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.

good job giving every imp army a real reason to bring 3 cheap a@@ servo skulls

zedsdead wrote:
good job giving every imp army a real reason to bring 3 cheap a@@ servo skulls

Very good point.

Can you now have more than 1 Deathleaper since the Formations count as their own Detachment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sfshilo wrote:
It is a dataslate not a suppliment. What did you expect? These things have never been that awesome.

That being said, hit and run genestealers could be nice.

Aside from the Tau one which is downright broken when combined with the armies that Tau are Battle Bros with.

 Windir83 wrote:
Can you now have more than 1 Deathleaper since the Formations count as their own Detachment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sfshilo wrote:
It is a dataslate not a suppliment. What did you expect? These things have never been that awesome.

That being said, hit and run genestealers could be nice.

Aside from the Tau one which is downright broken when combined with the armies that Tau are Battle Bros with.

The deathleaper is still unique so I'd think no, regardless of formation, allies or otherwise.

Don't know about where other people play but with me If you don't have forest terrain I would just adapt the rules to the table. Instead of forest or ruins switch it to rubble or standing water or underbrush or whatever you have on your table. Everybody I play with would be cool that.

"Yes the rule says Forest, but I want to deploy on your side, so I am going to instead pretend that it says Swamps - that is what you placed over there, right?"

That is what goes over well?

 kirsanth wrote:
"Yes the rule says Forest, but I want to deploy on your side, so I am going to instead pretend that it says Swamps - that is what you placed over there, right?"

That is what goes over well?

Why not? You would agree on it before the game you would not just spring it on them. It seems reasonable to me if you did not have a table with forests. It's no different then saying we are going treat a piece of swamp terrain a forests if you wanted to have a forest fight and that way it fits the table better. Everybody I play with is more interested in fun games the sticking it to people to get cheap wins.

Zookie wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
"Yes the rule says Forest, but I want to deploy on your side, so I am going to instead pretend that it says Swamps - that is what you placed over there, right?"

That is what goes over well?

Why not? You would agree on it before the game you would not just spring it on them. It seems reasonable to me if you did not have a table with forests. It's no different then saying we are going treat a piece of swamp terrain a forests if you wanted to have a forest fight and that way it fits the table better. Everybody I play with is more interested in fun games the sticking it to people to get cheap wins.

Cheap wins for the 'nids being the goal here. . .nice.


No.
The idea is that terrain is a variable still.
Literally building an army around that is as good as building around one particular Warlord trait and assume Special characters are disallowed.

Assuming that everyone should and will let something with rules specific to X apply to Y instead is asking for arguments and issues
Sure. People may be as "reasonable" in your area to humor your sub-par rules.
People playing random folk want to have something other than "common-sense" and "we always let that work."
Simply because there is nothing to back the latter.

But no. The obvious answer is that the people with rules backing them are not "reasonable."

Zookie wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
"Yes the rule says Forest, but I want to deploy on your side, so I am going to instead pretend that it says Swamps - that is what you placed over there, right?"

That is what goes over well?

Why not? You would agree on it before the game you would not just spring it on them. It seems reasonable to me if you did not have a table with forests. It's no different then saying we are going treat a piece of swamp terrain a forests if you wanted to have a forest fight and that way it fits the table better. Everybody I play with is more interested in fun games the sticking it to people to get cheap wins.

If there are no forests , like it is most of the time , then it is the nids players problem . No one is going to let you change rules , just so your army works better . Otherwise people would be asking for buffs to terrain or cover or LoS blocking or not , every game and it would never be very fun to play anyone without 2 hours of talking what is ok and what is not . Better play with the rules everybody knows from the rulebook and give everyone the same chance to build and play with a good army .

Makumba wrote:

Zookie wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
"Yes the rule says Forest, but I want to deploy on your side, so I am going to instead pretend that it says Swamps - that is what you placed over there, right?"

That is what goes over well?

Why not? You would agree on it before the game you would not just spring it on them. It seems reasonable to me if you did not have a table with forests. It's no different then saying we are going treat a piece of swamp terrain a forests if you wanted to have a forest fight and that way it fits the table better. Everybody I play with is more interested in fun games the sticking it to people to get cheap wins.

