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.

You can actually use more than one special operative in a game if you like, but you have to expend a promethium cache for eavh one.

 Starfarer wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Starfarer wrote:

That neophyte kit is like a swiss army knife for conversion potential. Really great kit.

Black Dagger Games on ebay usually sells individual models in bits, so you can almost certainly buy a purestrain genestealer and your acolytes that way.

Good to know. I'm kind of looking forward to converting up some acolytes from parts though. I might hit them up for a purestrain genestealer, but there are so many thousands of plastic genestealsers on the used market I'm confident I can trade for one or just find someone to give me one.

How many purestrains can one have in a warband?

Both acolytes and Purestrain genestealers are Special operatives, so you can only use one per game and you have to use a promethium cache to do so. However, it would be easy enough to just model acolytes with available neophyte options (do just autopistol and combat weapon in most cases). Since the acolytes can't even take the special weapons from the codex, there's no reason not to just use them with neophyte rules if you just want them in from a modeling perspective. I plan to do that anyway.

Well GW said on the community page that they'd add my four of my five questions to the FAQ.

The fifth question was me asking if the printed rulebook included the errata (like W3 Raveners). They said that sadly it did not.

For reference, my four questions were:

1. Do Drone special abilities still function when the Drone is pinned/down?

2. What happens when a Drone gets a skill as a result of an injury roll? What skills can Drones use? Do Drones even roll Injury Rolls? Can Drones lose/gain stats?

3. The flavour text for the Ion Rifle seems to indicate it would have two fire modes, yet its rules are almost the same as the Rail Rifles. Was this intended? If not, what profile/s should the Ion Rifle have? If so, what benefits are there to one over the other?

4. Are you -sure- you meant for Henchmen to not have access to Carapace Armour? Seems amazingly arbitrary.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are you -sure- you meant for Henchmen to not have access to Carapace Armour? Seems amazingly arbitrary.

Yep they are sure sure:

Q. Should there be an option for Inquisitorial Henchmen to take carapace armour?
No.

Anyone else tempted to put tracks or bigger wheels on the Galvanic Servohauler Trailer so it actually has ground-clearance?

True, like I can't give my IG vet sgt a power fist which is rather unfortunate since I modelled her with one. But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do. The Inquisitorial kill team is still my best shot at making an Arbites squad, though, with crusaders doubling as dudes with shields and power mauls and the Inquisitor playing the role of not Calpurina. Not sure about the Arbites with bolters and shotguns though.

Same here, made a Scion with power fist just for this game.

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are you -sure- you meant for Henchmen to not have access to Carapace Armour? Seems amazingly arbitrary.

Yep they are sure sure:

Q. Should there be an option for Inquisitorial Henchmen to take carapace armour?
No.

I asked the question after the FAQ came out.

From Facebook:



GW is working on another diorama table, should be inspiring.

That train engine looks promising; warlord head top plate on top of Triaros prow. Should look ace when it's done.

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

beast_gts wrote:
Anyone else tempted to put tracks or bigger wheels on the Galvanic Servohauler Trailer so it actually has ground-clearance?

Not really. It's a glorified fork lift, not an off-road trailer meant to be hooked up to the back of a Chimera.

I made a fillable version of GW's roster if anyone wants it.

If you haven't seen it, The movie "Ghosts of Mars" would be an awesome campaign for SW: A. Use a chaos cult, or a genestealer cult for the Martians, and have a squad of misfits as the heroes, and away you go. Personally, I think I would use 2 squads of Schaeffer's Last Chancers... and have a couple of vehicles laying around the table for anyone to pick up.

A second movie I would look at, if you can still find it is- The Wild Geese/ and have a squad of IG, fighting their way in, saving a primary, and getting him out as cultists try to kill them all on the way out of the territory, with a planetary airstrike hot on their heels, as they make it from "Designation 1 " to "Designation 2"....

Book finally came today, looks good so far but I was expecting hardcover but it's softcover, guess I didn't catch that on gw's page. Gonna be putting together a GSC gang and Skitarri rangers too

 Breotan wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

Agreed. I have never let myself be limited in picking weapons based on what a mini is carrying or not, and have never expected an opponent to do the same.

hive wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

Agreed. I have never let myself be limited in picking weapons based on what a mini is carrying or not, and have never expected an opponent to do the same.

