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.

 Suzuteo wrote:
I am still holding out that there is a special rule for the ramp. It would be so disappointing if it's just a box. Not even a flying or open-topped box.

Have you seen the post they made on facebook about the inspiration for the style? A commenter asked if it was open-topped and the Warhammer account responded that yes it was, when they specified "open-topped" as in , can shoot out of it, they remained silent. It's sad that the facebook manager doesnt actually play 40k and that they can misdirect people like this (assuming it isnt open topped because of the apocalypse datasheet)

@vladamirherzog under ITC rules you can take a single mechanicus knight in a super heavy aucilary detatchment and still be considered mono mechanicus.

@ strig neuton onagers are effective vs tanks but have high variance so takeing 3 gives you more consistancy. Icarus onagers are better vs flyers and can be ok as a 1 or a 2. Really its an arbitary choice though based on what you think you are up against and the rest of your list. Personnally I favour 3 neutronagers

U02dah4 wrote:
@vladamirherzog under ITC rules you can take a single mechanicus knight in a super heavy aucilary detatchment and still be considered mono mechanicus.

@ strig neuton onagers are effective vs tanks but have high variance so takeing 3 gives you more consistancy. Icarus onagers are better vs flyers and can be ok as a 1 or a 2. Really its an arbitary choice though based on what you think you are up against and the rest of your list. Personnally I favour 3 neutronagers

since they are new i was only refering to the GW rules, ignoring ITC since its additionnal info that might not be relevant to them.

 Suzuteo wrote:
I am still holding out that there is a special rule for the ramp. It would be so disappointing if it's just a box. Not even a flying or open-topped box.

Disembarking after moving with it would be really nice.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
I am still holding out that there is a special rule for the ramp. It would be so disappointing if it's just a box. Not even a flying or open-topped box.

Have you seen the post they made on facebook about the inspiration for the style? A commenter asked if it was open-topped and the Warhammer account responded that yes it was, when they specified "open-topped" as in , can shoot out of it, they remained silent. It's sad that the facebook manager doesnt actually play 40k and that they can misdirect people like this (assuming it isnt open topped because of the apocalypse datasheet)

There isn't one "facebook manager". It's run by the community team.

They don't have the rules until we do in many cases. They're also not going to give you the frigging rules to play it.

Yeah if they can disembark after moving i'd probably forgive it not being opentopped.
That re-enables a tactic i sorely miss in 40k of old - slingshotting short-ranged units (or assaulty units) with a cheapo transport. In other words i miss my MANz missiles lol

 Kanluwen wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
I am still holding out that there is a special rule for the ramp. It would be so disappointing if it's just a box. Not even a flying or open-topped box.

Have you seen the post they made on facebook about the inspiration for the style? A commenter asked if it was open-topped and the Warhammer account responded that yes it was, when they specified "open-topped" as in , can shoot out of it, they remained silent. It's sad that the facebook manager doesnt actually play 40k and that they can misdirect people like this (assuming it isnt open topped because of the apocalypse datasheet)

There isn't one "facebook manager". It's run by the community team.

They don't have the rules until we do in many cases. They're also not going to give you the frigging rules to play it.

thats what i meant by manager, i blanked on the actual term. But still, my comment stands, if they played 40k and knew what open-topped implied in the rules, theu wouldve chosen not to answer that question as to not give out false information.

Not really. People should know by now that they aren't ever going to reply with specific rules related answers, unless asked specific rules related questions in advance.

And even then, they are unlikely to comment on items' rules before they actually are released.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not really. People should know by now that they aren't ever going to reply with specific rules related answers, unless asked specific rules related questions in advance.

And even then, they are unlikely to comment on items' rules before they actually are released.

they wouldve chosen not to answer that question as to not give out false information.

not answering this specific question wouldve been no problem since they ignore most of the comments anyway. By answering, some people will think that it is open topped and purchase it thinking that itll be more than just a transport. i know not to take their word for it, i was just criticizing how they seem to lack ruels knowledge

The question that I saw them answer wasn't "Is it open-topped?" by any stretch of the imagination. It was "what's the difference between the tank and transport? is it open-topped?".

Their reply was the transport is the open-topped one.


You can try to spin this however you want, but again:
They aren't going to comment on rules questions before a product is released. This isn't "false information" by any stretch of the imagination given the context.

The actual question that was asked :

Is the new transport open topped????

As i said, i know that they aren't going to comment on rules before its released. But not everyone does, a player that doesnt frequent forums and gets his info from the facebook group only might run to his store and preorder a transport explicitely to playwith an open topped strategy, only to find out that it isnt actually open-topped.

for people like that, it is false information. People were taking the regimental standard as a source to say that it was open topped, so clearly, it is false information.

