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.
StarHunter25 wrote: So I'm looking at Gorefather a bit closer, and it might be garbage thanks to awful GW rules writing. Given that "attack sequence" doesn't exist, the closest thing I can see is step 5 of the fight phase.
Worst interpretation on an Lord would be 4 attacks. Roll 4 to hit rolls & then all manage to hit. Then due to Gorefather's ability, if the first wound roll is an unmodified 6, you do 1 strength+2 ap-2 damage 3 wound, plus 3 mortal wounds then end the attack sequence, losing the remaining 3 attacks and potentially the wound you just rolled, as the opponent cannot allocate the wound, roll a save, or inflict damage. Extra worst case it literally ends the Fight phase as it ends the sequence, preventing you from going to the next step. Hilarious way to prevent enemy attacks.
This is going to need a FAQ fairly quickly. I'm betting there is a bunch more broken in this book. My area has like 4 TFGs so I know they'll bring this up if they're present for a game I use this thing.
I mentions attack sequence in the core rules. It's under shooting phase and fight phase. It's just the roll to hit, wound, save, inflict damage sequence.
The Gorefather rules are just saying that you don't then add on nornal damage when you roll a wound roll of 6.
I just have the Battle Primer on my phone atm, so that might be different. Only things I see are Shooting Sequence and Fight Sequence. Still, losing 12 damage for 3 mortal wounds is stupid.
Also, if they wanted it to resolve as mortal wounds instead of normal damage then why not just say that? There are a few places where that is the wording already, so why not here? It's dumb.
*edit*
Poor memory on templars stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 22:28:39
"When resolving an attack made by this weapon... the target suffers 3 mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends."
Each individual attack has a sequence, which is roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, roll to save, and resolve damage. I think it's pretty safe to say the "attack sequence" refers to each individual attack which you're resolving at the time.
Then why word it so oddly? Why not just say "unmodified wound roll of 6 inflicts 3 mortal wounds to the target unit instead of normal damage" ?
I'm overthinking this because of the nearly half dozen TFG tier rules lawyers in my play area. They will bring this up. In addition, what if I fast roll? Does a single 6 in my wound pool kill the rest of dice?
I should probably plop this in YMDC as to not clog this thread up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 23:06:03
StarHunter25 wrote: Then why word it so oddly? Why not just say "unmodified wound roll of 6 inflicts 3 mortal wounds to the target unit instead of normal damage" ?
I'm overthinking this because of the nearly half dozen TFG tier rules lawyers in my play area. They will bring this up. In addition, what if I fast roll? Does a single 6 in my wound pool kill the rest of dice?
Considering that, if they are doing it and playing marines just get another opponent.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
StarHunter25 wrote: Then why word it so oddly? Why not just say "unmodified wound roll of 6 inflicts 3 mortal wounds to the target unit instead of normal damage" ?
I'm overthinking this because of the nearly half dozen TFG tier rules lawyers in my play area. They will bring this up. In addition, what if I fast roll? Does a single 6 in my wound pool kill the rest of dice?
I should probably plop this in YMDC as to not clog this thread up.
Because then they would get a save before taking the damage (in this case, 3 mortal wounds). They word it this way consistently across all books, and in Age of Sigmar as well.
"When resolving an attack made by this weapon... the target suffers 3 mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends."
Each individual attack has a sequence, which is roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, roll to save, and resolve damage. I think it's pretty safe to say the "attack sequence" refers to each individual attack which you're resolving at the time.
I have to agree with the StarHunter. They already have a wording for this - "inflict 3 mortal wounds instead of normal damage". Its the wording they've used for all of 8th edition. Why change it into something so janky sounding.
I agree that I would play it as each 'hit' being a separate attack, so you could end up getting one 6 (3 mortal wounds) and three other normal hits that resolve normally (going through wounds/saves/damage).
StarHunter25 wrote: Then why word it so oddly? Why not just say "unmodified wound roll of 6 inflicts 3 mortal wounds to the target unit instead of normal damage" ?
I'm overthinking this because of the nearly half dozen TFG tier rules lawyers in my play area. They will bring this up. In addition, what if I fast roll? Does a single 6 in my wound pool kill the rest of dice?
I should probably plop this in YMDC as to not clog this thread up.
Because then they would get a save before taking the damage (in this case, 3 mortal wounds). They word it this way consistently across all books, and in Age of Sigmar as well.
No they wouldn't, cos you don't get any saves against mortal wounds. Except for a few special snowflakes that get saves against mortal wounds... which I guess they wouldn't get a save against this?
What about Feel No Pain? Does that come as part of the 'attack sequence'?
If so, gorefather might end up being decent, especially against death guard and other FnP / special save characters. ..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 23:20:05
StarHunter25 wrote: Then why word it so oddly? Why not just say "unmodified wound roll of 6 inflicts 3 mortal wounds to the target unit instead of normal damage" ?