Really? I think WYSIWYG is extremely important for skirmish games since there are so many weapon options that you need to be able to see at a glance which weapon a model is carrying. Obviously not for grenades and accessories but for main weapons certainly.

 Mymearan wrote:

hive wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

Agreed. I have never let myself be limited in picking weapons based on what a mini is carrying or not, and have never expected an opponent to do the same.

Really? I think WYSIWYG is extremely important for skirmish games since there are so many weapon options that you need to be able to see at a glance which weapon a model is carrying. Obviously not for grenades and accessories but for main weapons certainly.

At a glance? Is the game happening at such a break neck speed that you can't ask the opponent which of his *FIVE* models has a specific weapon and then remember it? I like WYSIWYG but it's a bit silly to think our human memories can't handle a few models.

 Kirasu wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

hive wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

Agreed. I have never let myself be limited in picking weapons based on what a mini is carrying or not, and have never expected an opponent to do the same.

Really? I think WYSIWYG is extremely important for skirmish games since there are so many weapon options that you need to be able to see at a glance which weapon a model is carrying. Obviously not for grenades and accessories but for main weapons certainly.

At a glance? Is the game happening at such a break neck speed that you can't ask the opponent which of his *FIVE* models has a specific weapon and then remember it? I like WYSIWYG but it's a bit silly to think our human memories can't handle a few models.

I feel the counter argument here is that it shouldn't be the responsibility of your opponent to have to notated what models have what in your group, when in a game of 5 to 10 models, you should just build another model with the correct weaponry to represent what they have for basic weapons. As said above, holstered pistols, grenades, special wargear doesn't need to be WYSIWYG, but it's common courtesy to have your models correctly armed for basic weapons. Especially if your group is only FIVE models, not having correct gear just makes you a lazy git.

 Mymearan wrote:

hive wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

Agreed. I have never let myself be limited in picking weapons based on what a mini is carrying or not, and have never expected an opponent to do the same.

Really? I think WYSIWYG is extremely important for skirmish games since there are so many weapon options that you need to be able to see at a glance which weapon a model is carrying. Obviously not for grenades and accessories but for main weapons certainly.

WYSIWYG is perhaps at its least important in skirmish games, since there are hardly any miniatures in play and you're required to have a detailed stat & gear sheet for your warbands right there at the table. Hell, it takes less time to glance at the sheet to determine a model's gear than it does to shuffle down to tabletop level and peer at it to try and figure out if the gun stuck randomly to its back is a lasgun or autogun etc. As long as each model is visually distinct and identifiable(or even just has a nameplate on the base) strict WYSIWYG is utterly unnecessary.

It's a useful standard when you have 50-100 models on each side and you don't want people slowing down play with arguments over whether that specific model with a flamer was supposed to be the one with the plasma gun or the missile launcher, but it should only ever be a loose guideline, an aspiration, in a small warband skirmish game else you're needlessly limiting people's ability to make cool models, or could even end up in a situation where you would basically be demanding someone ruin their model by slathering them in glue & bitz as the campaign goes on and models gain new gear.

I like WISIWYG for skirmish games, but it doesn't have to be totally exact, more like for the type of weapon. Like, I wouldn't care if a model has a lasgun but the character is really using an autogun.. but I wouldn't want to use the lasgun model for someone with a heavy stubber, or if someone is using a pistol then the model should have a pistol of some kind.

Back when I was playing Necromunda a lot, I had a pretty big Delaque collection and it was fun to convert the guys between games when their equipment changed. I imagine it would be a lot easier these days with everything plastic instead of metal

updated FAQ https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ShadowWarFAQv2May2017.pdf

Importance aside, I like to stay WYSIWYG in skirmish games like Shadow War 'cause it looks great! Small model counts are the perfect excuse to really go the extra mile and model all of their equipment proppa!

 Jambles wrote:
Importance aside, I like to stay WYSIWYG in skirmish games like Shadow War 'cause it looks great! Small model counts are the perfect excuse to really go the extra mile and model all of their equipment proppa!

Same here. The most funnest part of skirmish games for me anyway is converting and making cool & unique looking models for each guy in your gang. And GW's kits have plenty of extra parts to do that. But then it is also nice that you can just take minis out of your regular armies and form a kill team out of them too.

I don't think anyone objects to the idea you should aim for WSYIWYG when you can, I just don't see that it's a primary consideration from a gameplay perspective in games with such a small number of models in play, and certainly not if it affects how people make their models.