And they chose to answer this specific comment out of the 70-ish ones that were posted, all the while leaving the other ones out.

My original comment was to point out that the community manager should be more well versed in the games rules so that mistakes like this didnt happen.

"Is the new transport open topped????" means nothing specific. If the person wanted to know the rules, they should have asked that--in which case they would have gotten a reply of "You'll have to wait to find out the rules!".

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/27/vehicles-of-the-adeptus-mechanicusgw-homepage-post-2/

No rules or points. Just teasers. T_T

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Yeah if they can disembark after moving i'd probably forgive it not being opentopped.
That re-enables a tactic i sorely miss in 40k of old - slingshotting short-ranged units (or assaulty units) with a cheapo transport. In other words i miss my MANz missiles lol

I would love even that!

 Kanluwen wrote:
"Is the new transport open topped????" means nothing specific. If the person wanted to know the rules, they should have asked that--in which case they would have gotten a reply of "You'll have to wait to find out the rules!".

No but it does have certain connotation that any 40k player would instantly recognize.

I didnt post that comment to start an argument, have a good day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Suzuteo wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/27/vehicles-of-the-adeptus-mechanicusgw-homepage-post-2/

No rules or points. Just teasers. T_T

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Yeah if they can disembark after moving i'd probably forgive it not being opentopped.
That re-enables a tactic i sorely miss in 40k of old - slingshotting short-ranged units (or assaulty units) with a cheapo transport. In other words i miss my MANz missiles lol

I would love even that!

that was actually something that popped in my mind when they did the sprue preview post and put some ephasis on the ramp. I think only the tempestus scions have a transport that lets them disembark after moving the transport? can they still move after?

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
"Is the new transport open topped????" means nothing specific. If the person wanted to know the rules, they should have asked that--in which case they would have gotten a reply of "You'll have to wait to find out the rules!".

No but it does have certain connotation that any 40k player would instantly recognize.

And any 40k player would also know that a lot of times now special/unique rules aren't "generic" rules like "open topped???", but instead there are bespoke rules that have taken the place of many of them. Any 40k player would also know that "open topped" vehicles usually don't have things blocking the models within from firing out like this does.


Now, if you want to argue that there should be at least 4 firing points? Cool. But look at the height of the Skitarii inside vs the walls. You aren't just firing out of that. This isn't a Goliath or Trukk or Raider where there's a flat surface with hip height sides.

I didnt post that comment to start an argument, have a good day.

No, you posted that comment thinking people would just agree with you. There's a few different ways the Dunerider can still have a pseudo-open topped setup(Assault Ramp, Firing Points, etc) while not being just given Open Topped.

Seriously guys, chill out. We're all disappointed with the preview so far.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Seriously guys, chill out. We're all disappointed with the preview so far.

Both my wallet and missus are thankful it looks sub par,
One less thing for me to waste my money on

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
I am still holding out that there is a special rule for the ramp. It would be so disappointing if it's just a box. Not even a flying or open-topped box.

Have you seen the post they made on facebook about the inspiration for the style? A commenter asked if it was open-topped and the Warhammer account responded that yes it was, when they specified "open-topped" as in , can shoot out of it, they remained silent. It's sad that the facebook manager doesnt actually play 40k and that they can misdirect people like this (assuming it isnt open topped because of the apocalypse datasheet)

To be fair open topped doesn't exist as a rule any more. If you showed somebody that model and asked "is that open topped" they'd probably look at you like you needed glasses. Of course it's open topped, there's no top on the bay

And considering a lot of GWs staff probably are only passingly familiar with the game, especially some lowly community rep on Facebook, it doesn't surprise they're not familiar with a USR from a previous edition 2 years old.

Open-Topped exists as a rule its just not a "BRB rule" like before.
Ork/Eldar vehicles still use that word.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
I am still holding out that there is a special rule for the ramp. It would be so disappointing if it's just a box. Not even a flying or open-topped box.

Have you seen the post they made on facebook about the inspiration for the style? A commenter asked if it was open-topped and the Warhammer account responded that yes it was, when they specified "open-topped" as in , can shoot out of it, they remained silent. It's sad that the facebook manager doesnt actually play 40k and that they can misdirect people like this (assuming it isnt open topped because of the apocalypse datasheet)

To be fair open topped doesn't exist as a rule any more. If you showed somebody that model and asked "is that open topped" they'd probably look at you like you needed glasses. Of course it's open topped, there's no top on the bay

And considering a lot of GWs staff probably are only passingly familiar with the game, especially some lowly community rep on Facebook, it doesn't surprise they're not familiar with a USR from a previous edition 2 years old.

It is definitely still a rule. Look at the land speeder storm for example.

