuff, however against DW I would suggets all those xeno players get ready for having to abuse the bejesus out of this to stand a chance.
Ice_can wrote: It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.
You're right.
8th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
9th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.
Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?
Ice_can wrote: It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.
You're right.
8th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
9th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.
Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?
Probably to speed things up with mixed gear units like Custodes or Deathwatch who can take Storm Shields.
Ice_can wrote: It is actually new for 9th edition, and I suspect you'll see it become more of a thing as people learn how to exploit it.
You're right.
8th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
9th - If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.
Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?
Have you tried to batter your way through the BS that is Deathwatch veterans and other units that can stack 2+ saves and 3++ storm shields seperatly on specific models, Bullgryn are another favourite for this.
It's borderline gamebreaking to watch them always use the most efficent save for every dang attack.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why the feth would they make such a pointless time-wasting change?
It's probably to prevent things like mixed squads being able to tank wounds on the best type of save. Like a mixed shield type Bullgryn squad, where you can take a 2+ or 4++, depending on the AP of the attack.
I actually used a crisis suit with a iridum armor and other with a shield generator to apply shots in one or the other when I ran out of drones so I was used to assing rolls to each based in the stats.
The same for custodes squads with a storm shield. But whatever, with the new rules I will just stop doing that and have all the models with the same saves. I'm not gonna be rolling 50 saves one at a time. Just because it will make the game impossible to play, I don't care thats what the rule says when the difference in result is extremely minimal and marginal.
Galas wrote: I actually used a crisis suit with a iridum armor and other with a shield generator to apply shots in one or the other when I ran out of drones so I was used to assing rolls to each based in the stats.
The same for custodes squads with a storm shield. But whatever, with the new rules I will just stop doing that and have all the models with the same saves. I'm not gonna be rolling 50 saves one at a time. Just because it will make the game impossible to play, I don't care thats what the rule says when the difference in result is extremely minimal and marginal.
Yeah it’s going to make it a bit of a pain in the backside to do by the letter of the rules. Rolling to wound with Incubi in late 8th was bad enough! With opponent’s agreement I might start doing saves is batches - e.g. if I have 6 identical models rolling 6 first, removing casualties, then allocating another batch. Not technically allowed but much less painful and, as you say, minimal advantage. Will have to see how the other local players want to run it though.
I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?
EnTyme wrote: I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?
Officially you need to pick a specific model (say one of the 2+/3++ models), roll saves one at a time until it dies, then pick another model and rinse/repeat for the rest of the phase. You can’t batch roll at all as theoretically they could be on different sides of the squad and it could matter for some contexts (coherency, LOS for other units, etc; or whether the model died from the first attack or the last which would affect whether you can change model for the next attack).
Now in practice I think a lot of people will mostly play it as you wrote above, but that’s not how it’s actually written and as I note above it does really matter in some contexts. Say if you had 4x 1-wound models with half 2+/5++ and half 3+/4++. If you took two bolter hits you might want to take it on the 2+. Let’s say you fail one and pass one so one 2+ dies. Later in the phase another unit shoots you and you take a melta hit (which you’d want to take the 4++ on. Now the order you took the original bolter saves matters. if you passed one then failed one you can choose a new target and take the 4++. If you failed the first bolter save then passed the 2nd however one of the 2+ guys is still designated target so you have to take the melta against their 5++ rather against another model’s 4++.
jivardi wrote: It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended...
But again, and I can't believe how often this has been said in this thread alone, this situation isn't new and GW have ruled ---both--- ways in the past. They have sometimes said it is working as intended, other times they have FAQ'd it. So saying "It's not intended" isn't true.
jeff white wrote: Rerollable rerolls, everything with an invulnerable save, psykic shenanigans, trying to remember this snowflake unit’s special rule as opposed to that unit ... Seriously? Rolling two dice?
Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.
Anyone who has ever played battletech knows how to roll a bunch of 2d6's at once, pairs of different colored dice.
EnTyme wrote: I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?
Officially you need to pick a specific model (say one of the 2+/3++ models), roll saves one at a time until it dies, then pick another model and rinse/repeat for the rest of the phase. You can’t batch roll at all as theoretically they could be on different sides of the squad and it could matter for some contexts (coherency, LOS for other units, etc; or whether the model died from the first attack or the last which would affect whether you can change model for the next attack).
Now in practice I think a lot of people will mostly play it as you wrote above, but that’s not how it’s actually written and as I note above it does really matter in some contexts. Say if you had 4x 1-wound models with half 2+/5++ and half 3+/4++. If you took two bolter hits you might want to take it on the 2+. Let’s say you fail one and pass one so one 2+ dies. Later in the phase another unit shoots you and you take a melta hit (which you’d want to take the 4++ on. Now the order you took the original bolter saves matters. if you passed one then failed one you can choose a new target and take the 4++. If you failed the first bolter save then passed the 2nd however one of the 2+ guys is still designated target so you have to take the melta against their 5++ rather against another model’s 4++.
I don't even know why they changed this. I mean. It was really a problem , tanking lasscannons with your stormshield and bolters with your normal dudes?
EnTyme wrote: I still don't see what's different about wounds/saves. If I had 2 models in the unit with a 2+/3++ save and 3 with a 3+/5++ save, and I had to allocate 8 wounds, I would roll them 2 at a time until one of the 2+/3++ models is dead, then roll the remaining saves until the other 2+3++ is dead, then roll any remaining saves. How has this changed in 9th?
