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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/A-1hm_F19Xf~hI4~.jpg

I think they are the same base size as the arquebus, but I cant tell 100% until they are released. Atm I can only dream it would work

New article is up, which is where that photo comes from.

Holy craaaaaaaaaaaaaap.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 0XFallen wrote:

I think they are the same base size as the arquebus, but I cant tell 100% until they are released. Atm I can only dream it would work

This image gives a better sense of scale, as you can see the 'decking' that the one is on comes from the Sector Mechanicus kits. Leaning a bit more towards the 60 now, but it depends on if they photoshopped the Serberys in or not for the picture you used.

 Kanluwen wrote:
New article is up, which is where that photo comes from.

Holy craaaaaaaaaaaaaap.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 0XFallen wrote:

I think they are the same base size as the arquebus, but I cant tell 100% until they are released. Atm I can only dream it would work

Spoiler:

This image gives a better sense of scale, as you can see the 'decking' that the one is on comes from the Sector Mechanicus kits. Leaning a bit more towards the 60 now, but it depends on if they photoshopped the Serberys in or not for the picture you used.

Not terrible, but I'm guessing like every sniper unit in the game they've got like S4 Ap- D1 single shot Heavy weapons and they cost like 45ppm.

Gentlemen, we've done it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Gentlemen, we've done it.

"These electrofilaments break down enemy radio, psychic powers, audible yelling, warp magic, and the tyranid hive mind.

It is only a shame we can deploy them only as a special thingy on this one plane."

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Prices.

Start Collecting is reasonable. Rest....bit Oof.

About sister level so expected. It's the new price range for gw

wow... those ad mech rules are going to sell dem models eh..

Bye bye marine meta. Welcome ad mech meta (until the newest codex comes out for XYZ)

Eh. Unless you can start parking the flying base on top of enemy models, there's very few models with aura abilities that can't just walk away.

It'd be one thing if 'started turn within 6"' was the clause, but 'whilst within' means the character just takes a normal move and is fine. The unit being buffed is just fine staying close to the bird.

The Primary to Secondary characteristics is how Custom Traits should've been handled to begin with.

 Kanluwen wrote:
New article is up, which is where that photo comes from.

Holy craaaaaaaaaaaaaap.

Wow, that is really bad English. The first line is giving me conniptions.

Voss wrote:
Eh. Unless you can start parking the flying base on top of enemy models, there's very few models with aura abilities that can't just walk away.

It'd be one thing if 'started turn within 6"' was the clause, but 'whilst within' means the character just takes a normal move and is fine. The unit being buffed is just fine staying close to the bird.

The character can't make a normal move until their turn....so while it lasts through the enemy's turn?

That character's aura abilities are shutdown for your turn.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wow, that is really bad English. The first line is giving me conniptions.

Oh man. That is... wow.

They don't need a technical writer. They just need a proof reader who speaks English.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wow, that is really bad English. The first line is giving me conniptions.

Oh man. That is... wow.

They don't need a technical writer. They just need a proof reader who speaks English.

I fixed it in about a minute

This artifact allows models with ranged weapons in the unit to target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit

or alternatively

Ranged Weapon models in this unit that is equipped with this artifact can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit

Its probably still not perfect, but at least its passable.

Maybe they have actual monkeys writing the rules.
You know what they say, give enough monkeys with type writers and you'll eventually get Shakespeare.

It's not "an artefact". It's a rule for the unit, Serberys Raiders.
It's not tied to a specific weapon, it's tied to the models themselves.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "an artefact". It's a rule for the unit, Serberys Raiders.
It's not tied to a specific weapon, it's tied to the models themselves.

Ok, I was mistaken. Its still a poorly written rule.
It should be "Models in this unit that are equipped with ranged weapons can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit"

Voss wrote:
Eh. Unless you can start parking the flying base on top of enemy models, there's very few models with aura abilities that can't just walk away.

It'd be one thing if 'started turn within 6"' was the clause, but 'whilst within' means the character just takes a normal move and is fine. The unit being buffed is just fine staying close to the bird.

Sisters need to be careful to prevent getting within 6" as they have hell of a big aura that is like 95% used in opponents turn. Can't walk away that.

Edit: depending on how much am firepower comes from -2 guns specifically

Well, my martian admech are sure liking these news. The canticle of giving+1strenght is going to be dope. Imagine that on dakkabots, or even combo with a Knight crusader (Knight of the cog stratagem). Hell's yeah.

