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.

Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".

It's not part of basic matched play rules.

Rule of three is great for truely vast and bloated range like......oh yeah Marines

And you still have batteries of Basaliks and the like

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".

It's not part of basic matched play rules.

I think it's part of the matched play mission pack in the main rulebook, unless you have seen a different leak as the narative and matched play mission's leaks I have seen are all BRB.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Rule of three is great for truely vast and bloated range like......oh yeah Marines

And you still have batteries of Basaliks and the like

if they get the whirlwind pts blast/indirect hike... you might see 2 bassies XD

has anyone spotted rules for open topped? or is it just what the current codicies have written?

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".

It's not part of basic matched play rules.

I think it's part of the matched play mission pack in the main rulebook, unless you have seen a different leak as the narative and matched play mission's leaks I have seen are all BRB.

Ah. Ok. I thought that was the GT Pack. My bad.

Isn't the full page of new Astartes points from the Chapter Approved Points book?

RedNoak wrote:
has anyone spotted rules for open topped? or is it just what the current codicies have written?

Seen nothing about this, but open-topped is an exception rather than the norm, and as such will probably stay on the datasheet of the transport.

RedNoak wrote:
has anyone spotted rules for open topped? or is it just what the current codicies have written?

Yeah. Open Topped is just a Datasheet ability.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rule of 3 is (only) in the GT Missions, similar to how in 8th it is only an "Event Recommendation".

It's not part of basic matched play rules.

I think it's part of the matched play mission pack in the main rulebook, unless you have seen a different leak as the narative and matched play mission's leaks I have seen are all BRB.

Ah. Ok. I thought that was the GT Pack. My bad.

Isn't the full page of new Astartes points from the Chapter Approved Points book?

Roumer is either old playtesting points as it doesnt line up with the power ratings or faked.

Add your own levels of salt to taste.

Am I going mad or do vehicles and monsters never gain the +1 save or -1 to be hit from cover due to the way Terrain Category and Terrain Traits combine?

It has a watermark so whatever it is, it isn't the Chapter Approved. It also has the point point values photoshopped into the image.

There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?

Abaddon303 wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?

You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.

Zustiur wrote:
Am I going mad or do vehicles and monsters never gain the +1 save or -1 to be hit from cover due to the way Terrain Category and Terrain Traits combine?

correct It's infantry or GTFO only tmthibg is atleast you get obscuring

Abaddon303 wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?

still a thing

stormcraft wrote:
Soo....Rerolls before Modifieres seems to be just gone?
I dont find anything about Rerolls at all in the leaks.

There are key pages missing. For example, I'm guessing that re-rolls are covered in that really basic section you get before the rules we have, where it explains things like measuring and what a unit is.

I hope it's gone though. I am hopeful it is, as the main reason seemed to be how powerful re-rolls were when combined with large modifiers. Now, with the modifier limits, that is less of a problem.

 xttz wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?

You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.

I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!

Kdash wrote:
Just spent a bit of time looking at the Secondaries.
I predict that it is going to be INCREDIBLY rare that anyone will get even close to the 45 max points in a standard game unless you are able to reliably alpha strike or table your opponent in the 1st 2 turns, whilst also picking up secondary points.

I’ll personally be surprised if we see an average of anywhere close to 30 point.

I like that tbh. Makes you choose between gambling on the harder to max out ones versus going for some easier points that have a lower ceiling.

Some of them seem imbalanced, but we'll see how it shakes out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Painting isn't part of the rules.

It is now.

 Crimson wrote:
It is now.

Thanks for the input.

Abaddon303 wrote:

 xttz wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
There doesn't appear to be any restriction on IMPERIAL or CHAOS keywords in a detachment anymore? Is that perhaps because the additional detachments are already enough of a penalty?

You still have to share a keyword across the whole army (IMPERIUM, CHAOS, etc) as before. But yeah I think the tax for taking allies is just having the pay CP for other detachments, or putting everything in the same one and losing detachment abilities.