I'm overthinking this because of the nearly half dozen TFG tier rules lawyers in my play area. They will bring this up. In addition, what if I fast roll? Does a single 6 in my wound pool kill the rest of dice?
I should probably plop this in YMDC as to not clog this thread up.
Because then they would get a save before taking the damage (in this case, 3 mortal wounds). They word it this way consistently across all books, and in Age of Sigmar as well.
No they wouldn't, cos you don't get any saves against mortal wounds. Except for a few special snowflakes that get saves against mortal wounds... which I guess they wouldn't get a save against this?
What about Feel No Pain? Does that come as part of the 'attack sequence'?
If so, gorefather might end up being decent, especially against death guard and other FnP / special save characters. ..
So, the attack sequence is
Roll hit > roll wound > roll save > take damage.
If you deal 3 mortal wounds INSTEAD of damage, you change it to
Roll hit > roll wound > roll save > take mortal wounds.
Feel No Pain happens after the take damage step, where you roll for each point of damage dealt by either wounds or mortal wounds.
In addition, each attack follows the entire attack sequence, so if you roll a 6 on your first of 4 attacks, THAT SINGLE attack sequence ends and you deal 3 mortal wounds, and then you perform the attack sequence for the next 3.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 23:23:51
What about Feel No Pain? Does that come as part of the 'attack sequence'?
If so, gorefather might end up being decent, especially against death guard and other FnP / special save characters. ..
Why. Why break it more. This 1 point chainaxe is causing enough trouble. 6 to wound literally prevents the mortal wounds from doing damage, as the attack sequence ends preventing the wounds from being allocated.
Only reference is from the BRBfaq.
Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore
the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g.
Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious
Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you
can only use one of those abilities each time the model
loses a wound.’
So, the attack sequence is
Roll hit > roll wound > roll save > take damage.
If you deal 3 mortal wounds INSTEAD of damage, you change it to
Roll hit > roll wound > roll save > take mortal wounds.
Feel No Pain happens after the take damage step, where you roll for each point of damage dealt by either wounds or mortal wounds.
In addition, each attack follows the entire attack sequence, so if you roll a 6 on your first of 4 attacks, THAT SINGLE attack sequence ends and you deal 3 mortal wounds, and then you perform the attack sequence for the next 3.
What? No it isn't? (At least I don't think it is..)
If you roll a 6 to hit, then it's :
Roll hit > take mortal wounds.
You don't roll to wound, or for saves, for mortal wounds. At all. Ever. Doesn't matter how you word the rule, if it's 'mortal wounds on 6's to hit' then every time you roll a 6 to hit you get 3 mortal wounds, no wound rolls or saves needed. You don't need janky 'attack sequence' rule wording.
Feel No Pain is the only 'save' you get, because that happens after you take the damage. This is where the 'attack sequence' part may actually help, if it lets Gorefather ignore feel no pain as well.
Edit: Sorry I misread Gorefather, I thought it was on the 'hit' part of the attack. So you do roll to wound, but you still skip the 'saves' part as per normal mortal wounds rules. Still don't need any 'attack sequence' rule wording.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/18 23:35:06
So, the attack sequence is
Roll hit > roll wound > roll save > take damage.
If you deal 3 mortal wounds INSTEAD of damage, you change it to
Roll hit > roll wound > roll save > take mortal wounds.
Feel No Pain happens after the take damage step, where you roll for each point of damage dealt by either wounds or mortal wounds.
In addition, each attack follows the entire attack sequence, so if you roll a 6 on your first of 4 attacks, THAT SINGLE attack sequence ends and you deal 3 mortal wounds, and then you perform the attack sequence for the next 3.
What? No it isn't? (At least I don't think it is..)
If you roll a 6 to hit, then it's :
Roll hit > take mortal wounds.
You don't roll to wound, or for saves, for mortal wounds. At all. Ever. Doesn't matter how you word the rule, if it's 'mortal wounds on 6's to hit' then every time you roll a 6 to hit you get 3 mortal wounds, no wound rolls or saves needed. You don't need janky 'attack sequence' rule wording.
Feel No Pain is the only 'save' you get, because that happens after you take the damage. This is where the 'attack sequence' part may actually help, if it lets Gorefather ignore feel no pain as well.
Edit: Sorry I misread Gorefather, I thought it was on the 'hit' part of the attack. So you do roll to wound, but you still skip the 'saves' part as per normal mortal wounds rules. Still don't need any 'attack sequence' rule wording.
If you take mortal wounds "instead of damage", then you ONLY take mortal wounds when you would take damage, which ONLY happens after a save. So if you rolled a 6, and the rule was it takes 3 mortal wounds instead of normal damage, you would still need to get to the "take damage" step which is AFTER taking saves.
roll hits > roll wounds > roll saves > take damage (This is the only step that is changed when you take "mortal wounds instead of normal damage"
mrtomski wrote: Hey guys I may have missed it but do traits only apply to infintry etc still?
Did they change any legion traits?