Officially you need to pick a specific model (say one of the 2+/3++ models), roll saves one at a time until it dies, then pick another model and rinse/repeat for the rest of the phase. You can’t batch roll at all as theoretically they could be on different sides of the squad and it could matter for some contexts (coherency, LOS for other units, etc; or whether the model died from the first attack or the last which would affect whether you can change model for the next attack).
Now in practice I think a lot of people will mostly play it as you wrote above, but that’s not how it’s actually written and as I note above it does really matter in some contexts. Say if you had 4x 1-wound models with half 2+/5++ and half 3+/4++. If you took two bolter hits you might want to take it on the 2+. Let’s say you fail one and pass one so one 2+ dies. Later in the phase another unit shoots you and you take a melta hit (which you’d want to take the 4++ on. Now the order you took the original bolter saves matters. if you passed one then failed one you can choose a new target and take the 4++. If you failed the first bolter save then passed the 2nd however one of the 2+ guys is still designated target so you have to take the melta against their 5++ rather against another model’s 4++.
I don't even know why they changed this. I mean. It was really a problem , tanking lasscannons with your stormshield and bolters with your normal dudes?
They likely got feedback on it being something that slowed the game, so they changed it.
Going slightly on a tangent from a lot of the talk.
Watching a MWG unboxing of the Indomitus box, when Dave opens the rulebook to the first page talking about the Chaos Gods... I found those 'card art' depictions of the Chaos gods to be fascinating and I think I would pay to have just those.
A lot of the art in the book is pretty awesome, and some of it looks new to me. That's pretty standard for a BrB though...
Carnikang wrote: Going slightly on a tangent from a lot of the talk.
Watching a MWG unboxing of the Indomitus box, when Dave opens the rulebook to the first page talking about the Chaos Gods... I found those 'card art' depictions of the Chaos gods to be fascinating and I think I would pay to have just those.
A lot of the art in the book is pretty awesome, and some of it looks new to me. That's pretty standard for a BrB though...
More likely Guard now with doubel shooting Wyverns etc and all the double shooting russes they were taking any way
3 CP minimum on the Wyvern in an army with greatly reduced CP.
And even when shooting a horde of unbuffed Orks you'll kill 15 on average with that 3cp and then the entire unit isn't lost to morale. I feel like things aren't looking as bad as people say.
I realize it GW so it will be expensive but if you have to buy two sets of those cardboard mats isn’t it only slightly more expensive to just buy the neoprene mats for a better quality product?
SirGrotzalot wrote: I realize it GW so it will be expensive but if you have to buy two sets of those cardboard mats isn’t it only slightly more expensive to just buy the neoprene mats for a better quality product?
Crablezworth wrote: Well at least the kill team players who collected all the boards can feel rewarded for doing so.
Honestly it's about time they released the boards seperately for everyone who wanted to get into Kill Team but didn't want to buy more than the rulebook since they already had a model collection.
Even better, release "sequels" to those boards, packaged with the originals in sets so that we can continue the existing themes.
Imagine a new Sector Mechanicus set of boards that uses the existing one plus another that fits with it (rather than a duplicate). Or another Sector Fronteris map that gives more desert covered streets. I'd love something that expanded on this board
warmaster21 wrote: Anyone who has ever played battletech knows how to roll a bunch of 2d6's at once, pairs of different colored dice.
I've been playing BTech for over 20 years. I've never once rolled more than one test at a time.
BTech is a small game with, on average, 4-5 units a side. 40K is much bigger.
Nevermind Battle Tech. Anyone who has used hellblasters or Ravenwing Black Knights or any of the other multi plasma weapon units in the game should already be using coloured dice pairs. Over charge all the time baby!
That is probably the most ridiculously over-engineered thing I've seen in my life.
The unfortunate thing is that it works, but that big block of "define terrain" should be at the TOP as a starting point, not in the middle looking like a 'decision box'.
In reality, the rules for terrain will very much work like they did in almost every edition. You point to a piece of terrain and declare it a ruin, crate, forest or crater and when it comes up during a game you look up which keywords that type of terrain has.
Carnikang wrote: Going slightly on a tangent from a lot of the talk.
Watching a MWG unboxing of the Indomitus box, when Dave opens the rulebook to the first page talking about the Chaos Gods... I found those 'card art' depictions of the Chaos gods to be fascinating and I think I would pay to have just those.
A lot of the art in the book is pretty awesome, and some of it looks new to me. That's pretty standard for a BrB though...
Check out Warhammer Art, its been around ages but never really advertised. More expensive than posters but better quality prints and wider range, including some classics.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.
Carnikang wrote: Going slightly on a tangent from a lot of the talk.
Watching a MWG unboxing of the Indomitus box, when Dave opens the rulebook to the first page talking about the Chaos Gods... I found those 'card art' depictions of the Chaos gods to be fascinating and I think I would pay to have just those.
A lot of the art in the book is pretty awesome, and some of it looks new to me. That's pretty standard for a BrB though...
Check out Warhammer Art, its been around ages but never really advertised. More expensive than posters but better quality prints and wider range, including some classics.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.
Speak for yourself...