For example, I've tried to model my Dwarfs for Mordheim with a balance between the "ragged adventurer" look and the kind of gear I expect to be buying them over the course of a normal campaign, but "this guy doesn't have visible head-to-toe armour plate" isn't going to stop me buying him Gromril at some stage if I want to, and I don't see any issue with a model carrying a sword & dagger upgrading to a pair of swords without forcing the player to rip up their work and remake it.

I see WYSIWYG as a "gentlemen's agreement" - as long as nobody's taking the piss, rigidly enforcing it just seems pointless and a bit mean-spirited.

Starfarer wrote:He's been posting on forums and interacting with the Inq28 community for a number of years now, but I think there must have been some internal move at GW to encourage them to start public social media accounts, because there are a lot of GW staff that have started instagram accounts in the last few weeks.

There's definitely a sub-culture element to miniature wargaming, so anything that GW can do to show a "by gamers for gamers" approach the better for their sales. It certainly can't be worse than the approach where the only thing you hear from GW is marketing material and Kirby's contemptuous ramblings in their financial reports.

Any news on if we willl see 25mm sector mechanicus bases and others?

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
Any news on if we willl see 25mm sector mechanicus bases and others?

Nothing yet unfortunately.

Drones continue to work even when down. Interesting.

 Starfarer wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:
John Blanche has started posting Shadow War and Inquisimunda terrain and miniatures on his new Instagram page

https://www.instagram.com/laurencejohnblanche/

Inspiring stuff

He's been posting on forums and interacting with the Inq28 community for a number of years now, but I think there must have been some internal move at GW to encourage them to start public social media accounts, because there are a lot of GW staff that have started instagram accounts in the last few weeks.

Don't know about others, but John did it because he got tired of people spamming his FB profile by tagging him in posts and asking him questions, as it was supposed to be a place for him to post non-GW related stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kirasu wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

hive wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
But arbitrary limitations man, what can you do.

Ignore them and get your opponent's consent? I can't see it being that big of an issue.

Agreed. I have never let myself be limited in picking weapons based on what a mini is carrying or not, and have never expected an opponent to do the same.

Really? I think WYSIWYG is extremely important for skirmish games since there are so many weapon options that you need to be able to see at a glance which weapon a model is carrying. Obviously not for grenades and accessories but for main weapons certainly.

At a glance? Is the game happening at such a break neck speed that you can't ask the opponent which of his *FIVE* models has a specific weapon and then remember it? I like WYSIWYG but it's a bit silly to think our human memories can't handle a few models.

I've played Necromunda for years, and yes, as I'm trying to keep the myriad stat changes, skills and weapons on my own models in my head while scanning the board and formulating and executing a strategy, the last thing I want to do is to also keep my opponent's list in there. Might be a smaller problem in Shadow War, but in Necromunda you can easily have 10-15 models after playing campaign for a bit. Each model in a Necromunda gang can easily have as many, or more, things you need to keep in mind as a whole 40k unit, and each model is so important that the smallest mistake can mean a lost game. Models also move around a lot, terrain is dense, and it's easy to confuse one guy with another. Compound that with not being able to trust that the weapons the models are carrying are the ones they're actually using, and multiply that by every model in your opponent's force... Note that I'm talking weapons here since that's by far the most important thing, anything else is much easier to handle and doesn't have as dramatic consequences. Luckily nearly everyone in my gaming group does play WYSIWYG. Personally I use my Escher models completely WYSIWYG, if I want a weapon but don't have the model to match, I simply don't buy that weapon. I will definitely do the same in Shadow War even if it's less complex.

 Mymearan wrote:
Personally I use my Escher models completely WYSIWYG, if I want a weapon but don't have the model to match, I simply don't buy that weapon. I will definitely do the same in Shadow War even if it's less complex.

I take the same approach, with the exception of pistols/grenades which they can have whatever.

I don't make my friends do that, but I do insist that they take what the model has. So if they want another Lasgunner and the only mini left has an Autogun then they can take the Lasgun, but they've got to take the Autogun as well.

Well, I guess no carapace armor for Inquisition. Not that it's that big of a deal, but a little odd Guard can make for better inquisitorial stormtroopers with options for hotshot lasguns and carapace.

On another note, can anyone with the digital rulebook confirm if these errata updates are being updated on the digital rulebooks?