Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


USRs meant you had to keep two books open all the time: your codex and the core rules. They should stay dead and instead the 40k team should work on standardizing language betree.

Funny, because in earlier editions I didn't need to have both the BRB and the codex to know what a USR was. It was only a problem in 6th and 7th when they introduced a bunch of USR that were just bloat.
In 4th ed you had a few USR, and it was fine.

You can have USR and still write out what they do on the datasheet or in the codex. They dont have to only appear in the main rule book. That is something completely different.

Magic and other games have USR and in magic they write out what the abilities does in many cases unless the card has a ton of rules then the most common ones just stays as one word USR. The most important part is that the rule is the same every time it is used and make for easier understanding of the unit/card.

If you dont get too many variations of mostly the same ability and keep the amount of USR low it wont take long before you know all of them and never have to look up that rule again. Helps a lot during games if your opponents abilities share the same name as yours so if you know your rules then you probably know most of your opponents as well.

The few times I played against Eldar or Dark Eldar back in 4th/5th I had quite a good idea of what everything did after a quick summary but last time against Eldar and Dark Eldar in this edition I had no idea since actually understanding everything he can do takes too much time in a tournament so he could have just BSed rules the whole game and I wouldnt notice since except for the basic statline and smite we have like 0 shared name of abilities despite them doing the same thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Basically they should work on improving what we've got, not rolling back to old janky mechanics.

The same could be said about what they threw out.
Though blast templates had inherent problems.
Whilst templates worked fine in WHFB, they were trickier to handle in 40k as you were allowed to spread out everything wide. That said, the current system needs a lot of work to accurately portray blast weapons. I think it should be like, you roll to hit, and then you roll 2D6 hits or something.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

Agreed. Despite the more tournament heavy focus of Dakka most players like having the lore in the codexes, and it also serves as a way to introduce new players (or players who are just starting a new army with a faction they never looked at before) to a given faction. The lore tends to give people a bit of grpunding on what the units are, what they do for the faction and generally get a feel for why the faction operates the way it does.

How much lore do you NEED in the codex though compared to functional rules? Nobody is buying a codex blind. Everyone is doing at least some minimal research before going into an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree. I feel the marine supplements where a good idea that fell short by not re-point costing the C:SM units to compensate for the buffs from the doctrines.

That said, even without points adjustments to umita or wargear, if we could roll BA, SW, DA, and Deathwatch into supplements that'd be even better since they could update the core book while leaving the supplements unchanged for the most part (since they don't need to be updated to add new units and can contain all the unique units rather easilly).

It's unnecessary though. At maximum you needed:
. 3-4 unique units for each Chapter
. 3 Relics for each Chapter
. 3 Unique Strats for each Chapter
. However many Special Characters, some of which have no point. Nobody would miss Asmodai and Corbulo, sorry.

What is it with you and absolute statements? Just because you wouldn't miss Asmodai, or Corbulo, or Crowe, or whoever, does not mean that nobody would.

They're not good characters, don't fulfill a purpose, and are overall just models that don't need special rules. Hell, you're better off 100% of the time just using Crowe as a regular Brotherhood Champion. What's wrong with using the model like that?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

Agreed. Despite the more tournament heavy focus of Dakka most players like having the lore in the codexes, and it also serves as a way to introduce new players (or players who are just starting a new army with a faction they never looked at before) to a given faction. The lore tends to give people a bit of grpunding on what the units are, what they do for the faction and generally get a feel for why the faction operates the way it does.

How much lore do you NEED in the codex though compared to functional rules? Nobody is buying a codex blind. Everyone is doing at least some minimal research before going into an army.

You don't *need* lore in the same way that you don't *need* rules. It's part of the transaction. It adds value (to some people). "Need" means nothing on it's own - it's only defined by what you need it for. So if you're going to start bandying about "need", you're going to "need" to ground it in a goal.

You don't "need" lore to play a technical game. You don't "need" rules to read about a faction. Sure, you can look up lore online, it's technically possible. Same could be said for rules.

