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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Something I haven't seen mentioned is that you can only end in engagement range of units you declare you're charging against. No tagging units you didn't declare as a target of your charge via a good charge roll.

Pile-ins don't have this restriction, so you only need to stay 1/2" off units you didn't charge before your pile in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Objective markers are now a 40mm round marker. Guess that's why GW got rid of the old marker set.

The charge thing was the case in 8th already. Can't charge what you didn't declare as a charge, but can pile in/ consolidating.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Huh. Does this kill the Look Out Sir argument from last week?

In what way?

It doesn't. You can have 2 daemon princes tag team fulfiliing half requirement by being moster and another unit far from them being closer to enemy

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Something I haven't seen mentioned is that you can only end in engagement range of units you declare you're charging against. No tagging units you didn't declare as a target of your charge via a good charge roll.

Pile-ins don't have this restriction, so you only need to stay 1/2" off units you didn't charge before your pile in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Objective markers are now a 40mm round marker. Guess that's why GW got rid of the old marker set.

The charge thing was the case in 8th already. Can't charge what you didn't declare as a charge, but can pile in/ consolidating.

Ah, guess I've gotten a bit rusty since I forgot that.

Well matched play confirms no more arguing over whether or not you should share your army list (yes, that was a thing I remember being argued about online in the past, and yes it is dumb).

If you concede in Matched Play your opponent can choose to play out their turns to maximize their score, so don't concede in tournament play.

As for the Secondaries: 2 based on killing (though one has a defensive objective), 2 based on holding/holding more, and one for Warp Craft (has two Psychic Tests for VP, and one VP option for killing Psykers).

Honestly looks pretty balanced since you have to pick 3 different categories, meaning that at least one of your secondaries is likely not geared up on killing. You can still go heavy on killing, but looking through the missions they all seem to be geared around holding objectives meaning that spreading out to take points on the board is going to be important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Huh. Does this kill the Look Out Sir argument from last week?

In what way?

I don't know, I thought this was a better punctuated version than the original on GW posted so wasn't sure if it'd help or not.

Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.

Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.

The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.

I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

Spoletta wrote:
Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.

Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.

The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.

I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.

The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs. Assassinate is another one that will be easy to max for certain lists against other lists.

Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max no matter what, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.

Spoletta wrote:

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?

Battle ready is a fairly low bar.

Unless they have a disability. Guess they should suck it up and spend 1000 dollars on commissions though right?

Jesus people. As someone who paints very slowly, I'd rather not get punished because i want to play with the new models I bought instead of waiting a year until they make it to my paint table after all the other gak I am painting is done

Goobi2 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.

The 'Ard Boyz tournaments from GW didn't have painting req's but most others do/did.

Luckily, ''Battle Ready'' is fairly subjective. Just getting models close enough should be good enough! A bit of paint on models isn't too bad. Just assume it is part of the list building process.


Interestingly, since building/painting/basing is now rewarded with points, you are effectively modelling for advantage! (or more accurately choosing to not paint/base models is ''modelling for disadvantage'')

The problem with battle ready being subjective is that TFGs, like the ones here in this thread, can and will try to browbeat poor painters into accepting their army is too badly painted to get the points. Maybe with a little mocking to go along with it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.

People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.

That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.

Definitely this.

I get where HBMC is coming from on an accessibility front, but it's definitely more an argument for accessibility accommodations rather than against a rule about painting.

I could just imagine you going to some twelve year old new to the hobby "You're painting is crap and you don't get 10 points"

yukishiro1 wrote:
The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs.

Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.

I agree, there is some fine tuning required, but most of them aren't looking too bad, and isn't the point of secondaries to tailor them to each game anyways?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.

Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.

The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.

I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.

8th:
Unit of infantry with character behind.
Non flying unit tries to charge the pair. Declares both as long as they make it to one they can attack both during fight phase.

9th:
Because of multi charge change there was a worry Heroic Intervening heroes would be immune to retribution.

Credit to them for seeing and addressing it on the first pass.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread suggest that they would evaluate quality in deciding whether someone's army met the requirements (except people opposed to the change doing so in jest). Please don't make straw man arguments, it doesn't add to the discussion.

Battle ready isn't a subjective call, either. It's objective - did you paint with three colors and base? If so, it qualifies. It doesn't depend on quality. There is no way to "paint too badly" and not meet the requirement.

