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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Mickmann wrote:
I find it's fishy that Dark Angels can reroll failed hit rolls against <Fallen> units. Hint to a "new" army there?

Also, am I wrong or is the primaris inceptor squad (those guys with their ugly jump packs) 75 points *per model* ? I could get 5 scout snipers for the price of one of them. Seem pretty overcosted to me...

Fallen are in the Chaos index, along with Cypher (Who is a <FALLEN>, <IMPERIUM> and <CHAOS> model)

Something's been bugging me.

Is Fallen a "standee" for <Legion>, or is it another keyword altogether. Because if it isn't, the it seems like Fallen and Cypher can't ride in anything.

There's 20 odd Fallen sitting on my shelf who haven't seen play in, well, a decade, and they're really hoping it's the former. Please alleviate their fears.

They couldn't really ride in anything before either.

£250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book

 Rippy wrote:
£250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book

Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.

Messiah wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But do you? As others have stated, the datasheets say you replace weapons with weapons. To replace something you have to have it first, which implies you have to buy it first.

I'm not arguing either method (or even alternate methods). I want to know what the rules say and if this is vague and needs clarification, or if we're missing something.

In the point values list, it says quite explicitly if you need to pay for wargear. Either "Points per Model (Does not include Wargear)" in most armies, or "Points per Model (Including Wargear)" like in the Daemon list.

Yes!

The datasheets and things written on them relate to army selection using power levels, right? Hence the "change this for that".
The point values lists state you pick a model and wargear, and simply add up the points for "the wargear it is equipped with". This is used when buying the army using points.

If the (extremely highly supremely) illogical step of first paying for wargear only to swap it out and paying for yet more wargear was intended, it would have been explicitly written. Perhaps an example to illustrate the above would have been nice, but in my mind you really have to bend over backwards to interpret it any other way...

I don't want to sound too demanding here, but.....

I noticed some of the rules are missing from all of the leaked images being spread around. There are no shots of the Custodes Army List page. The one that lists army special rules and Faction Key Words.


If anyone has a picture of that I'd be very grateful.

Yep, the dataslates are like a munitions bunker, you go in and get given standard equipment and some of the models may get to swap that out for other equipment, after that if you're playing Narrative you run straight off to war.

If you're playing Matched, you instead have to run all your equipment by the quartermaster first who tallies up everything your guys are carrying. It's an extra step just for Matched Play. There's certainly no running back an forth between the munitions bunker and the quartermaster - they are two distinct steps.

Hope you like my metaphor ;-p

Yes - so basically we need to separate the acts of choosing our equipment and paying for it. You choose everything you want - obeying all restrictions. Then you work out what you end up with and pay for that.

I was confused with the Tau Devilfish at first - not realising that if I choose to have a pair of Gun Drones I need to add them to it's cost. It's not been that way before.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I don't want to sound too demanding here, but.....

I noticed some of the rules are missing from all of the leaked images being spread around. There are no shots of the Custodes Army List page. The one that lists army special rules and Faction Key Words..

Entirely possible there isn't one. It looks like, although hard to tell with some of the page numbers being chopped off, that Custodes is on p162, while assassins are on p161, so not a missing page.

Sister's of battle faction focus is later today I think.

 Flood wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I don't want to sound too demanding here, but.....

I noticed some of the rules are missing from all of the leaked images being spread around. There are no shots of the Custodes Army List page. The one that lists army special rules and Faction Key Words..

Entirely possible there isn't one. It looks like, although hard to tell with some of the page numbers being chopped off, that Custodes is on p162, while assassins are on p161, so not a missing page.

Looks like what I am looking for would be on page 125.

Does anyone know how much a Crucible of Malediction costs for a Haemonculus? I can't find the point costs anywhere.

 Rippy wrote:
£250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book

True, but I suppose the other way of looking at it, is that this will be the last collectors edition of the full rulebook they're likely to release.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
We need some o' dem FW index leaks now.