Nope, legion traits are still the same.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
mrtomski wrote: Hey guys I may have missed it but do traits only apply to infintry etc still?
Did they change any legion traits?
Nope, legion traits are still the same.
Thanks, alpha legion seeming pretty damn good now then.
Let us pray to the dark gods for some point drops.
Why? I'd rather have 2w infantry cheaper for worse equipment then even cheaper 1 W marine models which will never work in this massed fire edition.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Probably a stupid question, but are Close Combat focussed Chosen of any value with the new Stratagems? I've been wanting to field some Chosen with power swords.
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
On the topic of stupid suggestions, how about EC Warp Talons accompanied by a smash lord with the Host Raptorial WT. Adding 2 to charge rolls, combined with Honour the Prince could make for a practically guaranteed charge off deep strike, which due to Warpflame strike denies overwatch. I'm sure there's plenty that can further augment the Warp Talons hitting power - until now the difficulty has been getting them there off of deep strike. Could this make them remotely viable?
Note I still accept that after that one charge they're dead - and so probably better off as Night Lords to deny fall back. Thoughts?
Do you know what your sin is, Malcolm Reynolds?
Ah hell, I'm a fan of all seven.
But right now, I'm gonna have to go with wrath.
blood reaper wrote: Probably a stupid question, but are Close Combat focussed Chosen of any value with the new Stratagems? I've been wanting to field some Chosen with power swords.
Can work if you fight the right opponents and get them from point a to b.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I'm liking the WE stratagem Skulls for the Skull Throne. There's literally no down-side to using it; at worst it pays for itself, at best it nets you 2 CP.
I wish the Heldrake had more than just 1d6 Baleflamer hits. But it's good to know you can get a reroll via stratagem to save your command reroll with IW. They seem to have the most stratagems that affect more than just Infantry units.
Still trying to decide whether Purge, AL or IW is the better (heavy support/flyer) ally for my DG, Daemons, and Knights armies. I have lots of Oblits, Havocs, Predators and Heldrakes that need a Legion to join.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/19 14:20:24
Nightlord1987 wrote: I wish the Heldrake had more than just 1d6 Baleflamer hits. But it's good to know you can get a reroll via stratagem to save your command reroll with IW. They seem to have the most stratagems that affect more than just Infantry units.
Still trying to decide whether Purge, AL or IW is the better (heavy support/flyer) ally for my DG, Daemons, and Knights armies. I have lots of Oblits, Havocs, Predators and Heldrakes that need a Legion to join.
Beyond shooting into melee, the purge trait is probably one of the worst ones for him?
Al could do some fancy movement shenanigans but considering how fast a helldrake allready is i doubt it to be really that big an issue.
IW with the new traits and stratagems might make the Helldrake quite a fancy* pick in a IW daemonengine list.
*of course it is still a helldrake, so rather overpriced anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, has anyone figured out a maximum meme AL list with movement traits and stratagems?
Warlord for relocation.
I am alpharius for the one time teleport trait?
Terminator lords, Jumppack lords etc.
A bunch of slaanesh marines maybee?
Havocs? (reaper havocs with deepstrike probably the most memeworthy .)
I'd say that make for a fluffy and especially highly movement based list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/19 14:25:10
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Drakeslayer wrote: On the topic of stupid suggestions, how about EC Warp Talons accompanied by a smash lord with the Host Raptorial WT. Adding 2 to charge rolls, combined with Honour the Prince could make for a practically guaranteed charge off deep strike, which due to Warpflame strike denies overwatch. I'm sure there's plenty that can further augment the Warp Talons hitting power - until now the difficulty has been getting them there off of deep strike. Could this make them remotely viable?
Note I still accept that after that one charge they're dead - and so probably better off as Night Lords to deny fall back. Thoughts?
Nothing particularly stupid at all.
Salamanders have brought overwhelming overwatch to the metagame. Ultras, IH, and T’au gunners are likewise very dangerous to launch a frontal assault against. Being able to shut down a load of flamers (or cool-headed rifles) can gatekeep certain anti-melee lists, with a proper brawler unit that appreciates the assist (Sal Aggressors can easily kill like a Terminator squad or DP). Hateful Assault means they’ll even get a bit of actual stabbing done. Honour the Prince is a very nice insurance against bad rolls - at least one unit is guaranteed to successfully charge, and there’s nothing worse than a Smashlord rolling snake eyes.
Daemonkin Fiends & Epitomes make for a team-up that can cause the EC Legion Trait to actually be useful in this situation. Being tarpitted by a load of Lightning Claws and a Thunder Hammer that all Strike first is a rather dangerous place to be.
Isn't the Wordleaters CP gain broken? In that all CP gaining methods are limited to 1 CP per round and this costs 1 CP, except forthe specifically excluded methods named in the faq, which this is not.
Roknar wrote: Isn't the Wordleaters CP gain broken? In that all CP gaining methods are limited to 1 CP per round and this costs 1 CP, except forthe specifically excluded methods named in the faq, which this is not.
stupid.