As pretty as that is (and it is pretty), for me it would be just as quick to roll 2d6 10 times than to make sure i was rolling the right 20 perfectly colour coordinated dice. It's a matter of mindset though. I'm the sort that ends up with dice all over the table.
Ok, I got seven hits and the rest miss. The light blue ones were... umm... bolters, right? The green were the plasma. The reds were the heavy bolter... or was that the whites. God! Why did I roll that many dice of multiple colours all at once? What the hell is wrong with me?
AduroT wrote: God no, don’t put the terrain in the army boxes. That’ll just bloat the cost of it. I’m totally cool with terrain, but keep it to its own boxes.
You can fast roll those 2d6 armor rolls, you don't need to roll them 2d6 at a time or use different colors. The same way we always did it with damage 2 weapons on mono wound models with FnP. In the case of armor rolls you can't always solve it in 2 rolls, but still saves time.
In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.
Is that a new pipeline? Doesn't look like the old prometheum pipes or the thermo plasma ones. More new terrain?
They are new, and they're also visible in the 9th BRB p.264 as an example for "barricades and fuel pipes". I'm no GW terrain expert but both example nr 1 & 2 look unfamiliar to me in that picture as well, so I'm unsure if either/both of those are also new?
Is that a new pipeline? Doesn't look like the old prometheum pipes or the thermo plasma ones. More new terrain?
They are new, and they're also visible in the 9th BRB p.264 as an example for "barricades and fuel pipes". I'm no GW terrain expert but both example nr 1 & 2 look unfamiliar to me in that picture as well, so I'm unsure if either/both of those are also new?
Edit: The picture in question
Spoiler:
I think 2 is also new as the old craters were plain
balmong7 wrote: In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.
This is true but is the time lost really worth it for the minimal... I don't even find it "tactical"... but the difference in outcome between the two scenarios?
Is that a new pipeline? Doesn't look like the old prometheum pipes or the thermo plasma ones. More new terrain?
They are new, and they're also visible in the 9th BRB p.264 as an example for "barricades and fuel pipes". I'm no GW terrain expert but both example nr 1 & 2 look unfamiliar to me in that picture as well, so I'm unsure if either/both of those are also new?
Edit: The picture in question
Spoiler:
I think 2 is also new as the old craters were plain
Part of the fun of the last edition of Fantasy was determining what kind of interesting terrain you'd get on the board. The idea of that translating to 40k sounded cool.
I feel like that maybe would have been easier.
I can understand the notion of wanting to offer players the opportunity to "customize" their terrain's rules, but I feel like at the end of the day we're going to end up seeing the same three or four things with the same rules for simplicity's sake.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, I got seven hits and the rest miss. The light blue ones were... umm... bolters, right? The green were the plasma. The reds were the heavy bolter... or was that the whites. God! Why did I roll that many dice of multiple colours all at once? What the hell is wrong with me?
You don't use them for different weapons or save characteristics,, you use them to represent different pairs of dice when the weapon or save is the same, i.e. 2 hit over-charged plasma weapons, or potentially 2d6 saves
balmong7 wrote: In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.
Exactly, if you do house-rule fast dice rolling and put wound allocation as last point, you allow your opponent to daisy chain/conga line again, as with knowing the total amount of casulties before the first wound is allocated he can remove models to keep the line
oni wrote: Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?
God heaven forbid no. Imagine how game slows down. Aggressors shoot. 50 save rolls 1 at a time
Again, and I don't know why I need to keep saying this, you're rolling 50 saves one at a time either way. If you're house ruling, fine, but that has no bearing on how GW writes the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On one hand its good that they reflected and choose to lower it to three, on the other hand I hoped the fact that everyone could order 6 would mean that there are actually enough produced but now I think it will be sold out either in a few days or a few hours depending on what GWs interpretation of "We’ve made a lot of it" is
balmong7 wrote: In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.
Exactly, if you do house-rule fast dice rolling and put wound allocation as last point, you allow your opponent to daisy chain/conga line again, as with knowing the total amount of casulties before the first wound is allocated he can remove models to keep the line
How would you deploy a say 15 model unit in a manner that removing them 1 at a time breaks coherency, but 5 at a time doesn't? Wouldn't you remove the same 5 models either way?
Hold on I see. using 10 as an example:
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Removing one at a time you're forced to remove from one end, but if you get it below 6 & remove all at once you just take the entire back or front row.
I think it's more of a case of, in the 15 model squad, lining them up in three rows of 5. If you assign hits before rolling wounds, it's possible you might blow out the middle three - causing the group to break into two incoherent 6 man squads; thus 6 of those models will be lost to the loss in coherency.
If you assign the hits after wounding, that could never happen, as the defender could just remove models from one end or the other, and never from the middle.
Stormonu wrote: I think it's more of a case of, in the 15 model squad, lining them up in three rows of 5. If you assign hits before rolling wounds, it's possible you might blow out the middle three - causing the group to break into two incoherent 6 man squads; thus 6 of those models will be lost to the loss in coherency.
If you assign the hits after wounding, that could never happen, as the defender could just remove models from one end or the other, and never from the middle.
why would you ever assign hits to the middle rank in 9th when you know this is a thing?
Fast rolling will still be a thing
balmong7 wrote: In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.
