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.

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Q: Any chance of some faction names we can pronounce?
Please don't change Orks
A: You mean, the green Oorookiagoths?

Either they're joking and are aware of how dumb their new naming schemes are, or they're not. At this point, I'm not confident that they are...

Further down on the facebook page, they say they were just joking, it's still Orks.

Good for the Orks. It means they're aware of the absurdity of the new names, though. That makes it worse.

You do know Orks is spelled differently than it is in most (all?) fantasy literature right? So it likely was not an issue. In WH fantasy they used to be Orcs, which was they standard fantasy name.

 Mr Morden wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Jeez how do you deal with all the other measurements in the game ? How do you deal with deployment zones? What game/s have you ben playing?

You can place the model more than 9" away - the distance is up to you - however you can;t place it closer than that - or you are mistaken or cheating.

It's literally only a problem because it's optimal to put it as close as possible, but nothing else uses infinitely thin precision.

Otherwise if a gun has a 12 inch range you hold a tape over it and if it looks 12 inches at a glance it's in range. In this case, a model will look 9 inches at a glance when measured but actually count as a micron further away.

Or in other words, it shouldn't cause a problem 99% of the time, but is still very sloppy.

Vorian wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

You are free to put it anywhere between 9 and 10 and it won't make a difference.

It's incredibly simple.

If you roll an 8 then there's no way you can possibly charge them.

Exactly. It doesn't matter where you put it inside that range because you can't make the charge on an 8.

Just put the models on the other side of the 9" line. Done!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

Exactly. That is the exact reason this is sloppy rules writing: Because a tape measure will say the model is 9 inches away but you have to for this single purpose and no other use more nebulous definitions.

I guess it's a good sign that people can't find anything more important to criticize than whether something that's 9" away is, in fact, 9" away?

changemod wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

Exactly. That is the exact reason this is sloppy rules writing: Because a tape measure will say the model is 9 inches away but you have to for this single purpose and no other use more nebulous definitions.

or people that read the rules for all of 2 seconds will understand that more than means more than and so will know that a roll of an 8 is impossible and move on, even if a model was accidentally placed 1 atom inside of 9" because of plate tectonics.

changemod wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

Exactly. That is the exact reason this is sloppy rules writing: Because a tape measure will say the model is 9 inches away but you have to for this single purpose and no other use more nebulous definitions.

This is satire right?

I'm struggling guys, help me out.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I guess it's a good sign that people can't find anything more important to criticize than whether something that's 9" away is, in fact, 9" away?

The one person in the entire world that thinks its confusing

Man I find it funny that Frankie is acting like they made major changes to Incubi and wyches. I mean, the incubi klaive already was +1S and AP2, so now Marines get saves when they didn't... Yea, hardly an improvement. I know grenades don't effect combat, but that's universal, you can't really brag about their gear because it actually got worse.

As for wyches, I am not really excited yet. They maintained the exact same save, which appears to STILL not work on over watch and apparently their gear STILL remains underwhelming. I mean 1 special weapon per 5 gets -1 rend on an elf statline.. WOW don't get carried away fellas /s

No escape is neat, but the example they pulled using crisis suits was awful. I mean, don't forget fellas, in 8th you can fire unlimited numbers of overwatch. So in theory, if I take a wych cult army, I could set up a charge on a team of XV8's from 5 units of wyches and if they have flamers they can hit each unit with 3d6 s4 hits...

My biggest beef so far with this edition is the unlimited overwatch, it makes shooty wall of death units nearly impossible to engage in HTH unless your point blank with a mob sized unit or they roll incredibly poor.

I really wish they would leak the assault phase already, because so far it isn't looking good for light armored assaulters.

changemod wrote:

Q: Hey Warhammer 40,000, these new rules look great, but can you clarify if an 8 roll with the dice is enough to assault ? thanks
A: Hmm, we don't think so.
If you are more than 9" away, then moving 8" puts you by definition more than 1" away.

That's incredibly poor wording, operating in nebulously defined fractional inches when everything else is in exact values is needlessly confusing.

In fact, it also makes placement awkward if dealing with exacting people. The sensible, likely completely standard approach to maximise placement for a unit that wants to get close is to put it 9 inches away and count it as being infinitesimally back a little for charge distances, but you could get into an argument with an opponent who wants you to scootch it back an inch.

You ever measured an exact inch with a tape measure and miniatures? Not possible. So this isn't "nebulous" or about "fractional inches". It's pretty simple - deploy "more than 9" away", an 8" move cannot get you into combat.

If you can't agree movement with your opponent, get new opponents. If you can't agree that more than 9" minus 8" = still more than 1", someone has a maths issue and is also trying to cheat. ;-)

changemod wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Jeez how do you deal with all the other measurements in the game ? How do you deal with deployment zones? What game/s have you ben playing?

You can place the model more than 9" away - the distance is up to you - however you can;t place it closer than that - or you are mistaken or cheating.

It's literally only a problem because it's optimal to put it as close as possible, but nothing else uses infinitely thin precision.

Otherwise if a gun has a 12 inch range you hold a tape over it and if it looks 12 inches at a glance it's in range. In this case, a model will look 9 inches at a glance when measured but actually count as a micron further away.

Or in other words, it shouldn't cause a problem 99% of the time, but is still very sloppy.

If the range is 12" then its 12" - or do you play that oh its about 12" so I am in range. You measure it right? If its more than 12" its out of range - right?

This is even simplier - you need to roll a 9 or more if you put the model as close as possible - you both know it cant be closer than that so there is no need to even measure if you declare I- am placing "just over 9" and less than 10" - what could be more simple?

