Ragnar69 wrote:
the core book on it's own is more expansive than the box???

Ragnar69 wrote:
The box also has a limited book. And recent limited editiond from GW just had a different cover and maybe a ribbon.

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?

I'm confused about this rule.

Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.

To engage in melee you need to either be in engagement range (1" horizontally, 5" vertically) or 1/2" of someone who is in engagement range. It works fine for units of multiple sizes.

Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that
unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit
that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?

I'm confused about this rule.

Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.

To engage in melee you need to either be in engagement range (1" horizontally, 5" vertically) or 1/2" of someone who is in engagement range. It works fine for units of multiple sizes.

Not quite, the rulebook says:

Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that
unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit
that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.

As you can see, it isn't within 1/2" of someone in Engagement Range, it is within 1/2" of a model within 1/2" itself. For horizontal play this doesn't make too much difference as the difference is 1" vs. 1/2". But, for vertical play it is 5" vs 1/2".

Ragnar69 wrote:
The core book on it's own is more expensive than the box???

 bullyboy wrote:
Came back to see what was new, but no...... just the same tools arguing the same crap over and over. Imagine if we actually had a place on the forum to discuss rules and rule interpretations?

 puma713 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?

$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.

Aye, and don't forget that "Prepared Positions" wasn't in the leaked core strategems either. Another boost for gun lines.

 Ghaz wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
The core book on it's own is more expensive than the box???

The $27 Indomitus in the list is a novel by Gav Thorpe, not the boxed set.

 gorgon wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?

$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.

I'm pretty pleased with that price. Was expecting $220-250 range.

 puma713 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?

$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.

I'm pretty pleased with that price. Was expecting $220-250 range.

But the CA books aren't in the box are they? So, if you get the box + CA Grand Tournament it would be $239. $274 if you want the box + CA GT + CA Crusade. I didn't see the CA books in the unboxing articles.

 Tyran wrote:

Don't worry, the only non-theoretical example of this is the Crusade Master-crafted armor rule, which means Ghazghkull can get the 2++ save.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You definitely don't get the CA2020 in the box.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
You definitely don't get the CA2020 in the box.

I'm wondering if CA2020 is going to be points and a stripped down rulebook that only covers core rules and matched play and nothing else so tournament players can a mini rulebook they can use.

The Grand Tournament 2020 Mission pack is … well, packed with new missions, alongside guidance for running and playing in tournaments, special Secondary Objectives, and loads more. It’s even got a special binding to make it extra friendly to the tabletop setting. The second book is the Munitorum Field Manual, which holds a full list of updated points for Warhammer 40,000 units. With their powers combined, the new Chapter Approved will have you on the cutting edge of Warhammer 40,000 competitive gaming.

Mariongodspeed wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.

Since you have only got a 50/50 chance of going first, I am not sure its as alpha-strike friendly as early 8th edition was at least.

Spoletta wrote:


At a first glance I would prefer the CA19 deploy.

The kind of deploy where you don't know who's going first until the last second leads to those games that are decided by the first dice rolled.

 Tyran wrote:
Weird double post.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Special Characters are explicitly forbidden from gaining XP and Crusade Bonuses. In exchange they can't gain Scars and always count as being a Warlord for purposes of their Warlord Trait even if not your actual Warlord.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Weird double post.

Dakka does that with large threads like this. It will usually correct itself, but if you edit one of the posts, the other one is always deleted by the system.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Came back to see what was new, but no...... just the same tools arguing the same crap over and over. Imagine if we actually had a place on the forum to discuss rules and rule interpretations?

The rules are the game. It's way more useful to talk rules than painting or price because both of those are mutable and won't apply to every player, the rules apply to every person who plays 40k equally.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27

Maybe it's all metal? The all metal one for AoS that came out in 2015 was around $26-27 from what a quick Google search tells me.