Exactly, if you do house-rule fast dice rolling and put wound allocation as last point, you allow your opponent to daisy chain/conga line again, as with knowing the total amount of casulties before the first wound is allocated he can remove models to keep the line
How would you deploy a say 15 model unit in a manner that removing them 1 at a time breaks coherency, but 5 at a time doesn't? Wouldn't you remove the same 5 models either way?
Hold on I see. using 10 as an example:
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Removing one at a time you're forced to remove from one end, but if you get it below 6 & remove all at once you just take the entire back or front row.
20 models for maximum line length without risking the whole unit
if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right
yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter
in the pdf we got I did not found rules for fast dice rolling, so you can roll all hit and wound rolls at once, but have to allocate wounds and make armour saves one by one
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ragnar69 wrote: If anyone would deny me fast rolling saves I would pack up and leave.
Do you always pack up if someone else does not accept your house-rules or do you at least ask before the game starts which house-rules should be used?
if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right
yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter
And if you lose 3 models total where do you remove from to prevent out of formation losses?
You are making an extreme edge case scenario to back up your point.
There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.
I will be fast rolling saves as always. If my models have ended up in a position where it looks like mass removal of models will advantage me over single saves, I will do saves one at a time.
I guarantee, it will be few and far between that I will ever have to not fast roll.
There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.
it is not about fast dice rolling, but to put wound allocation after save rolls instead of before
and I already said a lot of times that 99% of the community will ignore the new rules and put wound allocation at the end, as otherwise it will just slow the game down
but this is still an house rule to change wound allocation and not an optional rule about fast dice rolling, so make sure to clear that with your opponent on what house-rules are used instead of just asuming that he uses the same as you do
PS:
it is ironic that the game is not even out and the community already decided not playing #NEW40k but their own house-ruled version
There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.
it is not about fast dice rolling, but to put wound allocation after save rolls instead of before
and I already said a lot of times that 99% of the community will ignore the new rules and put wound allocation at the end, as otherwise it will just slow the game down
but this is still an house rule to change wound allocation and not an optional rule about fast dice rolling, so make sure to clear that with your opponent on what house-rules are used instead of just asuming that he uses the same as you do
PS:
it is ironic that the game is not even out and the community already decided not playing #NEW40k but their own house-ruled version
An appropriate mid ground might be to ask your opponent what order they're going to remove them then fast roll?
It's really simple, you just say how you would allocate your wounds down a line of troops. You then roll all dice, removing models in the order you just stated. FFS, why would you do it one at a time? If you allocate a hit, you have to keep allocating to that model until it is dead, so do that in advance...it's really being pedantic.
Stormonu wrote: I think it's more of a case of, in the 15 model squad, lining them up in three rows of 5. If you assign hits before rolling wounds, it's possible you might blow out the middle three - causing the group to break into two incoherent 6 man squads; thus 6 of those models will be lost to the loss in coherency.
If you assign the hits after wounding, that could never happen, as the defender could just remove models from one end or the other, and never from the middle.
why would you ever assign hits to the middle rank in 9th when you know this is a thing?
Fast rolling will still be a thing
For some reason I was thinking you had to assign the hits out no more than one to model before you could assign a second. Maybe I'm thinking of an old edition, but my bad.
bullyboy wrote: It's really simple, you just say how you would allocate your wounds down a line of troops. You then roll all dice, removing models in the order you just stated. FFS, why would you do it one at a time? If you allocate a hit, you have to keep allocating to that model until it is dead, so do that in advance...it's really being pedantic.
There is a small subset of the dakka community with some hobby overlap of people who play warhammer. The hobby doesn't seem to have an official name, but the main premise is "making random strangers as unhappy as possible by tricking them into believing you're going to play a game of warhammer 40,000."
it seems to be a pastime that is much more common in online games like League of Legends but has some overlap in the online 40k community.
it is, ask your opponent before the game if he is ok with house-rules or not
if yes, decide on which ones should be used
if no, decide if you wanna still play the game or just pack up as playing without house-rules is not worth your time
simple and easy
but just don't assume that everyone wants to use house-rules by default and that everyone wants to use the same house-rules as you do
doing this little social interaction prevents a lot of troubles if people just kindly ask which costum version of 40k they want to play (and don't insist on RAW later if you agreed to house-rules before but forgot to mention that specific case)
If your playing Primaris Bland hammer were every model bar thesargent has the same armour and gear yeah it makes little difference, once you go to mixed Bullgryn, Deathwatch and custodes your it doesn't matter house rules will have a game changing difference.
if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right
yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter
And if you lose 3 models total where do you remove from to prevent out of formation losses?
You are making an extreme edge case scenario to back up your point.
There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.
I will be fast rolling saves as always. If my models have ended up in a position where it looks like mass removal of models will advantage me over single saves, I will do saves one at a time.
I guarantee, it will be few and far between that I will ever have to not fast roll.
I haven't used one for years, but can a Vindicare still choose it's target?
Any rule if they come back into vogue where the opponent can choose who they snipe will stop so many coherency shenanigans in their tracks.
if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right
yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter
And if you lose 3 models total where do you remove from to prevent out of formation losses?
You are making an extreme edge case scenario to back up your point.
There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.
I will be fast rolling saves as always. If my models have ended up in a position where it looks like mass removal of models will advantage me over single saves, I will do saves one at a time.
I guarantee, it will be few and far between that I will ever have to not fast roll.
I haven't used one for years, but can a Vindicare still choose it's target?
