Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:15:04
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Mysterious Techpriest
|
Yeah I admit my case was an edge case and shouldn't happen that much. Overall I'm happy with Morale so far. I don't like having a unit of 6 Rangers losing 3 guys, rolling terribly as I always do and lose the whole squad because GW gave them terrible Ld. Feels like wasted points when you lose your sniper team to 3 lucky bolter shots. Now at least it'll be mitigated heavily. Just have to see in practice. I like having units of 6-8 Skitarii and it could be nice not losing one half of the squad to Morale.
|
40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:17:15
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
Where ever the Emperor needs his eyes
|
Dudeface wrote: Latro_ wrote: BaconCatBug wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
DS etc != general strategic reserve rules
Agreed:
They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well
How? His guys are fully with in 6" of a Table Edge. They dont need to be fully with in 6" of each other.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:17:43
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Dudeface wrote: Latro_ wrote: BaconCatBug wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
DS etc != general strategic reserve rules
Agreed:
They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well
Fair enough, a bad choice of words.
Situation is still valid for T2 Strategic Reserves.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:18:18
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote:Morale is abstracted for portray a lot of different things in 40k. It's people fleeing, it's troops running out of ammo, it's soldiers hauling wounded buddies off the line, dudes getting lost during the chaos of combat, all sorts of things that represent a combatant being removed from the fight without being directly harmed. There really is no actual "suppression" mechanic however to represent stuff line troops getting pinned down, or being shell shocked, or anything like that.
Right, and that's silly. Morale in GW's modern approach just simulates even more troops being removed permanently from combat, not panic. That's weird. It's called morale, it should simulate morale, not extra casualties.
If morale is not going to simulate morale, there's no reason to even have it. GW's current morale paradigm just makes the game even more lethal, which is not what it needs.
And it also doesn't actually simulate any of those things for single entity units. Why is a mek gun immune to running out of ammo, having its gunners flee, having a gunner have to take care of another injured gunner, dudes getting lost during the chaos of battle, etc etc? Even worse - take three war walkers in a single unit and one might have those things happen to it when the other two are destroyed, but take them as three separate units of one, and they become immune to all those mishaps.
The system just isn't fit for purpose. This change is a moderate improvement to the math, but it's still a fundamentally flawed system.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:21:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:22:03
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
Dudeface wrote: Latro_ wrote: BaconCatBug wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:Strategic Reserves aren’t all about outflanking the enemy, though. Should your opponent overcommit with their initial attack, it’s possible to deliver a punishing counter-blow with your reinforcements. Strategic Reserves units can’t normally be set up within 9″ of any enemy models, but if you set them up within 1″ of your own battlefield edge, they can be set up within this distance – and even within the 1″ Engagement Range of enemy models! If they do so, they count as having made a charge move, and your opponent will be unable to fire Overwatch against them!
This seems very interesting
More rules sillyness!
DS etc != general strategic reserve rules
Agreed:
They covered BaconCatBug's scenario as well
How are they defining player ownership of table edges where multiple edges are assigned at deployment (e.g., angled deployment and tiled deployment)?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:22:04
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine
|
yukishiro1 wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Morale is abstracted for portray a lot of different things in 40k. It's people fleeing, it's troops running out of ammo, it's soldiers hauling wounded buddies off the line, dudes getting lost during the chaos of combat, all sorts of things that represent a combatant being removed from the fight without being directly harmed. There really is no actual "suppression" mechanic however to represent stuff line troops getting pinned down, or being shell shocked, or anything like that.
Right, and that's silly. Morale in GW's modern approach just simulates even more troops being removed permanently from combat, not panic. That's weird. It's called morale, it should simulate morale, not extra casualties.
If morale is not going to simulate morale, there's no reason to even have it. GW's current morale paradigm just makes the game even more lethal, which is not what it needs.
And it also doesn't actually simulate any of those things for single entity units. Why is a mek gun immune to running out of ammo, having its gunners flee, having a gunner have to take care of another injured gunner, dudes getting lost during the chaos of battle, etc etc?
The system just isn't fit for purpose. This change is a moderate improvement to the math, but it's still a fundamentally flawed system.
So basically your entire argument is "I don't like it". Your only reason is that the game being lethal is a bad thing. Which is a subjective take.
So if we ignore that gripe your whole problem could be solved by calling it the "Happenstance of War" phase.
|
The 1st Legion
Interrogator-Chaplain Beremiah's Strike Force
The Tearers of Flesh |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:24:26
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
|
So, this is confirmation that Fall Back as a basic movement phase action is still in the mix.
|
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:26:15
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:26:42
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Nah Man Pichu wrote:
So basically your entire argument is "I don't like it". Your only reason is that the game being lethal is a bad thing. Which is a subjective take.
So if we ignore that gripe your whole problem could be solved by calling it the "Happenstance of War" phase.
Why are single entity units immune to the "happenstance of war?"
All arguments that something is bad are subjective arguments. It isn't a refutation of the argument to say "that's subjective." Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:28:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:31:25
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
yukishiro1 wrote: Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:32:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:32:24
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Bullet points are not full rules however and there may be additional stipulations we don't know about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:So, this is confirmation that Fall Back as a basic movement phase action is still in the mix.
I must have missed that. Where'd you see that?
As for single units being immune to happenstance? Plot armour.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:35:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:34:13
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
We don't have the real rule text, so talking about what is allowed based on the explanation of that text, without the text itself, doesn't tell you what the rule actually allows or does not allow.