At the end of the day, they're selling the experience. That involves more than mechanics. Because they lose to chess, blackjack, or DOTA (depending on the person) if they deal solely in mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree. I feel the marine supplements where a good idea that fell short by not re-point costing the C:SM units to compensate for the buffs from the doctrines.

That said, even without points adjustments to umita or wargear, if we could roll BA, SW, DA, and Deathwatch into supplements that'd be even better since they could update the core book while leaving the supplements unchanged for the most part (since they don't need to be updated to add new units and can contain all the unique units rather easilly).

It's unnecessary though. At maximum you needed:
. 3-4 unique units for each Chapter
. 3 Relics for each Chapter
. 3 Unique Strats for each Chapter
. However many Special Characters, some of which have no point. Nobody would miss Asmodai and Corbulo, sorry.

What is it with you and absolute statements? Just because you wouldn't miss Asmodai, or Corbulo, or Crowe, or whoever, does not mean that nobody would.

They're not good characters,

To you. There are people who love them. How many is certainly a question. "Good characters" in this context means nothing more than your opinion of their quality. But most people buy from GW, not you - suggesting they prefer GW's opinion on the matter more than yours.

don't fulfill a purpose,

If you want to field an army that includes Asmodai, you can use Asmodai to do so. That's a purpose. And I'm sure there are others. Maybe not one you care about, but certainly a purpose.

and are overall just models that don't need special rules.

Again with "need". It's such a meaningless word bandied about so absolutistly.

Hell, you're better off 100% of the time just using Crowe as a regular Brotherhood Champion.

Only if you consider "I want to use Crowe" to be 0% of the time. Which is provably false - there exists at least one time someone used Crowe when they didn't want a Brotherhood Champion.

What's wrong with using the model like that?

If you want to, sure, go ahead. But using him that way is a long way away from demanding that anyone who uses the model uses him that way.

Similarly, I like RPGs. What you're arguing would be similar to be demanding everyone spend at least one night a week playing D&D. I mean, what's wrong with playing D&D? The fact is, it's fine that I like it, but not fine that I demand others to behave the way I want to.

Spoletta wrote:
You are trying to fix an issue that isn't there.
Blasts being converted to random hits is perfectly functional for the game.
For a time we had a problem with not enough anti horde weapon, but that has been solved by generally decreasing the cost of elite infantry and now hordes are no longer considered a big issue.

I just don't like how swingy d6 is for blasts, but that's just me.

And honestly I would have preferred they upped to cost of the hordes instead of dropping the elites points costs. They make stuff too cheap and I feel we'll be treading the same path WHFB did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Funny, because in earlier editions I didn't need to have both the BRB and the codex to know what a USR was. It was only a problem in 6th and 7th when they introduced a bunch of USR that were just bloat.
In 4th ed you had a few USR, and it was fine.

Never played 4th, but I saw it often enough in 5th to know it was an issue. Some people don't keep rules like that in their head very easilly and need to have their books open to double check stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:
You can have USR and still write out what they do on the datasheet or in the codex. They dont have to only appear in the main rule book. That is something completely different.

Magic and other games have USR and in magic they write out what the abilities does in many cases unless the card has a ton of rules then the most common ones just stays as one word USR. The most important part is that the rule is the same every time it is used and make for easier understanding of the unit/card.

If you dont get too many variations of mostly the same ability and keep the amount of USR low it wont take long before you know all of them and never have to look up that rule again. Helps a lot during games if your opponents abilities share the same name as yours so if you know your rules then you probably know most of your opponents as well.

The few times I played against Eldar or Dark Eldar back in 4th/5th I had quite a good idea of what everything did after a quick summary but last time against Eldar and Dark Eldar in this edition I had no idea since actually understanding everything he can do takes too much time in a tournament so he could have just BSed rules the whole game and I wouldnt notice since except for the basic statline and smite we have like 0 shared name of abilities despite them doing the same thing.

If you have to reprint USRs in the codexes then their no different that the bespoke rules of now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Basically they should work on improving what we've got, not rolling back to old janky mechanics.