Any rule if they come back into vogue where the opponent can choose who they snipe will stop so many coherency shenanigans in their tracks.
No, but Harlequin Death Jesters can pick model to flee if it fails a test.
Psychic powers will also cause issues for people trying to game the coherency system, just 1 or 2 losses from a unit can cause issues, more so than losing more models such as the example above.
if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right
yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter
And if you lose 3 models total where do you remove from to prevent out of formation losses?
You are making an extreme edge case scenario to back up your point.
There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.
I will be fast rolling saves as always. If my models have ended up in a position where it looks like mass removal of models will advantage me over single saves, I will do saves one at a time.
I guarantee, it will be few and far between that I will ever have to not fast roll.
I haven't used one for years, but can a Vindicare still choose it's target?
Any rule if they come back into vogue where the opponent can choose who they snipe will stop so many coherency shenanigans in their tracks.
GSC Mental Onslaught power lets you target a specific model I believe. The Vindicare does not.
They still haven't fixed Look out Sir. You'd think there'd be quite a few posts on FB pointing out the loop hole.
Instead of saying "unless it is the closest enemy unit" it should say "unless it is closer to the firing unit than the models that are within 3" of it"
it is, ask your opponent before the game if he is ok with house-rules or not
if yes, decide on which ones should be used
if no, decide if you wanna still play the game or just pack up as playing without house-rules is not worth your time
simple and easy
but just don't assume that everyone wants to use house-rules by default and that everyone wants to use the same house-rules as you do
doing this little social interaction prevents a lot of troubles if people just kindly ask which costum version of 40k they want to play (and don't insist on RAW later if you agreed to house-rules before but forgot to mention that specific case)
So, another pedantic post, you're very good at it. I hope you play in a tournament and I really hope you stick to your guns, then get all pissy when you have only played one turn when time is called.
You can absolutely fast roll and keep within the rules, or you are just not understanding the rules.
Scenario..here is my line of dudes...
OOOOOOOOOOO
I say I'm going to allocate and remove casualties from R to L. Let's say I receive 20 hits, 10W and fail 4 saves. The 4 on the right will be gone if I use fast rolling.
Or, I do it one at a time....allocate to furthest right, wound..I save. OK, now I have to keep allocating to him until he dies. But guess what, with this same mechanic, after all 20 hits, 10W and saves have been rolled......the 4 on the right will be gone. Wow, it's like it's magic or something. smh
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They still haven't fixed Look out Sir. You'd think there'd be quite a few posts on FB pointing out the loop hole.
Instead of saying "unless it is the closest enemy unit" it should say "unless it is closer to the firing unit than the models that are within 3" of it"
How do you expect them to fix it when they haven't released the Day One FAQ?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They still haven't fixed Look out Sir. You'd think there'd be quite a few posts on FB pointing out the loop hole.
Instead of saying "unless it is the closest enemy unit" it should say "unless it is closer to the firing unit than the models that are within 3" of it"
How do you expect them to fix it when they haven't released the Day One FAQ?
And since the rulebooks have already been printed, changing it just for a Faction Focus article is really meaningless.
it is, ask your opponent before the game if he is ok with house-rules or not
if yes, decide on which ones should be used
if no, decide if you wanna still play the game or just pack up as playing without house-rules is not worth your time
simple and easy
but just don't assume that everyone wants to use house-rules by default and that everyone wants to use the same house-rules as you do
doing this little social interaction prevents a lot of troubles if people just kindly ask which costum version of 40k they want to play (and don't insist on RAW later if you agreed to house-rules before but forgot to mention that specific case)
So, another pedantic post, you're very good at it. I hope you play in a tournament and I really hope you stick to your guns, then get all pissy when you have only played one turn when time is called.
You can absolutely fast roll and keep within the rules, or you are just not understanding the rules.
Scenario..here is my line of dudes...
OOOOOOOOOOO
I say I'm going to allocate and remove casualties from R to L. Let's say I receive 20 hits, 10W and fail 4 saves. The 4 on the right will be gone if I use fast rolling.
Or, I do it one at a time....allocate to furthest right, wound..I save. OK, now I have to keep allocating to him until he dies. But guess what, with this same mechanic, after all 20 hits, 10W and saves have been rolled......the 4 on the right will be gone. Wow, it's like it's magic or something. smh
Pretty much this. 9th edition will have enough issues without y'all making up new ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On one hand its good that they reflected and choose to lower it to three, on the other hand I hoped the fact that everyone could order 6 would mean that there are actually enough produced but now I think it will be sold out either in a few days or a few hours depending on what GWs interpretation of "We’ve made a lot of it" is
I'm cynical enough to wonder if announcing a limit of 6 and then lowering it to 3 is just deliberate manipulation. Just adding additional pressure on those that really define themselves as not missing out.
"Its going to be really really popular, order now!" "Oh, its even more popular than we first said, we're saving even more just for you, better get in there and place your order!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: On one hand its good that they reflected and choose to lower it to three, on the other hand I hoped the fact that everyone could order 6 would mean that there are actually enough produced but now I think it will be sold out either in a few days or a few hours depending on what GWs interpretation of "We’ve made a lot of it" is
I'm cynical enough to wonder if announcing a limit of 6 and then lowering it to 3 is just deliberate manipulation. Just adding additional pressure on those that really define themselves as not missing out.
