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.
beast_gts wrote: 3 of the sprues have Land Raider on them, and 1 Spartan (looking at the Tale of Painters photos) - so either the Spartan is an upgrade for the Land Raider kit, or they've used the terms interchangeably....
Well it's like I said a few pages back: This is a specialist game release, and they have far more limited resources (or resource allocation) than the main studio proper.
The Spartan, as we've seen, has a LOT of sprues. Thus, it stands to reason that they would try to find a way to make said sprues as modular as possible to cover as much ground as possible. So rather than making a "Spartan" kit, they make a basic Land Raider frame that has parts common to a number of similar-looking tanks, and then create completely separate expansion sprues that can turn that basic set of sprues into a number of other vehicles.
Makes me wonder how many parts will be shared between other vehicles. For instance, the Sicaran and Kratos are clearly very different from a size perspective, but share a lot of aesthetic similarities. I wonder if there's any part of those that are expansions from one another? Maybe they share a generic 'sponson' sprue. Maybe there are other Sicaran turrets coming, because it lets them get more use out of the basic chassis sprues whilst allowing for more variety of tanks?
Necessity is the mother of invention, after all, and specialist does have to make more with less.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Oh good god, man. Won't you finally be quiet? Nothing you've said in the last sixty pages of this thread has been useful, informative, or even funny. You just keep prattling on and on, presumably to amuse yourself because I can't see any other motivation behind such actions.
This coming from easily one of the most morose posters in Dakka history. Remember when I used to call you Eeyore?
As far as nothing I've said, others have already commented on this post. You choosing to ignore it just to have a go at me speaks volumes. As does the amount of effort and energy y'all put into discussing me rather than the topic.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 04:14:37
skrulnik wrote: Regarding the 5 man sprues complaint, all the Primaris models outside the big box sprues have been 5 pose boxes as well.
Intercessors, Reivers, Hellblasters, Infil/Incursors, Assault Intercessors, all just 5 poses.
They merely doubled up the sprues to make the current 10man boxes.
Why are the expectations so much higher here?
I haven't followed the Marine releases, if that's been the most common situation then I guess that's what we should have expected.
It seemed to me that GW was starting to shift toward 10 pose boxes, I haven't tried to keep a comprehensive list but the following come to mind...
DKOK Novitiates
Ork Boyz
Ork Snaggas
Eldar Guardians
Ork Kommandos
But I'm not a chronicler of GW's releases, perhaps I'm mistaken, those are just the ones I remember.
Careful now. Say too many things like that and some of the people here may actually have to start reading my posts rather strawmanning me into oblivion.
I lost intreast in that "problem with reactions video" after he spent over 5 minutes of the inital video complaining about people who expressed differant opinions from his relentless (and no doubt click inducing) barrage of negativity
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/22 05:36:51
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
whoops was responding to the wrong video. I meant to make that comment about the problem with reactions video Crablezworth linked. literally the first 5+ (I stiopped watching after 5 minutes in) where the guy basicly complaining about people saying he was too negative
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
whoops was responding to the wrong video. I meant to make that comment about the problem with reactions video Crablezworth linked. literally the first 5+ (I stiopped watching after 5 minutes in) where the guy basicly complaining about people saying he was too negative
Summary for people who don't want to listen to Macca's salt mining (seriously, he prattles on for over the first six minutes without getting to his point crying about the "toxic positivity crowd" and whining that he's a long running player so he knows what he's talking about and everyone else is wrong, ect, ect): he says he did some proxy playtesting, assumes that they playtesting wasn't comprehensive and spends minutes still not getting to his point of what he thinks is wrong and why. The video is a mess of rambling and failing to discuss his main point for nearly 17 minutes. That's almost half the video Seriously, at the 12 minute mark he's talking about PINNING and not about reactions. No one is missing much skipping the first half.
So he says one of his problems with reactions is that GW "won't commit to IGOUGO". He claims that 7th wasn't built around that. I think he means "alternating activations" and not "IGOUGO". He then says that you're "constantly being interrupted" by reactions, then back pedals a bit and says you'll be second guessing yourself because of that "trap card". So he creates a scenario that works in 1.0 but doesn't work in 2.0 with the possibility of being charged in your movement phase by an Imperial Fists player using an advanced reaction (The Best Defense which can only be used once a game, can only be declared on a unit within 10" and line of sight and the charging unit can only move D6"+ the unit's lowest initiative value) due to you moving a unit of Red Butchers "as close as possible" so it can charge the unit of Imperial Fists terminators after you shoot with "the rest of your army to soften it up". Could this happen? Yes. But it's something you can also bait out of the other player or by staying just outside the average range of the Best Defense for this scenario (which is 7") or you can move two units into range so one is slightly closer and in the way of them connecting with the Terminators and use your charge moves to position the chaffe unit out of the way while making a legal charge allowing the terminators to connect. Like this isn't a "gotcha" unless both players aren't operating with the same information. And if the Imperial Fists player in this scenario uses The Best Defense in the movement phase they can no longer use any reactions for the rest of the movement phase.