I need those chaos Spartan, sicaran and fire raptor rules.

They also said there would be Badab updates. Seems weird as we don't even have the regular Chapter Tactics back yet.

Quite possibly it's new datasheets for the Tyrant's Legion army list. Corpse-taker squads, Retaliators, auxilia, etc. Even if that's just a list saying "add the <TYRANT'S LEGION> keyword to the following datasheets ..."

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
£250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book

Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.

Agreed, I was all ready to buy the complete set then I looked at the leaked booked and it no longer feels good value especially as I am expecting the main factions to get codexes (or whatever they end up being called now) very quickly. I shall buy the FW indexes though, as FW will be slower to update the IA book and the IA books are more expensive so I will be less likely to replace those, especially as the fluff in them won't be changing.

aka_mythos wrote:I think regardless of base point costs largely coming down, the fact you have to then add in the cost of wargear for every model makes that cost climb higher. I think the 1800-2000 point armies of 7th are gonna end up between 2500-3000pts.

Yup my though exactly.

Also maybe i missed it, but i din't see anything related to vehicles weapons fire arcs.

Do they simply shoot at 360* like any models?, isn't that odd giving that for instance lots of vehicles have weapons that couldn't see a perticular target because of their size or simply because th sponson is on the other side without any LoS?

Or do we simplu follow True LoS, and if the weapon can't see it, then i doesn't shoot it?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
£250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book

Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.

I don't really think that the contents of the main rulebook will change at all. In the yearly update I expect to see changed point costs and new Battlezones/scenarios, but no changes to the core rules.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I think regardless of base point costs largely coming down, the fact you have to then add in the cost of wargear for every model makes that cost climb higher. I think the 1800-2000 point armies of 7th are gonna end up between 2500-3000pts.

Yup my though exactly.

Also maybe i missed it, but i din't see anything related to vehicles weapons fire arcs.

Do they simply shoot at 360* like any models?, isn't that odd giving that for instance lots of vehicles have weapons that couldn't see a perticular target because of their size or simply because th sponson is on the other side without any LoS?

Or do we simplu follow True LoS, and if the weapon can't see it, then i doesn't shoot it?

This was a gigantic can of worms with a massive discussion yesterday.

Vehicles now behave like any other model: They can shoot all their weapons in a 360º . They are no longer a separate "thing" compared to the rest of your army.

mmh, maybe i should reformulate my question, is there like before a restriction to a vehicle orientation when it shoots.

If your Land Raider move forward during the movement phase, and then want to shoot all of its weapons to a target that is on his left, what happens?, can you freely pivot the Tank and shoot everything?

Or once the vehicle as moved you can't pivot it anymore? like it works right now?

Now be it one or the other the Land raider can still shoot with all its weapons anyway, since he can simply shoot with the weapons that doesn't have LoS on another target.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
mmh, maybe i should reformulate my question, is there like before a restriction to a vehicle orientation when it shoots.

If your Land Raider move forward during the movement phase, and then want to shoot all of its weapons to a target that is on his left, what happens?, can you freely pivot the Tank and shoot everything?

Or once the vehicle as moved you can't pivot it anymore? like it works right now?

You don't even have to pivot it, all vehicles can fire all their weapons 360 degrees. No LOS from the weapon needed.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
mmh, maybe i should reformulate my question, is there like before a restriction to a vehicle orientation when it shoots.

If your Land Raider move forward during the movement phase, and then want to shoot all of its weapons to a target that is on his left, what happens?, can you freely pivot the Tank and shoot everything?

Or once the vehicle as moved you can't pivot it anymore? like it works right now?

It's exactly like a normal unit now - so long as you can draw LoS from the vehicle's hull it doesn't matter where the gun is actually pointed at.

For example you can have a Vindicator pointed somewhere and shoot the Demolisher Cannon against a unit behind it without having to pivot.

Think of how dreadnoughts worked before - it's exactly the same but for all vehicles.

