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.

 TheMostSlyFox wrote:
Can't wait for the AM / IG page when they get to them, although from what has been posted so far in regards to general rules ( PE no longer allowing Plasma Russes to re-roll their gets hot), I foresee some personal adjustment in the future for my force.

This and the no-Pask thing ruined my favorite list. :(

What blows my mind is how clear the rulebook was about PE re-rolls... this just seems so arbitrary!

 Mr Morden wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Telly wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Telly wrote:
but rulings like, "It's up to the player to determine which save is best," or, "In this case of two conflicting rules, ignore both," don't work to improve the game.

.

letting the player actively choose what he considers "the best save" seems straight forward and logical to me.

Depends on your perspective. If you're choosing between a 3+ and a 4+ rerollable save, sure, this approach seems like a logical way to ensure you get your 'best' save. But why should I be allowed to choose my 6+ go to ground save over my 2+ armor save because it suits me tactically?

According to the FAQ, I can do just that if I need to prevent an assault or something.

Hmm given that we command our troops to act how we want them to do - choosing their targets, moving as we want them to do, potentially suicidally- what's the difference?

Do you really think that in military history there was order given that was basically "let them kill you", with no drawbacks?
For nids and necrons sure, but anything with a sense of self preservation? Not likely.

ok so that's two factions that it works for...... I really do think you are thinking about this way way too much

Humans did odd things - even in warfare - in the Napoleonic period armies walked towards each other, dying in their hundreds and thousands and might not even get to fire back............

That's still different than getting your soldiers killed so they are no longer in enemy range. Instead of...you know, moving backwards. Or killing the enemy unit before they can threaten anything.

Or a small unit is used as a sacrifice to lure a given enemy to a certain area - that happened throughout the ages.

Half of what we do on the table top would not be done by real soldiers - "pinning" should apply to all weapons really I would think. Its a game with meta elements

Ever watched Zulu - warriors just stand there and die so their chief can count the guns....

What is the actual game situation when you want to take the inferior save and there s likely a narrative to make it "fluffy".

Yeah, there should really be a suppression mechanic.

I have not seen Zulu, but I do know Rourke's Drift - Didn't the Zulus lose that engagement? Even then, I don't think the chieftain told his soldiers "line up and get shot so I can count the guns" and more "attack that point"

Now, using bait is still a little different, as the reward is usually pretty significant, and the bait isn't intended (ideally, if the general isn't a foolish tyrant) to be destroyed.

Sun Tzu was quite fond of using baits, but even then I doubt that getting the bait killed was his intention; he wasn't too fond of attrition after all.
Hannibal is also famous for such tactics, using light units to direct enemy forces into traps and dangerous terrain. Again, I could not find such reference of his baits being allowed to be destroyed.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, there should really be a suppression mechanic.

I have not seen Zulu, but I do know Rourke's Drift - Didn't the Zulus lose that engagement?

Now, using bait is still a little different, as the reward is usually pretty significant, and the bait isn't intended (ideally, if the general isn't a foolish tyrant) to be destroyed.

Sun Tzu was quite fond of using baits, but even then I doubt that getting the bait killed was his intention; he wasn't too fond of attrition after all.
Hannibal is also famous for such tactics, using light units to direct enemy forces into traps and dangerous terrain. Again, I could not find such reference of his baits being allowed to be destroyed.

Suppression I believe works in Bolt Action?

Zulu is a wonderful film - the bit in it is that the Zulu's have a number of warriors from their force sacrifice themselves by standing still so that the chief can count the muzzle flashes and work out the firing power of the British defences. It costs them 10 or 20 warriors but they are clearly keen to prove themselves and their bravery and the loss is insignificant as they have about 2-3000 men. I don't know if they ever did this - it does not seem unlikely but it was a good narrative.

The Zulu's do loose - at the time we British focussed quite a lot on that defence to distract from the fact that we had just had a modern army of several thousand slaughtered by the Zulus in open battle mere days before.