I'm actually stoked on that. Means I can pay 3CP for an IMPERIUM vanguard to put Inquisition units in and still take things like Crusaders and a Taurox for them to ride in. Happy days!

nope

 Latro_ wrote:
Bloody hell the painting debate on this thread!

1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.

2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.

If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.

You do this:

walk off.

Which we now get to the crux of the issue:
If something needs to be houseruled because of situations like this, there's an issue with implementation in the first place and you should be questioning why the rule is there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Bloody hell the painting debate on this thread!

1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.

2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.

If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.

You do this:

walk off.

Which we now get to the crux of the issue:
If something needs to be houseruled because of situations like this, there's an issue with implementation in the first place and you should be questioning why the rule is there.

I dont know any groups of gamers that do casual and dont have stuff like this, woudlent call it house ruling persay.
Its a bit like terrain. The new terrain classifications are great if you spend £££ on GW terrain you know what traits they have. If you are at home with ye mates with your homebrew terrain you need to agree now what traits they all have, are the new terrain rules broken because you have to do this?
If i go to a tourney i'd expect (now) that all terrain has little cards next to it with traits like i'd expect them to want my army painted

another example is: I'v gotta go home at 3pm... lets play for 2hrs and stop the game then okie? - yea sure
at at tourney i'd expect it to be 2hrs get to turn x or no one scores

not really house rules and also not how the game is said to be played either.

its this wonderful thing called communication and a social contract

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is now.

Thanks for the input.

You're welcome.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Bloody hell the painting debate on this thread!

1. Every 'tournament' i have ever been to either requires 3 colours OR penalizes you for non-painted. In the tournament circuit this is nothing new.

2. For everything else do you either play 40k with real human beings / are these people massive d**ks?. You literally say, 'mate, do you mind if we don't play the 10pts painted thing i'v got some new stuff i wanna try out' - 'ah yea cool, no worries bud'. --- this is real life, you all know it, this is all word soup and arguing for the sake of it.

If in the rare occasion someone is stubborn and says 'no, i must enforece the painting rule in our casual game'.

You do this:

walk off.

Which we now get to the crux of the issue:
If something needs to be houseruled because of situations like this, there's an issue with implementation in the first place and you should be questioning why the rule is there.

Because the marketing for this hobby requires it to "look pretty", people are drawn to the cool models and settings initially so having large mounds of grey plastic in most games detracts from this.

The rule is basically to shepherd people to paint their stuff so it looks nicer so onlookers will be more drawn in. Same reason tourneys with GW backing needed everyone to use battle ready armies for streams.

I’m miffed the new captain doesn’t have a relic blade standard or volkite pistol.
Why does a Lt have a better side arm?
There should at least been given the option to upgrade on his table.
I really hoped GW would have stopped the the tight butthole approach on wargear, or at least loosened a bit

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Hmm just read something in the subreddit.

In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.

I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.

Edit: This is not a correct answer to the quoted section. Whoops!

sieGermans wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Hmm just read something in the subreddit.

In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.

I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.

Psychic Actions, a psycher can only do one psychic power per turn.

Psychic Actions aren't casting spells though.

Psychic Actions are stuff like "psychic interrogation" you do for Mission Points. E.g. the Psi-Equivalent of doing ITC-Engineers with your Spellslinger.

dogfender wrote:
Why does a Lt have a better side arm?

Because people already own so many Primaris Lts there had to be a reason to get this one.

dogfender wrote:
I really hoped GW would have stopped the the tight butthole approach on wargear, or at least loosened a bit

Oh that's not going away. If anything it's just going to get worse.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Hmm just read something in the subreddit.

In the rules for Psychic, there's currently no limitation on one smite per caster. Magnus can actually cast 4 smites, Ahriman another 3 etc.

I'll take "Day 1 FAQ" for 500, Clarence.

Psychic Actions, a psycher can only do one psychic power per turn.

Psychic Actions aren't casting spells though.

Psychic Actions are stuff like "psychic interrogation" you do for Mission Points. E.g. the Psi-Equivalent of doing ITC-Engineers with your Spellslinger.

Aye, edited my prior reply.