The same could be said about what they threw out.
Though blast templates had inherent problems.
Whilst templates worked fine in WHFB, they were trickier to handle in 40k as you were allowed to spread out everything wide. That said, the current system needs a lot of work to accurately portray blast weapons. I think it should be like, you roll to hit, and then you roll 2D6 hits or something.

Even without the ability to spread out ut slowed down hames and had a problem with people cheating the scatter or arguing over how many models are actually touched by it.

I agree that they should be a fixed shot (like Heavy 1) with an effect that reads (if this weapon hits it does dX number of hits instead of one).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
but GW has a site and BL, they can put lore there.

There is lore and then there is lore that is basically a documentary for people exploring the models for an army. A novel is nowhere near the same thing as a codex.

Agreed. Despite the more tournament heavy focus of Dakka most players like having the lore in the codexes, and it also serves as a way to introduce new players (or players who are just starting a new army with a faction they never looked at before) to a given faction. The lore tends to give people a bit of grpunding on what the units are, what they do for the faction and generally get a feel for why the faction operates the way it does.

How much lore do you NEED in the codex though compared to functional rules? Nobody is buying a codex blind. Everyone is doing at least some minimal research before going into an army.

A lot more than you think people do. Just because you don't care about lore doesn't make it worthless to the rest of us.

Also, that initial research will get people's interest, but the codex will sell them the rest. Or are you going to claim people will spend hours researching every unit on Le xicanum before they buy the codex?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Basically they should work on improving what we've got, not rolling back to old janky mechanics.

The same could be said about what they threw out.
Though blast templates had inherent problems.
Whilst templates worked fine in WHFB, they were trickier to handle in 40k as you were allowed to spread out everything wide. That said, the current system needs a lot of work to accurately portray blast weapons. I think it should be like, you roll to hit, and then you roll 2D6 hits or something.

this sounds reasonable.

A lot more than you think people do. Just because you don't care about lore doesn't make it worthless to the rest of us.

Also, that initial research will get people's interest, but the codex will sell them the rest. Or are you going to claim people will spend hours researching every unit on Le xicanum before they buy the codex?

If they are smart or have friends or family playing, they are usally pointed to where ever the latest tournament builds are, the compare their budget with that they can buy, which almost always is less then what the tournament lists cost, and go with that.

If people were picking up armies based on lore or looks, you would have a lot more players picking up the bad armies. Yet it does not happen. I haven't played for decades, but I have yet to see a new player coming to the store and asking what is good for a bad army.

Never played 4th, but I saw it often enough in 5th to know it was an issue. Some people don't keep rules like that in their head very easilly and need to have their books open to double check stuff.

Also people don't trust other people, so if they aren't 100% sure, they will always ask to show them the rules.

Karol wrote:

A lot more than you think people do. Just because you don't care about lore doesn't make it worthless to the rest of us.

Also, that initial research will get people's interest, but the codex will sell them the rest. Or are you going to claim people will spend hours researching every unit on Le xicanum before they buy the codex?

If they are smart or have friends or family playing, they are usally pointed to where ever the latest tournament builds are, the compare their budget with that they can buy, which almost always is less then what the tournament lists cost, and go with that.

If people were picking up armies based on lore or looks, you would have a lot more players picking up the bad armies. Yet it does not happen. I haven't played for decades, but I have yet to see a new player coming to the store and asking what is good for a bad army.

Never played 4th, but I saw it often enough in 5th to know it was an issue. Some people don't keep rules like that in their head very easilly and need to have their books open to double check stuff.

Also people don't trust other people, so if they aren't 100% sure, they will always ask to show them the rules.

Assuming everyone, or even most people, care about tournament builds is a serious fallacy.

And your experiances aren't even close to universal since you live in Seal Clubbing Land.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Karol wrote:

A lot more than you think people do. Just because you don't care about lore doesn't make it worthless to the rest of us.

Also, that initial research will get people's interest, but the codex will sell them the rest. Or are you going to claim people will spend hours researching every unit on Le xicanum before they buy the codex?

If they are smart or have friends or family playing, they are usally pointed to where ever the latest tournament builds are, the compare their budget with that they can buy, which almost always is less then what the tournament lists cost, and go with that.