"Its going to be really really popular, order now!" "Oh, its even more popular than we first said, we're saving even more just for you, better get in there and place your order!"
It's more likely a reaction to the quanity stores have ordered. One person on B&C mentioned their store has an order of 300-600 copies.
So, another pedantic post, you're very good at it. I hope you play in a tournament and I really hope you stick to your guns, then get all pissy when you have only played one turn when time is called.
I never had problems with time in events
rolling armour saves for 20 models one by one can be done at the same time other people need to search/count those 20 dice they want to roll at once and search/count the missed ones
the problem starts when people need to think 5-10 minutes about how to remove their models to get the most out of it, or if they start a discussion in the middle of the game because they are used to different house-rules and did not bother to ask about them before the game starts
it must be magic than, specially with mixed equippment
as GW must have had a specific situation in mind by changing the rules for wound allocation and why to put it in the middel instead the end
So, another pedantic post, you're very good at it. I hope you play in a tournament and I really hope you stick to your guns, then get all pissy when you have only played one turn when time is called.
I never had problems with time in events
rolling armour saves for 20 models one by one can be done at the same time other people need to search/count those 20 dice they want to roll at once and search/count the missed ones
the problem starts when people need to think 5-10 minutes about how to remove their models to get the most out of it, or if they start a discussion in the middle of the game because they are used to different house-rules and did not bother to ask about them before the game starts
it must be magic than, specially with mixed equippment
as GW must have had a specific situation in mind by changing the rules for wound allocation and why to put it in the middel instead the end
Nope. Callin bs on all of this. You might have thought it was the same speed but I guarantee you your opponent would be sitting there for several minutes with 20 dice in their hand for their damage rolls imaging throttling you.
So, another pedantic post, you're very good at it. I hope you play in a tournament and I really hope you stick to your guns, then get all pissy when you have only played one turn when time is called.
I never had problems with time in events
rolling armour saves for 20 models one by one can be done at the same time other people need to search/count those 20 dice they want to roll at once and search/count the missed ones
the problem starts when people need to think 5-10 minutes about how to remove their models to get the most out of it, or if they start a discussion in the middle of the game because they are used to different house-rules and did not bother to ask about them before the game starts
it must be magic than, specially with mixed equippment
as GW must have had a specific situation in mind by changing the rules for wound allocation and why to put it in the middel instead the end
oh, so you missed my point earlier that you would need to do it differently for mixed units, but not when all the same. At least take the time to read.
And it is so disingenuous of you to say that it takes no time to roll one dice at a time, but apparently it takes 5-10 mins to think about allocation? I don't know what world you are living in Peter Pan, but in the real world it's probably less than 10 seconds to state your order of allocation before rolling.
I'd guess he'll be around the same as a primaris lieutenant, so 75ish with the new points. The oldmarine equivalent was really cheap but also massively buffed through PA, so anything less than that seems strange to me.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They still haven't fixed Look out Sir. You'd think there'd be quite a few posts on FB pointing out the loop hole.
Instead of saying "unless it is the closest enemy unit" it should say "unless it is closer to the firing unit than the models that are within 3" of it"
How do you expect them to fix it when they haven't released the Day One FAQ?
They rules are a downloadable PDF, aren't they? They could update that and release a FAQ for the printed copies on release.
I'm sure the core rules are also in the new BRB. It would be impractical to update the PDF when you can't update the printed rules, especially considering that the printed rules would end up being a more recent release, and thus would override the "out of date" PDF. That's why GW is doing a Day 1 FAQ, and we'll also likely see an Errata/FAQ within a couple weeks of release to cover anything the Day 1 misses.
I've been yoyoing about getting Indomitus or not over the past few weeks. When the price was confirmed I thought "sure why not?". But If the set is going to be so limited I'm leaning more towards "I cant really be bothered with this nonsense".
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They still haven't fixed Look out Sir. You'd think there'd be quite a few posts on FB pointing out the loop hole.
Instead of saying "unless it is the closest enemy unit" it should say "unless it is closer to the firing unit than the models that are within 3" of it"
How do you expect them to fix it when they haven't released the Day One FAQ?
They rules are a downloadable PDF, aren't they? They could update that and release a FAQ for the printed copies on release.
That's not generally how they do it, and if they're doing it they'll likely clarify it in a FAQ to ensure everyone doesn't miss tthe change.
GoatboyBeta wrote: I've been yoyoing about getting Indomitus or not over the past few weeks. When the price was confirmed I thought "sure why not?". But If the set is going to be so limited I'm leaning more towards "I cant really be bothered with this nonsense".
What is the price again? I've only seen it's foreign market price so far and that was about a week ago.
PiñaColada wrote: I'd guess he'll be around the same as a primaris lieutenant, so 75ish with the new points. The oldmarine equivalent was really cheap but also massively buffed through PA, so anything less than that seems strange to me.
That's about what figured also, thanks for the quick answer.
EnTyme wrote: I'm sure the core rules are also in the new BRB. It would be impractical to update the PDF when you can't update the printed rules, especially considering that the printed rules would end up being a more recent release, and thus would override the "out of date" PDF. That's why GW is doing a Day 1 FAQ, and we'll also likely see an Errata/FAQ within a couple weeks of release to cover anything the Day 1 misses.
We know the core rules are in the BRB as well. My hope is that the digital copies will be seeing updates to the wording.