There are valid reasons to be against the rule, but that is really not one of them.

stratigo wrote:
I could just imagine you going to some twelve year old new to the hobby "You're painting is crap and you don't get 10 points"

Nah, you missed a post I made a ways back that the only person I'd force this on is TFG.

Besides, this is GW's own definition of Battle Ready:

If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.

We aren't talking about needing to win a painting competition here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.

Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.

The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.

I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.

8th:
Unit of infantry with character behind.
Non flying unit tries to charge the pair. Declares both as long as they make it to one they can attack both during fight phase.

9th:
Because of multi charge change there was a worry Heroic Intervening heroes would be immune to retribution.

Credit to them for seeing and addressing it on the first pass.

Honestly it should have always been the way the rule worked.

I just had a thought: fight twice strats better see a CP drop. It's a LOT harder to use those effectively now and they should be cheaper to compenesate.

Look out Sir is still the same (presumably it will be FAQed though?)

Double Daemon Prince still works, double Chappy Dread still works. Sammael (in Landspeeder) can still ride with his Talonmaster Homie, etc..,

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Nothing really interesting in the rules that we didn't already know.

Just some needed fixes like the possibility to attack a character who heroically intervened even if you didn't charge him.

The secondaries look like well done. They are all really difficult to max out. Slay the warlord and First strike are still in, but only as an opt out option if you don't think you can do the other missions. Seems good.

I don't like the alternating deployment and would have liked some more restrictive rules to line of sight. Instead, we got the old "Shoot at the banner" mode.

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

What's wrong with the heroic intervention thing? If they heroically intervene you can punch them. It's right there in the rules.

8th:
Unit of infantry with character behind.
Non flying unit tries to charge the pair. Declares both as long as they make it to one they can attack both during fight phase.

9th:
Because of multi charge change there was a worry Heroic Intervening heroes would be immune to retribution.

Credit to them for seeing and addressing it on the first pass.

Honestly it should have always been the way the rule worked.

I just had a thought: fight twice strats better see a CP drop. It's a LOT harder to use those effectively now and they should be cheaper to compenesate.

Have they talked about strategem costs being part of the Errata? You are right that absolutely should be adjusted. Also any strat that mods Overwatch should be similarly adjusted to account for the new approach.

 Eldarain wrote:
Have they talked about strategem costs being part of the Errata? You are right that absolutely should be adjusted. Also any strat that mods Overwatch should be similarly adjusted to account for the new approach.

They have not, but I'd be a bit surprised if they left that out of the FAQs.

EDIT: If they don't make them cheaper, then they need to let you attack stuff you didn't declare as a charge target, otherwise the strat only works defensively or if you start your turn in combat and that's just weird.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Why not have vp's for fluffy armies, behaviour, yelling waaaghs etc while we are at it?

Remember all those rules people hated from the start of AoS? We should bring those back. Makes just about as much sense as winning a game because you painted something.

I actually couldn't wait to get home from work to bring this up, but you beat me to it. The community absolutely hated stuff like "in order to use this ability, you must yell "blood for the blood god!" as loud as you can" and other crap. The community hated it so much that GW (rightfully) removed it from the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The secondaries aren't all hard to max at all, and the balance between them is really not very good. A few of them are much easier than others - if someone takes 5 more more 11W vehicles, that's a no-brainer assuming you can kill vehicles, as is the one to kill two knights against a knight player (unless you just can't kill knights in your list at all). Kill more is easy to max, assuming you are in a position to do so based on your list and theirs.

Then there's stuff that is virtually impossible to max, like the recon clone, which would require you to have a unit in all four quarters ever single turn of the game. Or basically any of the action-based ones.

I agree, there is some fine tuning required, but most of them aren't looking too bad, and isn't the point of secondaries to tailor them to each game anyways?

Yeah i think the minuite these secondary missions hit the table top we are going to see massive winners and loosers as some Codex's give away max points like candy while others will be impossible to max any of the secondarys against.

AKA some armies are going to be starting the game knowing they have to outscore their opponents list by 10-20VP which is going to be almost impossible.

 kodos wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....

Doesn't mean much.

The leaker showed that he had the indomitus box. The points are not in the indomitus box, they are in the CA2020.

We were leaked some pages of a random unidentified document that we know for sure that it wasn't the CA2020. So those leaks don't hold much water.

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....

Doesn't mean much.

The leaker showed that he had the indomitus box. The points are not in the indomitus box, they are in the CA2020.

We were leaked some pages of a random unidentified document that we know for sure that it wasn't the CA2020. So those leaks don't hold much water.