He also basically treats players like goldfish where they can't remember what they were doing when reactions happen, and then goes back to whining about "toxic positivity" players. Well his point lasted about three minutes so far and honestly I am tired of him not getting to the point so I'm calling it at the 20 minute mark. If he makes a more solid argument after that point cool, but honestly I want a refund for my time.
Also he admits around 13 minutes that he's not really a narrative player which tells me his mindset isn't really meshing with the general community which has made a point of saying it's a narrative community and are fearful of new players pushing it to be more competetive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 05:44:26
I've never been of the opinion that AA is the panacea that will fix 40k, but I'm fine with Reactions adding a form of interactivity to the game during the 'off' turns.
As long as they are limited and there aren't 48 of them in 7 broad categories for each Legion, it should be fine.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that AA is the panacea that will fix 40k, but I'm fine with Reactions adding a form of interactivity to the game during the 'off' turns.
As long as they are limited and there aren't 48 of them in 7 broad categories for each Legion, it should be fine.
They're 1 per phase and you can't react to reactions (so no reaction inception). You can unlock bonus reactions through things like Warlord Traits but those look to be phase specific. For example:
Stoic Defender
This warlord is a rock, the hard place against which his foes are dashed and broken. When the enemy surges forth they do not foolishly go to meet them, but dig in so that the enemy may exhaust themselves against the defences prepared for them. In the end, victory comes to those willing to endure the fires of battle and emerge unscathed from its fury.
Any friendly unit joined by a Warlord with this Trait that makes a Shooting Attack will force the target unit to take a Pinning test if it suffers any unsaved Wounds. In addition, an army whose Warlord has this Trait may make an additional Reaction during their opponent’s Shooting phase as long as the Warlord has not been removed as a casualty.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that AA is the panacea that will fix 40k, but I'm fine with Reactions adding a form of interactivity to the game during the 'off' turns.
As long as they are limited and there aren't 48 of them in 7 broad categories for each Legion, it should be fine.
yeah thats my thought too. the complaint that "reactions will potentially slow things up as people will have to think about their moves" I... don't see as being a bad thing. I agree too many to the point of it being "gotcha" is bad. but to have to think a moment and take into consideration "counter play" I don't see that as a bad thing AT ALL
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
skrulnik wrote: Regarding the 5 man sprues complaint, all the Primaris models outside the big box sprues have been 5 pose boxes as well.
Intercessors, Reivers, Hellblasters, Infil/Incursors, Assault Intercessors, all just 5 poses.
They merely doubled up the sprues to make the current 10man boxes.
Why are the expectations so much higher here?
Because HH boxes are 20 men. Thus, expectations are actually the same; of one sprue of bodies doubled up.
Mk III and IV were both 10 man boxes. The 20 man boxes are new, and presumably a way to lower costs without having to officially discount models.
MkIII and MkIV also have 10 leg poses, not 5. And MkVI are only going to be available in a box of 20, so I’m pretty sure their point stands.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that AA is the panacea that will fix 40k, but I'm fine with Reactions adding a form of interactivity to the game during the 'off' turns.
As long as they are limited and there aren't 48 of them in 7 broad categories for each Legion, it should be fine.
yeah thats my thought too. the complaint that "reactions will potentially slow things up as people will have to think about their moves" I... don't see as being a bad thing. I agree too many to the point of it being "gotcha" is bad. but to have to think a moment and take into consideration "counter play" I don't see that as a bad thing AT ALL
Yeah, the list of reactions we have is pretty short, and even the advanced reactions aren't too out of control and from what I can find it looks like each legion will get a single custom advanced reaction each which is perfectly fine in my book. Honestly it's what I wanted from stratagems but the 40k team keeps bloating that out further and further.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that AA is the panacea that will fix 40k, but I'm fine with Reactions adding a form of interactivity to the game during the 'off' turns.
As long as they are limited and there aren't 48 of them in 7 broad categories for each Legion, it should be fine.
It's much much worse than you might think, sadly. You will quickly find wargear that gets around the limits, traits and warlord traits and characters than quickly expand on how many can be done per turn, not to mention, few downsides or consequences, you would think, for example, intercepting might, i dunno, affect the unit intercepting's ability to shoot in their turn... nope. 10pts, doesn't come out of ur reaction limit, every unit can get them. It's going to make even 2v2 or larger games pretty intractable, not to mention the decision paralysis you'll see just in 1 v 1.
Put it another way, going to ground and jink are now a "reaction" called evade. In prior editions they were simply decisions to be made with consequences and upsides, now it's like a 5 up feel no pain for vehicles and infantry a like, but limited, (thankfully?) to represent that after a while military units in war forget how to actively evade incoming enemy fire when possible ("sir should be we actively try not to get shot by the enemy, who is actively trying to shoot us?" "Sorry lads, no more reactions. Better just stand there. Maybe next turn.").
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/22 06:28:06
Racerguy180 wrote: It's all about reducing costs. They will continue to do so until there is threat of no market. Not before & not till.
It's more about having a project budget and needing to make compromises to get everything in under budget. Honestly with everything they're releasing at launch for what is a specialist game I can't complain. I'm sure someone can, but I can't.
Racerguy180 wrote: It's all about reducing costs. They will continue to do so until there is threat of no market. Not before & not till.