Baiting enemy forces is dangerous - quite often in history light forces get caught by their pursuers. Bad officers throughout the ages have given foolish or ill thought out orders for troops to stay in a given place and got them all killed for nothing. Some have also used units as sacrifices to buy time, to allow the enemy to be distracted, sometimes these are volunteers - sometimes they don't realise that they are.....

War, from what I read, is full of weirdness..........

Maybe the one going to ground are suffering from Shell shock and throwing off their armour and trying to bury themselves in the mud - it happened
Maybe they are trying to surrender?
Maybe they took cover, took a helmet off and looked over the top of the cover....

Honestly though I think it is kind of a non issue. When was the last time you go shot at and thought 'man - I really wish I had a worse save there'

If killing a model is going to extend an assault range by a significant amount, chances are the enemy wouldn't choose to shoot at them anyway.

This was meant to solve all those arguments where people said that ravenwing bikers with rerollable jink had to use their 3+ armor save because it was numerically lower even though the 4+ rerollable would actually save against more wounds.

If the game were designed better you would only rarely wish your own guys dead.

It's not. As a result, players need to be given the benefit of the doubt, and be allowed to choose between one option or the other that best suits them. Being forced to kill (or not kill) your own guys because it's not "realistic" is worse than what we have--a highly abstract game that only vaguely resembles war.

"Let the controlling player choose" is the fairest way to write the rule.

decker_cky wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Tyranids are all controlled by a single mind, with the rare exception of a rogue splinter fleet that disconnects somehow. Fluff wise, in my opinion, it should absolutely be Battle Brothers. And game wise too as Davor points out. It just seems off on all fronts to me.

Not exactly true for GSCs. They are kinda their own deal, separate from the Hive Fleets. They exist to summon in the true, proper Nids. After that, they are devoured like anything else. So, to me it makes perfect sense.

After the invasion, aren't all ground forces including the invading tyranid army devoured? GSC are controlled by the hive mind during the time of the invasion, and afterwards are treated no differently to any other ground force. The difference is pre-invasion, which has no in-game impact here.

yup, that is the case. Hive mind supersedes brood mind once Nids are close enough -

next batch :

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1625001914487108&id=1575682476085719

LOTD, Khornekin and Bloodoath

...


hands up if you didn't know what the 3rd one was

I love how for the LOTD one people immediately ask if they auto lose for not being on the board T1...when it's answered immediately in the FAQ.

I really don't get people sometimes.

At least KDK is more or less an actual codex, tired of all these non-dexes that keep getting FAQ'd before the ones people actually give a crap about.

reds8n wrote:next batch :

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1625001914487108&id=1575682476085719

LOTD, Khornekin and Bloodoath

...


hands up if you didn't know what the 3rd one was

I still don't know what it is.

Requizen wrote:At least KDK is more or less an actual codex, tired of all these non-dexes that keep getting FAQ'd before the ones people actually give a crap about.

They're easier to do. I believe Tau and SM will be the last ones

I think they are getting the Codexes with the fewest questions out first, then working their way up to the bigger ones. But, like Vector Strike said, SM will be the last one, probably preceded by Tau a week before.

Well, at least they addressed the LoTD losing on turn one.

I wonder if some Tournaments will allow Aid From Beyond as stated in this FAQ - it's not like it'll make LotD the most overpowered thing in the world, but it'll allow people to run their fluffy lists.

Requizen wrote:
I wonder if some Tournaments will allow Aid From Beyond as stated in this FAQ - it's not like it'll make LotD the most overpowered thing in the world, but it'll allow people to run their fluffy lists.

Only if the Deathwing get it too!

 axisofentropy wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I wonder if some Tournaments will allow Aid From Beyond as stated in this FAQ - it's not like it'll make LotD the most overpowered thing in the world, but it'll allow people to run their fluffy lists.

Only if the Deathwing get it too!

Well... that's a bit different. The "Aid From Beyond" rule already exists as a mission rule that can just be transplanted into tournament missions. We already see this with "Impending Doom" (+1 to seize if your opponent has a LoW and you don't) and "Through Attrition, Victory" (1 extra VP per 3 hull points/wounds from a SHV/GC) from Escalation being used in most events.