If there are no forests , like it is most of the time , then it is the nids players problem . No one is going to let you change rules , just so your army works better . Otherwise people would be asking for buffs to terrain or cover or LoS blocking or not , every game and it would never be very fun to play anyone without 2 hours of talking what is ok and what is not . Better play with the rules everybody knows from the rulebook and give everyone the same chance to build and play with a good army .

Maybe my gaming group is unique that way about being flexible without abuse or breaking the game. 40k is a social game so it's not to hard to work out. For me this is how the conversation would go.

Me: You up for a game?

Other guy: Sure

Me: I want to use the new Tyranid formation where the Lictors can pop out of forests, but the only table open is the city scape. Do you mind if we sub the forest rules for the rubble terrain on the table.

Other guy: No problem, how many points you want to play...

And that would be that. I don't know anyone personally who would object to such an agreement. Personally I think 40k gets really repetitive if you don't use your imagination a little. You can play 40k in a highly structured and competitive environment but I think you miss out on a lot that table top games have to offer if you do it that way.

Zookie wrote:

Maybe my gaming group is unique that way about being flexible without abuse or breaking the game. 40k is a social game so it's not to hard to work out. For me this is how the conversation would go.

Me: You up for a game?

Other guy: Sure

Me: I want to use the new Tyranid formation where the Lictors can pop out of forests, but the only table open is the city scape. Do you mind if we sub the forest rules for the rubble terrain on the table.

Other guy [me]: ....Absolutely no chance mate.

Zookie wrote:
I think 40k gets really repetitive if you don't use your imagination a little. You can play 40k in a highly structured and competitive environment but I think

Gotcha. You do not think of others.

 kirsanth wrote:

Zookie wrote:
I think 40k gets really repetitive if you don't use your imagination a little. You can play 40k in a highly structured and competitive environment but I think

Gotcha. You do not think of others.

I would say it is quite the opposite. When you play in a mature community where people trust and respect each others any tweaks to the game are done,on a case by case basis, to make the game enjoyable for both players, not to gain an unfair advantage.

It not like any of the new formations are power houses. So if you don't have a forest table then what to you gain by being inflexible in a causal game? You just missing an opportunity to try something new. Of course if it was a structured tournament you would stick to RAW. But most tournaments don't allow formations so it is a moot point.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Zookie wrote:

Maybe my gaming group is unique that way about being flexible without abuse or breaking the game. 40k is a social game so it's not to hard to work out. For me this is how the conversation would go.

Me: You up for a game?

Other guy: Sure

Me: I want to use the new Tyranid formation where the Lictors can pop out of forests, but the only table open is the city scape. Do you mind if we sub the forest rules for the rubble terrain on the table.

Other guy [me]: ....Absolutely no chance mate.

And then the other guy would reply: Then let's put some forests down and add some more terrain.

I really don't see the big deal here. If people are going to be so uptight as to not allow the placement of a few forests or buildings as ruins, etc then those people need to step back and realize the game is not just about what they want.

Things that are situational in this way should never be added to the army list construction stage anyway.

It's one thing if you have a PK-less Green Tide face a mech list (In which case you can still glance the rear armour) or when your AT-heavy list meets said Green Tide (In which case, hey, at least it kills something even if it is low value targets).

Here, the forest formation is literally irrelevant to take unless there are forests present. It's just bad to have stuff like this at the list-building stage.

I mean, 'Stealers are not useless even without their forest rules, but the formation may as well not exist in this case.

Zookie wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

Zookie wrote:
I think 40k gets really repetitive if you don't use your imagination a little. You can play 40k in a highly structured and competitive environment but I think

Gotcha. You do not think of others.

I would say it is quite the opposite. When you play in a mature community where people trust and respect each others any tweaks to the game are done,on a case by case basis, to make the game enjoyable for both players, not to gain an unfair advantage.