If people were picking up armies based on lore or looks, you would have a lot more players picking up the bad armies. Yet it does not happen. I haven't played for decades, but I have yet to see a new player coming to the store and asking what is good for a bad army.

Never played 4th, but I saw it often enough in 5th to know it was an issue. Some people don't keep rules like that in their head very easilly and need to have their books open to double check stuff.

Also people don't trust other people, so if they aren't 100% sure, they will always ask to show them the rules.

Assuming everyone, or even most people, care about tournament builds is a serious fallacy.

And your experiances aren't even close to universal since you live in Seal Clubbing Land.

dingdingdingding we have a winner. Karol's meta sucks and I truly feel bad for them, they are also a student with little disposable cash who made a decision they regret, so there's that as well. But I dont get why they chose GK to begin with and didnt check out their local scene first.

I would prefer if GW would just increase the quality of the rules to match the lore and models.


oh and make a dedicated tourney ruleset.

I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Racerguy180 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Basically they should work on improving what we've got, not rolling back to old janky mechanics.

The same could be said about what they threw out.
Though blast templates had inherent problems.
Whilst templates worked fine in WHFB, they were trickier to handle in 40k as you were allowed to spread out everything wide. That said, the current system needs a lot of work to accurately portray blast weapons. I think it should be like, you roll to hit, and then you roll 2D6 hits or something.

this sounds reasonable.

What would be the purpose of making the result more random and increasing the number of rolls?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Whole armies unable to function on their own is kinda a big fething indicator of the health of the game don't you think?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Whole armies unable to function on their own is kinda a big fething indicator of the health of the game don't you think?

If you think that's bad, you should see how bad Black has it in Chess. Literally the worst faction in the game.

Balance is relative, not absolute.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Whole armies unable to function on their own is kinda a big fething indicator of the health of the game don't you think?

If you think that's bad, you should see how bad Black has it in Chess. Literally the worst faction in the game.

Balance is relative, not absolute.

Chess also operates as AA, which helps partly negate that. Wanna try and defend IGOUGO again?

I think if GW was really going to in anyway overhaul GK we'd have heard something by now, even whispers.

Hell, we heard about and saw pictures of, Sisters back in January.

GK are getting squatted. GW has ordered two stores in my state to remove ALL non-primaris SM things, and GK models, and ship them back to the main. GW does not want people even buying their codex.

Both stores also suddenly started selling Baneblades, which I'd never seen on a shelf before in 8th. But I'm willing to chalk that up to Apoc coming.

We haven't even heard a question answered in terms of GK. The only new rules they got are scraps tossed to them from the SM improvements.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Whole armies unable to function on their own is kinda a big fething indicator of the health of the game don't you think?

Whole army. Not armies. Most armies are sitting in the healthy mid 40 percent win rate zone (I think we have a few above that, but on a subfaction basis to subfaction balance basis the game is pretty decently okay). The only real outlier is the Grey Knights who are incredibly broken in the saddest way.

It's not a symptom of the game as a whole being unhealthy as much as it is a symptom that when the book was written (most likely before 8th even launched).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Whole armies unable to function on their own is kinda a big fething indicator of the health of the game don't you think?

Whole army. Not armies. Most armies are sitting in the healthy mid 40 percent win rate zone (I think we have a few above that, but on a subfaction basis to subfaction balance basis the game is pretty decently okay). The only real outlier is the Grey Knights who are incredibly broken in the saddest way.

It's not a symptom of the game as a whole being unhealthy as much as it is a symptom that when the book was written (most likely before 8th even launched).

Grey Knights are not the only one.
And of those factions that supposedly are healthy i'd like to point the subfactions that are used, and believe me there are very few variations there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I agree Grey Knights need a massive overhaul (I'm rather hoping they go open beta in CA2019 like the Sisters did), but the fact that the army isn't good is not indicative of the game as a whole. They are an outlier on the bell curve, not the median example.

Whole armies unable to function on their own is kinda a big fething indicator of the health of the game don't you think?

If you think that's bad, you should see how bad Black has it in Chess. Literally the worst faction in the game.