No such rule exists for Deathwing, so any changes a TO makes to give them something similar would be a change/errata on their part, which some people don't like. You see how people already react to ITC FAQs.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I love how for the LOTD one people immediately ask if they auto lose for not being on the board T1...when it's answered immediately in the FAQ.

I really don't get people sometimes.

Weren't all these questions asked before the first FAQ came out though?

Okay. I guess I'll just ask it. What the feth is Blood Oath?

Is that from some campaign book or something?

I do find it amusing that people ask ridiculous crap like the LOTD question (or that earlier one "herp derp can I take an army of only fortifications derp herp"), and I like even more GW's snarky response which comes off like:

There are some things in this game that no true gentleman would ever dare consider doing. However, if some uncouth blaggard would deign to do such a thing, we suggest you ask your opponent to allow such an ungentlemanly approach. However we know that no true learned man would ever harbour such thoughts, for 'twould be an affront to his mother, the Queen and even God Himself.

I like the Daemonkin FAQ overrall, in the end it seems that the way they called everything was how our group was playing them anyway:

-only earn blood tithe from characters dieing in challenges (not anytime they died)

-blood thirster can arrive swooping or gliding (BRB faq)

-goredrinker buff carries on with demon prince

So not much actually changed for me. I never played the Korlath demon prince + double blood thirster combo anyway (now nerfed).

I like that they clarified blood oath (Warhammer World Exclusive Campaign) Fist Of Khorne formation (20 zerkers in a dreadclaw) can assault first turn - thats fun I might actually buy a dreadclaw one day

WayneTheGame wrote:
I do find it amusing that people ask ridiculous crap like the LOTD question (or that earlier one "herp derp can I take an army of only fortifications derp herp"), and I like even more GW's snarky response which comes off like:

There are some things in this game that no true gentleman would ever dare consider doing. However, if some uncouth blaggard would deign to do such a thing, we suggest you ask your opponent to allow such an ungentlemanly approach. However we know that no true learned man would ever harbour such thoughts, for 'twould be an affront to his mother, the Queen and even God Himself.

I find it amusing that people are still missing the point of this FAQ; to clear up any vague and unclear parts of the ruleset. I'm glad people are trying to break the ruleset and asking these questions. You should always attempt to break the ruleset when creators are asking for feedback. Why? Because they can fix it and potentially save everyone some grief later. Breaking a ruleset reveals unintended "bugs" that the writers can patch up. How is that anything but good? It can only lead to a tighter set of rules.

Blood Oath is a campaign book(let) based on a Warhammer World exhibition diorama and only sold there. It comes with formations for Ultramarines, Khorne Daemonkin, Grey Knights and others


Rules:
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/307722-warhammer-world-exclusive-campaign-blood-oath/

Edit: ChaosMarauder was faster

Warhams-77 wrote:
Blood Oath is a campaign book(let) based on a Warhammer World exhibition diorama and only sold there. It comes with formations for Ultramarines, Khorne Daemonkin, Grey Knights and others

Spoiler:

Rules:
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/307722-warhammer-world-exclusive-campaign-blood-oath/

Edit: ChaosMarauder was faster

A okay. Thanks for clearing that up. So what other minor codices/supplements are left before they get to the meat of the game. No offense to KDK, LOTD, et. al., but I know we're all waiting for IG, SM, Tau, Eldar, etc. FAQs.

Codex Space Marines FAQ draft is up:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1628732777447355&id=1575682476085719

Edit: fixed link

Of course Space Marines are first.

And it's already gone.

Oops. Looks like the link stopped working.

Well...technically KDK were first (and in first as in an actual Codex) but still 12 pages makes me jelly.

Unless BA/DA/SW/GK are in there. I'm in the process of reading them.

First glance, Black Templar got shafted. Thunderdome got shafted (yes!) and general clarifications.

and they took them down :/ re upload maybe?