It not like any of the new formations are power houses. So if you don't have a forest table then what to you gain by being inflexible in a causal game? You just missing an opportunity to try something new. Of course if it was a structured tournament you would stick to RAW. But most tournaments don't allow formations so it is a moot point.

You are totally correct on that, if someone is unwilling to compromise to make sure everyone has a fun game if soldiers... Well that there issue and they should move aside for someone who is willing to compromise so both players have fun, now tournaments however.. Your screwed, people want to win and even a slight advantage will be taken by such people.

"Models from this formation that are deployed within a Building or Ruins using the Infiltrate special rule can be set up within 6"of an enemy model"

Just to clarify, it is within 6", not more than 6" away... so Genestealres can infiltrate 1" away from an enemy if they're part of the Manufactorum Brood and your enemy is by a ruin.

Hmmm...

Eldar have ignore cover in spades.

Tau have ignore cover in spades.

Almost everyone else gets servo-skulls for cheap.

Hmm....

Put those skulls in your your rep zone leaves the places where people normally want to scout or infiltrate anyway, also in the last 40 tourney games I have played I have seen a total of 3 servo skulls, hardly "everyone" but I am surprised I don't see more to be fair

There is no other places where Genestealers would want to infiltrate, lol. That's the whole buzz about this dataslate- it's the only thing that really makes them viable (as close to Ymgarl viable as possible, anyway).

Servo-skulls are "nice" but not really necessary in today's meta, which I suppose is why you don't see them as much. There aren't very many armies who rely on infiltrate/scouting anymore. Space Marines use drop-pods and everyone else just marches onto the board in a gunline and mows everything down. Only Tyranids and to a lesser extent CSM frequently use infiltrate, as far as I know.

I know people rarely use them, but it does make me wonder why an option that can utterly ruin someone's entire strategy is priced at 3pts.
Imagine a 3pt upgrade that prevented transports from unloading units within it's radius, or didn't let FMC's swoop. It's mad.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Things that are situational in this way should never be added to the army list construction stage anyway.

Yep. I agree. Leave situational stuff to house rules.

 Formosa wrote:
Put those skulls in your your rep zone leaves the places where people normally want to scout or infiltrate anyway, also in the last 40 tourney games I have played I have seen a total of 3 servo skulls, hardly "everyone" but I am surprised I don't see more to be fair

Just wait for the IG dex. After that you'll see them a lot more.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Servo-skulls are "nice" but not really necessary in today's meta, which I suppose is why you don't see them as much. There aren't very many armies who rely on infiltrate/scouting anymore. Space Marines use drop-pods and everyone else just marches onto the board in a gunline and mows everything down. Only Tyranids and to a lesser extent CSM frequently use infiltrate, as far as I know.

I at the unviability of Flayed Ones...

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Zookie wrote:

Maybe my gaming group is unique that way about being flexible without abuse or breaking the game. 40k is a social game so it's not to hard to work out. For me this is how the conversation would go.

Me: You up for a game?

Other guy: Sure

Me: I want to use the new Tyranid formation where the Lictors can pop out of forests, but the only table open is the city scape. Do you mind if we sub the forest rules for the rubble terrain on the table.

Other guy [me]: ....Absolutely no chance mate.

Wow, in that case, I would respond that we are using alternate terrain set-up. When I deployed an area terrain piece, I would declare it as forest. Problem solved.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Zookie wrote:

Maybe my gaming group is unique that way about being flexible without abuse or breaking the game. 40k is a social game so it's not to hard to work out. For me this is how the conversation would go.

Me: You up for a game?

Other guy: Sure

Me: I want to use the new Tyranid formation where the Lictors can pop out of forests, but the only table open is the city scape. Do you mind if we sub the forest rules for the rubble terrain on the table.

Other guy [me]: ....Absolutely no chance mate.

And then the other guy would reply: Then let's put some forests down and add some more terrain.

I really don't see the big deal here. If people are going to be so uptight as to not allow the placement of a few forests or buildings as ruins, etc then those people need to step back and realize the game is not just about what they want.

The "big deal" here being that there is no forest terrain available, so a substitute has to be made in some manner.