Ragnar69 wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
£250 for a rulebook that could get heavily changed in a year thanks to living rule book

Exactly what was going through my mind... not sure it's a very good offer... except for the compulsive completionists.

I don't really think that the contents of the main rulebook will change at all. In the yearly update I expect to see changed point costs and new Battlezones/scenarios, but no changes to the core rules.

Even so, they'll be a new collector's ultimate edition sometime soon after that. GW have gotten better at a lot of things, but putting out expensive collector's editions that have actual value other than in name isn't one of their strengths.

I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.

Looks better for you and is legal.

"Problem" solved.

RoninXiC wrote:
I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.

Looks better for you and is legal.

"Problem" solved.

I am unsure if this was directed at me. If it was I don't think you got the gist of my post.

I was explaining the rules and gave a concrete example on how they work. End of.

£250 sounds obscene, have GW ever charged anything like that much for a special edition rulebook?

Are we sure there is not some currency mix up there?

RoninXiC wrote:
I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.

Looks better for you and is legal.

"Problem" solved.

Actually unless you turn 180 degrees that CAN have clear in-game benefit allowing you to actually move just a wee bit more than you should have been able to.

So better you don't do it. Especially as it even doesn't really solve most of suspension of disbelief issues.

Though to be fair it has potential of hurting you as well but odds are it would be more helpful than hinder.

tneva82 wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
I mean.. if shooting backwards annoys you.. just turn your tank around 180°. If you don't move it any inches no opponent would argue you actually moved it.

Looks better for you and is legal.

"Problem" solved.

Actually unless you turn 180 degrees that CAN have clear in-game benefit allowing you to actually move just a wee bit more than you should have been able to.

So better you don't do it. Especially as it even doesn't really solve most of suspension of disbelief issues.

Though to be fair it has potential of hurting you as well but odds are it would be more helpful than hinder.

Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..

 Azegoroth wrote:
Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..

Let's not argue about that anymore okay?-) My point was that since turning vehicle on shooting phase _can_ have effect(both benefit and disadvantage but since you are the one controlling it more likely benefit...) don't turn vehicle on the shooting phase to point the enemy. If you want to do that turn it around in movement phase following movement rules which can mean slight reduction in movement you can do.

Turning isn't required for game rules and can lead to argument about you using to to gain in-game benefit so better to avoid it.

tneva82 wrote:

 Azegoroth wrote:
Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..

Let's not argue about that anymore okay?-) My point was that since turning vehicle on shooting phase _can_ have effect(both benefit and disadvantage but since you are the one controlling it more likely benefit...) don't turn vehicle on the shooting phase to point the enemy. If you want to do that turn it around in movement phase following movement rules which can mean slight reduction in movement you can do.

Turning isn't required for game rules and can lead to argument about you using to to gain in-game benefit so better to avoid it.

I'm guessing they did it like this because some vehicles have movable turrets/weapon mounts and some don't. Easier to just let them shoot all the weapons. I'll probably discuss with my local group that it needs to be a part of the hull/body, not random antennae/tails/spikes/servo-skulls, etc.

Awww yisss maybe more info coming soon, hopefully new models

 Azegoroth wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Azegoroth wrote:
Obviously what happened was that the vehicle did a sick powerslide and shot on the move, then abstracted for game purposes..

Let's not argue about that anymore okay?-) My point was that since turning vehicle on shooting phase _can_ have effect(both benefit and disadvantage but since you are the one controlling it more likely benefit...) don't turn vehicle on the shooting phase to point the enemy. If you want to do that turn it around in movement phase following movement rules which can mean slight reduction in movement you can do.

Turning isn't required for game rules and can lead to argument about you using to to gain in-game benefit so better to avoid it.

I'm guessing they did it like this because some vehicles have movable turrets/weapon mounts and some don't. Easier to just let them shoot all the weapons. I'll probably discuss with my local group that it needs to be a part of the hull/body, not random antennae/tails/spikes/servo-skulls, etc.

The hull, as it is in the rules