It's more about having a project budget and needing to make compromises to get everything in under budget. Honestly with everything they're releasing at launch for what is a specialist game I can't complain. I'm sure someone can, but I can't.
Yeah a pretty damn low project budget. The digital assets are there, the tool making is in-house, they still need to cut a bunch of dies(unless they're using laser-sintered which I highly doubt).
I'd believe it if they weren't re-releasing the MKIII/IV kits and the plethora of 10 sculpts per new mould.
They're not treating it like a specialist game while simultaneously treating it like a specialist game. It's a new 3rd leg on the proverbial stool of GW.
Regardless of any special rules or other effects, no player may ever increase their base Reaction Allotment above three, nor may any player ever make more than three Reactions in a given Phase unless a special rule specifically allows for a number of Reactions above the normal limit of three.
There is a limit on the number of "trap cards" a player can sit on. That said there are upgrades available that let you get reactions without spending a Reaction Allotment such as the Helical Targetting Array (available on the Legion Sicaran Arcus Squadron at +15pts each for example), but those are very specific in what you can use it on:
When the model makes a Shooting Attack as part of the Interceptor Reaction, the Reaction does not cost the controlling player a point from their Reaction Allotment. This does not allow the unit to make more than one Reaction per phase, but does allow the controlling player to exceed the normal three Reactions limit in a given phase.
So we can see that the Reaction economy means generally even if you lean into it you max at 9 a turn outside of specific instances from wargear (and the two I found with a quick skim both only worked only on the Interceptor Reaction to give a free reaction to that unit as part of a larger set of utilities).
I don't know, it doesn't feel like the same sort of decision paralysis that 40k has right now and honestly with how few reactions there are to choose from it doesn't feel like something most people are going to build for.
On a different note: bayonets of both types give +1 strength to melee attacks and count as two-handed weapons but chain-bayonets also confer shred (+1ppm for bayonets, +2ppm for chain bayonets) so I think anyone wanting to run melee will be looking at those depending on the rules they have.
ClockworkZion wrote: So he says one of his problems with reactions is that GW "won't commit to IGOUGO". He claims that 7th wasn't built around that. I think he means "alternating activations" and not "IGOUGO".
at least this part I can understand, as IGoUGo in a sense off "I do something, finish it and than you get to do something" is not there in 40k. The basic turns are designed as I have a turn, you have a turn, but this is were IGoUGo stops and everything else is with possible interruptions which happen before I finish what I started doing
people call 40kIGoUGo, but it is not, it is a mix of Alternate Activation, IGoUGo and Interrupting Reactions, hence I don't really understand people complaining about reactions as the basic 40k rules were never a clear system in he first place that is now broken. they expanded on something that was already there but people missed because it was not declared as such
and I think lot of the negativity for reactions comes from the fact that HH is not moving towards 9th edition rules but continue being its own game and reactions are the easiest thing to point this out
my personal problem with Reactions usually if they happen during the current action and not after it breaking the flow of the game, which is a problem the larger the game gets but is kind of solved here by limiting the amount of reactions, so need to play it to see if this works out (we tested Reactions as house rules already back in 5th but those triggered after you finished your "action" within reaction range, so overwatch happend in the movement phase while in CC phase you got the opportunity to strike back or run away as reaction)
by now, I don't see Reactions as a problem but as an advantage, lets see if GW will find a way to mess it up or not
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Regardless of any special rules or other effects, no player may ever increase their base Reaction Allotment above three, nor may any player ever make more than three Reactions in a given Phase unless a special rule specifically allows for a number of Reactions above the normal limit of three.
Hmm - I can't help but feel like this Reaction Allotment should probably scale by game size, rather than be fixed at three regardless of if playing at 1,000 points or 100,000 points.
Not sure at what increments it should scale at, but...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Dysartes wrote: Hmm - I can't help but feel like this Reaction Allotment should probably scale by game size, rather than be fixed at three regardless of if playing at 1,000 points or 100,000 points.
Not sure at what increments it should scale at, but...
That's what I think Strat assignment should be, based upon the game sizes GW has defined.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've never been of the opinion that AA is the panacea that will fix 40k, but I'm fine with Reactions adding a form of interactivity to the game during the 'off' turns.
As long as they are limited and there aren't 48 of them in 7 broad categories for each Legion, it should be fine.
I can go as low as 24 per legion, but... I'm going to release them for just 2 legions at a time at a pace of 2 legions every 3 months so that legions 17 & 18 get theirs 2 years after legions 1 & 2. Deal?
I will also release a reaction supplement book for 2 random legions every six months. 60 page book, 2 pages of reactions (but really OP).
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note: bayonets of both types give +1 strength to melee attacks and count as two-handed weapons but chain-bayonets also confer shred (+1ppm for bayonets, +2ppm for chain bayonets) so I think anyone wanting to run melee will be looking at those depending on the rules they have.
Wait. Does that mean that a chain bayonet hits harder than a chainsword?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/22 10:35:22
That's one thing I really don't like. The bayonets should just be the same function as the Chainswords and Combat Knives with the other armour kits, extra CCW.