GoatboyBeta wrote: I've been yoyoing about getting Indomitus or not over the past few weeks. When the price was confirmed I thought "sure why not?". But If the set is going to be so limited I'm leaning more towards "I cant really be bothered with this nonsense".
What is the price again? I've only seen it's foreign market price so far and that was about a week ago.
Confirmed was probably to strong of a word. But like for like comparisons on the U.S price puts it in the £120-125 bracket.
GoatboyBeta wrote: I've been yoyoing about getting Indomitus or not over the past few weeks. When the price was confirmed I thought "sure why not?". But If the set is going to be so limited I'm leaning more towards "I cant really be bothered with this nonsense".
What is the price again? I've only seen it's foreign market price so far and that was about a week ago.
120 quid for britpeeps and if you haven't reserved a copy yet you're probably looking at full price through GW, if you're lucky.
Kirton Games - Wargames and Hobby superstore
37 mins ·
Hello everyone! We have just heard from Games Workshop that Indomitus has sold out to pre-order. This means we will now be closing our Expression of Interest scheme. If you emailed us, we secured you stock and you should have received an email from us with the details on the next steps. We will still have a few on general sale for pre-order this Saturday but they will be first come first served. Thanks for the support! This is a popular set!
so you might get lucky of your store of choice have spare, but if they don't you're going to be scrambling if you want it
Kirton Games - Wargames and Hobby superstore
37 mins ·
Hello everyone! We have just heard from Games Workshop that Indomitus has sold out to pre-order. This means we will now be closing our Expression of Interest scheme. If you emailed us, we secured you stock and you should have received an email from us with the details on the next steps. We will still have a few on general sale for pre-order this Saturday but they will be first come first served. Thanks for the support! This is a popular set!
so you might get lucky of your store of choice have spare, but if they don't you're going to be scrambling if you want it
So much for "We’ve made a lot of it (like, really, a lot)" lol
If its limited edition it should be restricted to 1 per-customer otherwise the scalpers are going to have a field day with this, Outpost are letting people order as many as they want which wont be helping matters
Shops received allocations of what they could order, from what I understand. Shops were taking lists of names for folks to hold boxsets. One of my local shops received an allocation of 55 boxsets and taking names to hold for purchase, as an example.
It's a bit out of order for stores to be taking pre orders of something which isn't meant to be up for pre order yet. Stores shouldn't be offering them to anyone yet.
That said I'm sure GW have plenty in their own stock.
Kirton Games - Wargames and Hobby superstore
37 mins ·
Hello everyone! We have just heard from Games Workshop that Indomitus has sold out to pre-order. This means we will now be closing our Expression of Interest scheme. If you emailed us, we secured you stock and you should have received an email from us with the details on the next steps. We will still have a few on general sale for pre-order this Saturday but they will be first come first served. Thanks for the support! This is a popular set!
so you might get lucky of your store of choice have spare, but if they don't you're going to be scrambling if you want it
So much for "We’ve made a lot of it (like, really, a lot)" lol
If its limited edition it should be restricted to 1 per-customer otherwise the scalpers are going to have a field day with this, Outpost are letting people order as many as they want which wont be helping matters
Stores really went nuts with their preorders on this too. My FLGS ordered 45 (for a community of maybe 20 people), I've hears others report similar numbers with on person say their FLGS put in for 300-600 of the box.
I have a feeling that we're going to see some stores parting these boxes out to help resell online to make up for being shut down this year.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: It's a bit out of order for stores to be taking pre orders of something which isn't meant to be up for pre order yet. Stores shouldn't be offering them to anyone yet.
That said I'm sure GW have plenty in their own stock.
Eh stores have done this for years, the manager knows he's getting the box; the customers know so the loyal regular customers (ergo the mangers bread and butter customers) are simply saying. "Hey Bob put aside a box for me so I can order it on the day." And Bob will say "Sure" and puts a box aside for the pre-order date. Sometimes there will be conditions, eg they have to buy the box on the day or it goes back into the general pool which can be why some stores appear to have no stock and then suddenly get a few boxes the next day. Because even loyal customers will sometimes forget, not commit or will hedge their bets and have 5 pre-orders made at different stores like that so that on the day they get one and cancel the rest etc...
Necronmaniac05 wrote: It's a bit out of order for stores to be taking pre orders of something which isn't meant to be up for pre order yet. Stores shouldn't be offering them to anyone yet.
Any more made up laws you got to share?
Stores are taking care of their regulars by asking if we want the thing before it sells out at 0:01 on preorder day.
I have a feeling that we're going to see some stores parting these boxes out to help resell online to make up for being shut down this year.
Far as I recall their contract with GW forbids them from doing this. That said many have likely experimented with online ordering and something as high profile as this is worth getting because even if you normally only net your locals online, this box will attract major national attention. So they can potentially shift more than normal if they get it.
Stores really went nuts with their preorders on this too. My FLGS ordered 45 (for a community of maybe 20 people).
That isn't unusual. I've found over the years that the FLGS 'community' is significantly smaller than the number of people who come in for what they want and leave.
I remember a few times when game days and release days overlapped and there was always a steady trickle of people who never came further into the store than the cash register, but the number of boxes behind the counter steadily decreased. (and often _didn't_ decrease with the number of people playing games of warhammer/40k/warmachine in the back of the store. They somehow found reasons to go online looking for bigger discounts).