With the Castellan now being more rare, is the Gallant a viable choice for a lone knight detachment, or is the Krast Crusader gonna keep them off the top tables?

I'm imagining a max Dragoon unit, some Fulgurites in a hover-box/drill, and a Gallant as a great way to keep pressure on your opponent.

Question came up:
Does necromechanic and arkhan land relic work on self repair too? I always figured it doesnt work and only works on the master of machines ability to repair another friendly model.

 0XFallen wrote:
Question came up:
Does necromechanic and arkhan land relic work on self repair too? I always figured it doesnt work and only works on the master of machines ability to repair another friendly model.

No. The keyword is "repair." Pimp Cane's self ability is a "heal."

the_Grak wrote:
With the Castellan now being more rare, is the Gallant a viable choice for a lone knight detachment, or is the Krast Crusader gonna keep them off the top tables?

I'm imagining a max Dragoon unit, some Fulgurites in a hover-box/drill, and a Gallant as a great way to keep pressure on your opponent.

Triple Krast Crusader murders other Knight lists. Even I've become wary.

On average, one Krast Crusader with Ironstorm and RFBC is ridiculous against other knights. With the relic that is.

First, hitting on 3s, re-rolling 1s is 2/3 + (2/3*1/6) hit chance, which works out to 7 hits in 9 shots.

Ironstorm: average 3,5 shots, which is 49/18 hits, wounding on 5s is 49/54 wounds, saving on 4++ is 49/108 unsaved, but damage 4 makes it an average of 1.82 damage.

Stubbers: 6 shots = 14/3 hits, wounding on 6s = 7/9 wounds, saving on 3 is 7/27 unsaved wounds at 3 damage is .78 damage.

Gatling: 12 shots = 28/3 hits, wounding on 5s = 28/9 wounds, saving on 4 is 28/18 unsaved at 4 damage per is 6.22 damage.

RFBC: 7 shots on average = 49/9 hits, wounding on 4 = 49/18 wounds, saving on 4s is 49/36 unsaved at 4 damage on aver is 5.44 damage.

Thermal Cannon: 3.5 shots on average = 49/18 hits, wounding on 3s is 49/27 wounds, saving on 4s is 49/54 at 5.5 damage on average is 4.99 damage.

So RFBC Crusader is 14 damage on average in 1 round of shooting to a knight, all by himself. Thermal is slightly lower at max range, slightly more at half range. Then there's 1500 points of more stuff to dump into it. Doing more than half a knight's health in 1 round of shooting with 500 points of model is pretty good. I've done 22 damage with it to another knight before.

Expect to see the Krast Crusader a lot. Even if they don't take Headsmans Mark they'll take Endless Fury instead which is also bananas good.

Isnt it about time someone leaked the 40k datasheet? I was planning on going into my local warhammer store to get those cool looking objective markers and i cant order or buy a skorpius box until ive seen them.

Though actually they'll probably be demoing the apocalypse box which is supposed to have the 40k datasheet as well.

There's no book, so I highly doubt we'll see a leak.

You can just go download the datasheet for Apocalypse right now.

About the Krast though - a single knight becomes an instant "shoot me" giant bliping sign. If you fail to wither his AT shooting, he's toast. If you didn't manage to kill whatever you brought him to kill - you're toast.

I've been stuck with a Krast Crusader for several months (as I basically never purchased Castellan) and this setup is less and less appealing for me. Mathhammer wise it's great. And indeed, killing other Titanic is something he does exceptionally well. But Headman's Crusader is 500 pts that will most likely die turn 1 - if you can't hide him (and most terrains won't let you), be prepared to say goodbye. Especially now, after the invuln nerf for knights. So don't put all of your AT hopes into that model.

It has the huge carnifex value though, as 4++ Crusader will still gather enough fire so the rest of your list will be fairly healthy at the beginning of the round 2

On the topic of knights, if you bring say 1 knight 2 helverins, is it worth making him your warlord for the relic and trait or is that a bit risky?
Part of me wants to do it to give him perma 4++ and 2+ armor relic (to help with melee) but im also skeptical about that because hes not character-protected so might as well paint him with a giant bullseye on his back.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
On the topic of knights, if you bring say 1 knight 2 helverins, is it worth making him your warlord for the relic and trait or is that a bit risky?
Part of me wants to do it to give him perma 4++ and 2+ armor relic (to help with melee) but im also skeptical about that because hes not character-protected so might as well paint him with a giant bullseye on his back.

You could always spend the CP for them instead? then keep Cawl/Dominus more hidden.

BTW, 2+ armor knight + cover w/ Shroudpsalm for 1CP is hilarious, if maybe not the most damaging knight ever.