Anything that isn't actual rules text is just some other guy explaining the rule, and you of all people should know that we can't rely on that.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:34:53
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:37:41
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle
Alabama
|
I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
|
WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:39:38
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Ugh at who wrote the Faction Focus for the Guard.
Really getting fed up with this drivel about every single Guard Regiment now being Valhallans.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:39:43
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
puma713 wrote:I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+ D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:41:21
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
What’s more, we’re joined by playtester Reece Robbins, who’ll be giving us a rundown of what the Imperial Guard armies of the future may look like.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:45:36
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:42:54
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle
Alabama
|
yukishiro1 wrote: puma713 wrote:I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+ D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
It was an example. I understand what you're saying, but if my termagants get out of Synapse or if Synapse is killed, I won't lose an entire unit to a halfway decent round of shooting.
|
WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:45:22
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Yes, but does that ever happen in a game you haven't already lost?
As I said, it's a moderate improvement in the math of the system. But the actual impact on the game is tiny because the system is so marginalized within the rest of the game by all the ways to ignore it for any unit it would actually matter on.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:46:34
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Pious Palatine
|
BaconCatBug wrote:Better now?
If the general explanation given by GW is the full rule, this will be possible.
Of course, the full rule could be that all models in the unit must be setup within 1" of your table edge to remove the 9" from enemy rule. Maybe we should wait for the actual rules text rather then jumping to absorb conclusions?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:47:41
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
yukishiro1 wrote: puma713 wrote:I think one other thing is being overlooked by the people discussing the morale change is that if a unit of termagants loses 14/30 models to shooting, it is still only going to lose 1 to morale whereas before it would lose 14+ D6-Leadership. And then, there is a chance that they will lose more. That change is not insignificant, but I see a lot of examples where people are only discussing the smaller casualty counts to units.
Because those termagants would already be moral immune.
That's the thing. Any big units that actually get run are already effectively immune to morale in 8th from special rules. There isn't a single unit in 8th that is run in unit sizes of 20+ that doesn't have some easily accessible morale immunity or mitigation.
Fingers crossed that those sorts of rules change with the day 1 FAQ.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:50:15
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle
Alabama
|
This is painting with a pretty broad brush. Yes, I have lost a synapse creature and had Tyranids taking morale tests before an outcome on the game had been determined. YMMV I guess.
|
WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:52:21
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
BaconCatBug wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:
Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.
So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.
It specifies that 'they' are set up within 1" of their table edge. This implies to me that it is the unit as a whole, not just one model.
You can decide to interpret a summary whatever way you want, but if you were a betting person you would not be betting on your version being true.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:52:22
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
And no surprlse both strategic reserve and morale rules help msu. That is not even news anymore
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 17:55:55
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 17:56:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 18:11:48
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
puma713 wrote:
This is painting with a pretty broad brush. Yes, I have lost a synapse creature and had Tyranids taking morale tests before an outcome on the game had been determined. YMMV I guess.
Then I'm glad if the rule helps you out in that one game in 10 or 15 or whatever it is. Genuinely, not being snarky.
This is a good change overall. Within a fundamentally flawed and marginalized system, yes, but a good change within that framework.
Well, except for the bucket of extra dice to roll. But in a world where 6 space marine models get 140 bolter shots, it's a pretty small increase in dice rolling overall.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 18:12:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 18:13:04
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Us3Less wrote:I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
You realize all that would do is further help MSU right? 5 man units below half = 2 models, so at most your suggestion makes it easier to kill those 2 models. However, a horde unit of 30 would lose EVEN more because of that. Small squads with good LD still don't care.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 18:15:40
Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500, |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 18:13:07
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Listeningnto the Signals podcast and Reese is calling this the MSU edition. Based on his understanding of balance, hordes will be dominate in 9th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 18:14:47
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The only thing I don’t like about the new morale rules are it’s a lot more dice rolling and slowing the game down.
Before it was one dice roll and math (minus any free rerolls or gak)
Now it’s one dice roll and math and a die roll for every other model
As people stated it’s still going to be mostly passing for everyone or failing followed by breaking heads or whatever their armies bespoke morale rule is.
It just seems like a whole lot of dice rolling for very little effect. They should have left the old rule of morale and just made it mandatory if you failed morale you always lose 1 model regardless of bespoke rules.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 18:15:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 18:14:48
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
tneva82 wrote:And no surprlse both strategic reserve and morale rules help msu. That is not even news anymore
You say that like MSU got the biggest benefit from the change, but the hordes are more likely to still be on the board after a bad morale phase.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/24 18:14:58
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
|
Us3Less wrote:I was thinking that it'd be quite a nice idea if they implemented the rule that under half strength you double the amount of casualties taken for morale purposes. Then 5 model squads with LD 8 are in fact properly suffering the effects from morale when 3 models are killed from that unit. I really hope they're doing something more at least with the under half strength for units, because as it is now, small squads with good leadership still don't really care about morale.
If anything, they care even less with the removal of penalties. Time was, i could fly a Hemlock and blitz a Silent Shroud solitaire into a Traditional Space Marine Aura Blob and they'd have to take several tests that would make them sweat.
HOpefully not everything is an Attrition penalty, and - LD penalties still exist to make failing the test easier.
|
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!" |
|
 |
 |
|