GoatboyBeta wrote: I've been yoyoing about getting Indomitus or not over the past few weeks. When the price was confirmed I thought "sure why not?". But If the set is going to be so limited I'm leaning more towards "I cant really be bothered with this nonsense".
What is the price again? I've only seen it's foreign market price so far and that was about a week ago.
120 quid for britpeeps and if you haven't reserved a copy yet you're probably looking at full price through GW, if you're lucky.
I mean, I know of no means by which I could have done such a reservation. The only two non-GW sites I've used have their preorders go up at the same time, and at the moment triple helix are doing some weird email only setup where you can't even browse their store.
I have a feeling that we're going to see some stores parting these boxes out to help resell online to make up for being shut down this year.
Far as I recall their contract with GW forbids them from doing this. That said many have likely experimented with online ordering and something as high profile as this is worth getting because even if you normally only net your locals online, this box will attract major national attention. So they can potentially shift more than normal if they get it.
From what I understand from the store owners I know,, their contract prevents them from selling it early. As long as no cash is changing hands, it's not breaking contract. I'm sure one of the several store owners here on the site can clarify better.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: It's a bit out of order for stores to be taking pre orders of something which isn't meant to be up for pre order yet. Stores shouldn't be offering them to anyone yet.
That said I'm sure GW have plenty in their own stock.
Is this first time seeing any retail product up for preorder? This happens with everything, not just GW products. It’s called betting on the hype.
I just want the points updates lol Money burning a hole in my pocket and I couldn't give a damn about Necrons or (more) marines.
A better storyline would have been Eldar vs Necrons, that's an old school conflict that would certainly justify finally updating their decrepit line of models.
Octovol wrote: I just want the points updates lol Money burning a hole in my pocket and I couldn't give a damn about Necrons or (more) marines.
A better storyline would have been Eldar vs Necrons, that's an old school conflict that would certainly justify finally updating their decrepit line of models.
How much of that has been properly confirmed? I'm half expecting some sort of half-release of the app, with all the 9th ed stuff coming at true release. Is there a quote that points will be out on sat, or is it conjecture?
They claimed it would be, but we haven't seen or heard anything since that announcement, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a kink in the machinery.
On the same day that the Warhammer 40,000 pre-orders go live, a new app will be launched alongside it, providing several cool features to help you, including a full matched play army builder. The new app will do a number of things to assist players with their games, but one of the most useful will be the ability to build army lists using the updated points values and Detachments. We’ll have more on the Warhammer 40,000 app soon, so watch this space!
yukishiro1 wrote: They claimed it would be, but we haven't seen or heard anything since that announcement, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a kink in the machinery.
On the same day that the Warhammer 40,000 pre-orders go live, a new app will be launched alongside it, providing several cool features to help you, including a full matched play army builder. The new app will do a number of things to assist players with their games, but one of the most useful will be the ability to build army lists using the updated points values and Detachments. We’ll have more on the Warhammer 40,000 app soon, so watch this space!
You know, I am very cynical when it comes to press releases. That one has just enough wiggle room for points to not be released. Yeah, the app launches on the day of pre-order. Yeah, the app can do things like army lists and points. However, they don't _specifically_ say it'll do it on launch.
I know that reading could, and maybe is likely to be, wrong. However, I like to view press releases as only stating what they _explicity_ state, which I have found often ends up being correct.
gungo wrote: I fully expect a delayed app release.. the fact it hasn’t been mentioned or previewed with all the barely there hype previews means something it up.
I would have thought it would get a big preview this week. I doubt it will drop with no marketing push.
gungo wrote: I fully expect a delayed app release.. the fact it hasn’t been mentioned or previewed with all the barely there hype previews means something it up.
Yes, it means that the entirety of the core rulebook got leaked last week.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If the App doesn't include points, it won't sell. What would be the point of it if it doesn't have points? What would anyone use it for?
quick looking up datasheets. It's amazingly faster than thumbing through the book for AoS.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If the App doesn't include points, it won't sell. What would be the point of it if it doesn't have points? What would anyone use it for?
quick looking up datasheets. It's amazingly faster than thumbing through the book for AoS.
Also, sell? Sell for what? The AoS app is free.
I thought there was a subscription fee. Something like $2 a month. Is that incorrect?
Gadzilla666 wrote: If the App doesn't include points, it won't sell. What would be the point of it if it doesn't have points? What would anyone use it for?
quick looking up datasheets. It's amazingly faster than thumbing through the book for AoS.
Also, sell? Sell for what? The AoS app is free.
I thought there was a subscription fee. Something like $2 a month. Is that incorrect?
If you want points and the list builder yeah. $1 something.
Gadzilla666 wrote: If the App doesn't include points, it won't sell. What would be the point of it if it doesn't have points? What would anyone use it for?
quick looking up datasheets. It's amazingly faster than thumbing through the book for AoS.
Also, sell? Sell for what? The AoS app is free.
I thought there was a subscription fee. Something like $2 a month. Is that incorrect?
If you want the army builder. The base app is free. The caveat is that you only get points if you either have the subscription or if you buy the General's handbook through the app itself. Considering the books are significantly cheaper on the app, it works out well more often than not.
I thought there was a subscription fee. Something like $2 a month. Is that incorrect?