Pre-measuring is n play so you can both check it if you really want to - if you find its a bit shorted than 9" due to table knocks etc then you play as if it was more than 9".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

Or that the models can't have been properly deployed if a 9" charge happens to connect, on account they need to be more than 9" away, thus requiring a 9" roll (because of the 1" rule).

Man, people are really failing with the nitpicking (not you, was adding to your comment)

changemod wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

Exactly. That is the exact reason this is sloppy rules writing: Because a tape measure will say the model is 9 inches away but you have to for this single purpose and no other use more nebulous definitions.

Even if you "screw up" and put it on the 9" line you still can't make the charge because you're not supposed to be close enough.

If it's so hard to understand, just put the model at 10" from the unit you want to be close to. It's still a roll of a 9+ to make the charge and there is less confusion.

The wording is the way it is to give people the ability to place almost anywhere on the table as long as they stay more than 9" from an enemy unit. Special rules may decrease that distance (Lictors for example might let you pop up closer).

Wow, is that fluff for the numarines terrible. They should just have upscaled them and called it a day. Wont bother me as much when eventually all marines are replaced by numarines (iirc, hasting said regular marines wont get any new support), but still, it gives the impression that they really are creatively bankrupted .

Must say that i kind of like drukari as name, a lot better than dark eldar

The only thing I'd concede, and it is defined in other systems, is if something is precisely on the edge of the range, whether that is considered within or not.

Convention and common sense would say yes, and, to my knowledge, any game that does define it does it as such, but for absolute clarity one sentence wouldn't hurt.

Do you guys seriously need a MOD to tell you to take the tape measuring contest to general?

 Red Corsair wrote:

My biggest beef so far with this edition is the unlimited overwatch

yeah its my only real sore spot on all of this.

i get its easier for book keeping. guess its going to be a lot of positioning and counter positioning to guarantee good charges.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Wow, is that fluff for the numarines terrible. They should just have upscaled them and called it a day. Wont bother me as much when eventually all marines are replaced by numarines (iirc, hasting said regular marines wont get any new support), but still, it gives the impression that they really are creatively bankrupted .

Must say that i kind of like drukari as name, a lot better than dark eldar

Hastings actually said less, not none.

Yeah I'm not saying it's -confusing-, I'm saying it's sloppy. If they mean more than 9 then they should say 10.

Why the hell do you think they got that FAQ question in the first place? Everything else is measured in inches, not in about an inch-ish.

changemod wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

changemod wrote:
It's a problem because it's pointlessly fuzzy. If I have to place a model 9.00000000000000000000000000-repeat forever-000001 inches away from something then my skin is going to crawl.

There's an infinite range of values between 9 and 10 inches. It's sloppy at best.

Pretty sure people are going to rely on the values marked on their tape measures more than being exactly one atomic particle over 9".

Exactly. That is the exact reason this is sloppy rules writing: Because a tape measure will say the model is 9 inches away but you have to for this single purpose and no other use more nebulous definitions.

No it won't if your tape measure touches the base of a model at 9" you are too close, simple. Just like if your tape is just short for your 12" shot you are out of range even if that margin is paper thin. It is no different than how measurement works now. Furthermore since all stats are in full inches being 9.00000000000000000000000000001" away provides almost no advantage to being 9.2" away. An 8" charge will still fail, a 9" charge will succeed, A 9" range gun will be out or range, a 10" range gun will be in range, etc.

changemod wrote:
Yeah I'm not saying it's -confusing-, I'm saying it's sloppy. If they mean more than 9 then they should say 10.

And if they said 10" you'd whine it should say 11" and so on, and so forth,

But no. It says More Than 9" away. Ergo, you deploy More a Than 9" away.

It really does seem to just be you that's struggling here.

 Azreal13 wrote:

changemod wrote:
Yeah I'm not saying it's -confusing-, I'm saying it's sloppy. If they mean more than 9 then they should say 10.

so what if you rolled a 9

are you in range to charge?

im a join you in a facepalm

 streetsamurai wrote:
Wow, is that fluff for the numarines terrible. They should just have upscaled them and called it a day. Wont bother me as much when eventually all marines are replaced by numarines (iirc, hasting said regular marines wont get any new support), but still, it gives the impression that they really are creatively bankrupted .

Must say that i kind of like drukari as name, a lot better than dark eldar

Marketting fluff =/= actual lore presented in the books.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt to have something better in the works for the lore than "LOOK HOW AWESOME THESE SLIGHTLY TALLER MARINES ARE!!!!ONE111!!"

changemod wrote:
Yeah I'm not saying it's -confusing-, I'm saying it's sloppy. If they mean more than 9 then they should say 10.

Why the hell do you think they got that FAQ question in the first place? Everything else is measured in inches, not in about an inch-ish.

More than 9 =/= 10. There is more of a likelihood that you will not be exactly 10" away than that you will be more than 9" away. Further at 10" there may be members of your squad that need to deploy further back and may then be out of range etc.

 Desubot wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

My biggest beef so far with this edition is the unlimited overwatch

yeah its my only real sore spot on all of this.

i get its easier for book keeping. guess its going to be a lot of positioning and counter positioning to guarantee good charges.

If it's locked in at a flat 6 and we don't see the return to the at the full bs I'll be a little happier about it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And if they said 10" you'd whine it should say 11" and so on, and so forth.

No, because then it would say 10 or more, rather than more than 9.

I'm fully aware this is extreme nitpicking to the point of sounding ludicrous, I don't lack self awareness. Doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.

Lets move on maybe - so Imperial Knights focus next?