*waits for new Daemons rules with heavy breathing*

One thing the flyer strat is good at though is not only forcing a move, but removing auras that effect you in your turn, like FNP,LD or invulns

It’s defo of high potential. Pleasingly, it’s not overly simple to pull off, as it’ll take a bit of planning.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "an artefact". It's a rule for the unit, Serberys Raiders.
It's not tied to a specific weapon, it's tied to the models themselves.

Ok, I was mistaken. Its still a poorly written rule.
It should be "Models in this unit that are equipped with ranged weapons can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit"

Now you’ve included the melee weapons too, but only as long as the model carrying it also has a ranged weapon.
Which is a bit odd but OK. I mean if anyone in this setting was going to have rocket punches it’d be the Adeptus Mechanicus…

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "an artefact". It's a rule for the unit, Serberys Raiders.
It's not tied to a specific weapon, it's tied to the models themselves.

Ok, I was mistaken. Its still a poorly written rule.
It should be "Models in this unit that are equipped with ranged weapons can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit"

Now you’ve included the melee weapons too, but only as long as the model carrying it also has a ranged weapon.
Which is a bit odd but OK. I mean if anyone in this setting was going to have rocket punches it’d be the Adeptus Mechanicus…

If they are in melee they'd be able to target the character anyway.
There is nothing in the rule that allows you to use your sword as a ranged weapon, or at more than melee range. The BRB is actually pretty clear on the process.
The extra effect that deals more damage specifically mentions a ranged weapon, so this rewrite would't buff melee weapons.

Range weapons that models in this unit are equipped with...
One word can make quite a difference. Just my opinion though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wow, that is really bad English. The first line is giving me conniptions.

Oh man. That is... wow.

They don't need a technical writer. They just need a proof reader who speaks English.

I'm glad to see those record profits and price rises are being invested well lmao.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "an artefact". It's a rule for the unit, Serberys Raiders.
It's not tied to a specific weapon, it's tied to the models themselves.

Ok, I was mistaken. Its still a poorly written rule.
It should be "Models in this unit that are equipped with ranged weapons can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit"

Now you’ve included the melee weapons too, but only as long as the model carrying it also has a ranged weapon.
Which is a bit odd but OK. I mean if anyone in this setting was going to have rocket punches it’d be the Adeptus Mechanicus…

Not excusing GW's phrasing but hopefully this shows how rules writing is harder than it looks.

It should probably be:

"Ranged weapons equipped on models in this unit can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit."

Worth also noting that there have been occasions when the text used in community articles doesn't match up with the rulebooks. Not often, but it has happened (no idea why - seems silly)

 slave.entity wrote:

Not excusing GW's phrasing but hopefully this shows how rules writing is harder than it looks.

It should probably be:

"Ranged weapons equipped on models in this unit can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit."

This isn't hard to understand when someone reads it without the intention of arguing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

Not excusing GW's phrasing but hopefully this shows how rules writing is harder than it looks.

It should probably be:

"Ranged weapons equipped on models in this unit can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit."

This isn't hard to understand when someone reads it without the intention of arguing.

Understood =/= well written

There isn't any ambiguity in what the rule does. The first sentence is just awkward.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

Not excusing GW's phrasing but hopefully this shows how rules writing is harder than it looks.

It should probably be:

"Ranged weapons equipped on models in this unit can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit."

This isn't hard to understand when someone reads it without the intention of arguing.

Oh, its certainly understandable, if you know the context.
Its just poor English, and is not becoming of a company who wants you to pay money for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slave.entity wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "an artefact". It's a rule for the unit, Serberys Raiders.
It's not tied to a specific weapon, it's tied to the models themselves.

Ok, I was mistaken. Its still a poorly written rule.
It should be "Models in this unit that are equipped with ranged weapons can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit"

Now you’ve included the melee weapons too, but only as long as the model carrying it also has a ranged weapon.
Which is a bit odd but OK. I mean if anyone in this setting was going to have rocket punches it’d be the Adeptus Mechanicus…

Not excusing GW's phrasing but hopefully this shows how rules writing is harder than it looks.

It should probably be:

"Ranged weapons equipped on models in this unit can target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit."

Except you wouldn't be able to use melee weapons with that phrasing, as you have to check for ranges when choosing a target, and melee weapons technically have no range. There will be rocket punching.
If more clarity is needed, then perhaps "Models in this unit that are equipped with ranged weapons may, in the shooting phase, target a Character unit even if it is not the closest enemy unit" would suffice.
Writing rules is indeed difficult though. That's still not an excuse for poor writing, especially from professionals.