Balance is relative, not absolute.

Chess also operates as AA, which helps partly negate that. Wanna try and defend IGOUGO again?

First, more to the actual point. What about this discussion was me defending AA? What about my post referenced it?

And, for bonus points, how was saying, in that other thread you're conflating with this one, that "Units have different values in AA than IGOUGO" a "defense of IGOUGO"?

Secondly, about how you approached the point. Chess being AA doesn't help negate Black's disadvantage. AA itself is the *root cause* of Black's disadvantage. Sure, IGOUGO would be even worse for black (likely). But Black is only worse *because* you alternate activations. If you instead had simulataneous (or even random) activations, Black's disadvantage disappears. Please make sure you understand the implications of a point before spouting off about them.

If in chess igougo would be the case white would have a 100% winrate..

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think if GW was really going to in anyway overhaul GK we'd have heard something by now, even whispers.

Hell, we heard about and saw pictures of, Sisters back in January.

GK are getting squatted. GW has ordered two stores in my state to remove ALL non-primaris SM things, and GK models, and ship them back to the main. GW does not want people even buying their codex.

Both stores also suddenly started selling Baneblades, which I'd never seen on a shelf before in 8th. But I'm willing to chalk that up to Apoc coming.

We haven't even heard a question answered in terms of GK. The only new rules they got are scraps tossed to them from the SM improvements.

Calling nonsense. The big reason we likely haven't heard anything yet is because they haven't finished Primaris Grey Knights yet.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If in chess igougo would be the case white would have a 100% winrate..

Probably (I'd be interested if you had the solution. I don't think it's possible to 1-round the opponent moving each piece once. But that's really beside the point). But AA is why Black is behind - if activations weren't alternated (random or simultaneous, for example), Black is no longer behind.

GK/SW/DA/BA are all going to suffer in the new anti-marine meta and have no hope beyond CA 2019 (no rumors I've heard) and a 2020 spring release for BA. The armies with some of the worst win rates/twip are going to get worse as the meta shifts (the new SM are soooo good at killing other marines)...

I happen to play SW/BA/DA and the changes to Space Marines show that GW screwed up power armored dudes badly at the design phase of 8th but yet they can't take the time to at least update our re-rolls and points to match the base line of what they gave SM.

My armies being in the trash tier (I think DA and SW have win rates or TWiP at least as low as GK) says one thing about GWs attempt to balance the game at the beginning of 8th. The fact that GW only fixed SM (and left the rest of the marine factions to wallow in the dumpster fire) is salt in the wound.

bananathug wrote:
GK/SW/DA/BA are all going to suffer in the new anti-marine meta and have no hope beyond CA 2019 (no rumors I've heard) and a 2020 spring release for BA. The armies with some of the worst win rates/twip are going to get worse as the meta shifts (the new SM are soooo good at killing other marines)...

I happen to play SW/BA/DA and the changes to Space Marines show that GW screwed up power armored dudes badly at the design phase of 8th but yet they can't take the time to at least update our re-rolls and points to match the base line of what they gave SM.

My armies being in the trash tier (I think DA and SW have win rates or TWiP at least as low as GK) says one thing about GWs attempt to balance the game at the beginning of 8th. The fact that GW only fixed SM (and left the rest of the marine factions to wallow in the dumpster fire) is salt in the wound.

I think Marines are about to learn why giving Marines more AP doesn't fix Marines the way people thought it would...

Spoletta wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Basically they should work on improving what we've got, not rolling back to old janky mechanics.

The same could be said about what they threw out.
Though blast templates had inherent problems.
Whilst templates worked fine in WHFB, they were trickier to handle in 40k as you were allowed to spread out everything wide. That said, the current system needs a lot of work to accurately portray blast weapons. I think it should be like, you roll to hit, and then you roll 2D6 hits or something.

this sounds reasonable.