Are you expecting them to personally hand deliver it to you with a signed certificate of authenticity? It's clearly playtester points costs, so no it won't be in an official document format and likewise they may not be final.

 Eldarain wrote:

Have they talked about strategem costs being part of the Errata? You are right that absolutely should be adjusted. Also any strat that mods Overwatch should be similarly adjusted to account for the new approach.

Like the Tau Rule, most of those strats just state "the unit can overwatch (with this or that benefit on top)".

I'd assume the strats stay the same and thus give the respective armies another strat to overwatch with.

Do they? Most I can think of are worded "before _____ fires overwatch" They could Errata them to work that way and leave the cost as is though.

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....

Doesn't mean much.

The leaker showed that he had the indomitus box. The points are not in the indomitus box, they are in the CA2020.

We were leaked some pages of a random unidentified document that we know for sure that it wasn't the CA2020. So those leaks don't hold much water.

you can argue that those were outdated or not from the CA but playtester documents
yet Missions are from the CA book so he must have this one too

but if you call them fake, you cannot take the rules serious as well

how do you know that the guy who made up a points document did not made up the RB pages as well to spread controversial rules?

someone with this kind of skill can easily do it
so either both or non is fake

I'm thinking the rulebook release is likely someone who got a copy for review purposes.

Mournival leaker could be the same one (if so, I'd like job where I get paid in limited edition sets), but more likely is a separate one.

There is potentially a big problem in the Blast Weapon rule with units that shoot multiple d3 shots.

A Thunderfire cannon will fire the maximum of 12 shots automatically against an MSU of 10 termagants, all from 48" away, no Los, no cover, 2+ to hit, no questions asked. The Nid player cannot do anything to mitigate this, he cannot even field less than 10 termagants.

Equally, an Exorcist will shoot flat 9 krak missiles against ANY unit with 6 or more models. See that unit of 10 intercessors? Pow 9 missiles into them, again, no questions asked.

This has the potential to be too strong.

i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...

topaxygouroun i wrote:
There is potentially a big problem in the Blast Weapon rule with units that shoot multiple d3 shots.

A Thunderfire cannon will fire the maximum of 12 shots automatically against an MSU of 10 termagants, all from 48" away, no Los, no cover, 2+ to hit, no questions asked. The Nid player cannot do anything to mitigate this, he cannot even field less than 10 termagants.

Equally, an Exorcist will shoot flat 9 krak missiles against ANY unit with 6 or more models. See that unit of 10 intercessors? Pow 9 missiles into them, again, no questions asked.

This has the potential to be too strong.

Think you need to reread that its minimum 3 not minimum 3 per die.

Not Online!!! wrote:
i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...

Because it's "part of the hobby" or something nebulous like that.

Not Online!!! wrote:
i fail to see why painted miniatures should have an impact on the score of a tournament rating, where the test of on battlefield skill and listbuilding is tested...

Because painted armies have also been giving scores (and even trophies) in tournaments for the last 40,000 years. You say the skill and listbuilding is tested, I say the painting and modelling side is also tested. This is a multi-layer hobby. I'm all for it.

It's respect for your opponent who spent months painting, it's respect towards the TO for preparing nice tables and terrain, and it's very nice if I don't have to face the next meta power army every other tournament just because someone bought 3 boxes of the new hotness plus some superglue.

 kodos wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now we only need a (non fake) point leak and we can test stuff.

as the leak is from the same person that posted the rules, I guess you need a non-fake version of them as well....

Doesn't mean much.

The leaker showed that he had the indomitus box. The points are not in the indomitus box, they are in the CA2020.

We were leaked some pages of a random unidentified document that we know for sure that it wasn't the CA2020. So those leaks don't hold much water.

you can argue that those were outdated or not from the CA but playtester documents
yet Missions are from the CA book so he must have this one too

but if you call them fake, you cannot take the rules serious as well

how do you know that the guy who made up a points document did not made up the RB pages as well to spread controversial rules?

someone with this kind of skill can easily do it
so either both or non is fake

The leaked missions are the ones from the rulebook. The GT missions are a separate set, so no, he doesn't have that book.

By the way they are different posters with different conducts.

This one has no problems making a photo of every single page of a book. The point leaker took a couple of photos of a screen and tha's it. He was a teaser, not a leaker.
Also, as you correctly noted, those points were likely not final.

By the way, I'm not an expert so I can't talk in merit, but it seems like those point values are photoshopped.

Put all this together and the credibility of the document is below low.