What would be the purpose of making the result more random and increasing the number of rolls?

cuz artillery is random?
How does it make more dice rolling? currently; you roll for # of shots, then roll those dice for hits, then roll that amount for wounds, then that many for damage(if applicable). so that's 4 different rolls.
Proposed is; roll die to hit, then use that # for rolling wounds, then roll for damage. So total of 3 different rolls, how exactly is that increasing the # of rolls.
Flamers would work the same as currently but they should cause multiple damage instead of 1(for reg flamer) and D3+X for heavy.

rather than random hits, I think it should be random on the wounds/damage instead.

Or just make all small blasts hits = 2 hits per every 10 models in a unit and large bast 3 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or just make all small blasts hits = 2 hits per every 10 models in a unit and large bast 3 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

Auto hits?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think if GW was really going to in anyway overhaul GK we'd have heard something by now, even whispers.

Hell, we heard about and saw pictures of, Sisters back in January.

GK are getting squatted. GW has ordered two stores in my state to remove ALL non-primaris SM things, and GK models, and ship them back to the main. GW does not want people even buying their codex.

Both stores also suddenly started selling Baneblades, which I'd never seen on a shelf before in 8th. But I'm willing to chalk that up to Apoc coming.

We haven't even heard a question answered in terms of GK. The only new rules they got are scraps tossed to them from the SM improvements.

There is lots of stuff that is direct only. That doesn't mean those models are getting squatted. You should be careful how you claim things without evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or just make all small blasts hits = 2 hits per every 10 models in a unit and large bast 3 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

Will it then be better for me to take 9 or 19 models in a unit?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or just make all small blasts hits = 2 hits per every 10 models in a unit and large bast 3 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

Auto hits?

No you roll to hit, if it hits then it is instead X hits. So 1/2 way auto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think if GW was really going to in anyway overhaul GK we'd have heard something by now, even whispers.

Hell, we heard about and saw pictures of, Sisters back in January.

GK are getting squatted. GW has ordered two stores in my state to remove ALL non-primaris SM things, and GK models, and ship them back to the main. GW does not want people even buying their codex.

Both stores also suddenly started selling Baneblades, which I'd never seen on a shelf before in 8th. But I'm willing to chalk that up to Apoc coming.

We haven't even heard a question answered in terms of GK. The only new rules they got are scraps tossed to them from the SM improvements.

There is lots of stuff that is direct only. That doesn't mean those models are getting squatted. You should be careful how you claim things without evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or just make all small blasts hits = 2 hits per every 10 models in a unit and large bast 3 hits for every 10 models in a unit.

Will it then be better for me to take 9 or 19 models in a unit?

Maybe, just ideas.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Assuming everyone, or even most people, care about tournament builds is a serious fallacy.

And your experiances aren't even close to universal since you live in Seal Clubbing Land.

It has little to do with carrying about tournaments. See I got to sports school, and when have to pick their specialisation, more often then not they watch how the matchs look like. Noobs, if they are smart, know they are noobs and the best way to avoid spending 700$ on something that is really bad, is looking at what is played in tournaments all across the globe. Doesn't even matter, what they play, how the events are played, if they team events or not, is ITC or somethings else etc.
Because in the end, when you sit down, and you see that lets say farseers or jump pack marines HQs pop up in every list, or almost every list, then the world just did the testing and trying out for you. You don't have to buy all eldar HQs, you know that you want a seer. If you see that eldar plans, do really good in many events with many rule sets, then you can be sure that there has to be something good about, because all those people who are focused on winning are using them. It is safe choice to buy, and again the testing is done for you, for free, and you don't have worry about it. It has absolutly nothing to do with where play, plus the recant leviathan thing only shows me that my meta is neither worse or better, then what people in other countries play.

There is lots of stuff that is direct only. That doesn't mean those models are getting squatted. You should be careful how you claim things without evidence.

But if GW was planning something for GK, would be be seeing stuff or at least hearing rumors? The last info we got about GK is months old, and it is a strickt anwser of No to the question if GK are getting primiars.Not even a we don't plan it yet, or we focus on X for GK right now, a single word quick anwser of No, at GW design team panel. Plus GK seem to be missing in action. Demons and chaos is poping up everywhere, yet GK are no where to be seen. their last lore is pre 8th writen.