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.

Oh yeah. Another good spot.

I wonder what that kit is...

Also those craters have been OOP for a few years. Might be seeing a return?

PiñaColada wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:


Is that a new pipeline? Doesn't look like the old prometheum pipes or the thermo plasma ones. More new terrain?

They are new, and they're also visible in the 9th BRB p.264 as an example for "barricades and fuel pipes". I'm no GW terrain expert but both example nr 1 & 2 look unfamiliar to me in that picture as well, so I'm unsure if either/both of those are also new?

Edit: The picture in question

Spoiler:

I think 2 is also new as the old craters were plain

damn! I tossed my speed freeks box when I moved because of the wonky board size lol.

balmong7 wrote:
In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.

This is true but is the time lost really worth it for the minimal... I don't even find it "tactical"... but the difference in outcome between the two scenarios?

 MPJ wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:


Is that a new pipeline? Doesn't look like the old prometheum pipes or the thermo plasma ones. More new terrain?

They are new, and they're also visible in the 9th BRB p.264 as an example for "barricades and fuel pipes". I'm no GW terrain expert but both example nr 1 & 2 look unfamiliar to me in that picture as well, so I'm unsure if either/both of those are also new?

Edit: The picture in question

Spoiler:

I think 2 is also new as the old craters were plain

Pretty sure they're the oop quake cannon craters

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

God heaven forbid no. Imagine how game slows down. Aggressors shoot. 50 save rolls 1 at a time

Roll 50 dice. Any 1s you reroll. 1s after that is a fail.

AP1

Roll 50 dice. 1s and 2s will be rerolled. Reroll 1s - 1s and 2s fail. Reroll 2s - 1s fail.

Part of the fun of the last edition of Fantasy was determining what kind of interesting terrain you'd get on the board. The idea of that translating to 40k sounded cool.

I feel like that maybe would have been easier.

I can understand the notion of wanting to offer players the opportunity to "customize" their terrain's rules, but I feel like at the end of the day we're going to end up seeing the same three or four things with the same rules for simplicity's sake.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, I got seven hits and the rest miss. The light blue ones were... umm... bolters, right? The green were the plasma. The reds were the heavy bolter... or was that the whites. God! Why did I roll that many dice of multiple colours all at once? What the hell is wrong with me?

You don't use them for different weapons or save characteristics,, you use them to represent different pairs of dice when the weapon or save is the same, i.e. 2 hit over-charged plasma weapons, or potentially 2d6 saves

balmong7 wrote:
In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.

Exactly, if you do house-rule fast dice rolling and put wound allocation as last point, you allow your opponent to daisy chain/conga line again, as with knowing the total amount of casulties before the first wound is allocated he can remove models to keep the line

What a weird thing to redo. The current pipelines are fine and quite modern. Why redo them for a slight look change?

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

God heaven forbid no. Imagine how game slows down. Aggressors shoot. 50 save rolls 1 at a time

Again, and I don't know why I need to keep saying this, you're rolling 50 saves one at a time either way. If you're house ruling, fine, but that has no bearing on how GW writes the rules.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/07/indomitus-pre-order-bonuses-for-you/

Some preorder goodies with Indomitus

Also they changed it from 6 to 3 boxes per person


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On one hand its good that they reflected and choose to lower it to three, on the other hand I hoped the fact that everyone could order 6 would mean that there are actually enough produced but now I think it will be sold out either in a few days or a few hours depending on what GWs interpretation of "We’ve made a lot of it" is

 kodos wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.

Exactly, if you do house-rule fast dice rolling and put wound allocation as last point, you allow your opponent to daisy chain/conga line again, as with knowing the total amount of casulties before the first wound is allocated he can remove models to keep the line

How would you deploy a say 15 model unit in a manner that removing them 1 at a time breaks coherency, but 5 at a time doesn't? Wouldn't you remove the same 5 models either way?

Hold on I see. using 10 as an example:

0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0

Removing one at a time you're forced to remove from one end, but if you get it below 6 & remove all at once you just take the entire back or front row.

I think it's more of a case of, in the 15 model squad, lining them up in three rows of 5. If you assign hits before rolling wounds, it's possible you might blow out the middle three - causing the group to break into two incoherent 6 man squads; thus 6 of those models will be lost to the loss in coherency.

If you assign the hits after wounding, that could never happen, as the defender could just remove models from one end or the other, and never from the middle.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

God heaven forbid no. Imagine how game slows down. Aggressors shoot. 50 save rolls 1 at a time

Roll 50 dice. Any 1s you reroll. 1s after that is a fail.

AP1

Roll 50 dice. 1s and 2s will be rerolled. Reroll 1s - 1s and 2s fail. Reroll 2s - 1s fail.

Yeah, that's SO much better. No 2d6 armor saves.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think it's more of a case of, in the 15 model squad, lining them up in three rows of 5. If you assign hits before rolling wounds, it's possible you might blow out the middle three - causing the group to break into two incoherent 6 man squads; thus 6 of those models will be lost to the loss in coherency.

If you assign the hits after wounding, that could never happen, as the defender could just remove models from one end or the other, and never from the middle.

why would you ever assign hits to the middle rank in 9th when you know this is a thing?
Fast rolling will still be a thing

If anyone would deny me fast rolling saves I would pack up and leave.

Now, granted, if I'm playing my Deathwatch with mixed units, I see the point. But if the entire unit is the same, nah.

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
In regards to wound allocation. Isn't the reason we want to slow roll saves to force our opponent to be unable to optimize casualty removal? Like if my opponent has 10 models and rolls all his saves at once, he knows he just lost 5 of them and doesn't have to worry about the 2 model coherency rule and will remove models in a way that lets him keep that objective or stay in shooting/charge range of a key target. But if he is rolling 1 at a time, he is removing models in such a way as to maintain that cohesion the entire time potentially causing that unit to lose control of the objective or go out of shooting/charge range for that key target.

Exactly, if you do house-rule fast dice rolling and put wound allocation as last point, you allow your opponent to daisy chain/conga line again, as with knowing the total amount of casulties before the first wound is allocated he can remove models to keep the line

How would you deploy a say 15 model unit in a manner that removing them 1 at a time breaks coherency, but 5 at a time doesn't? Wouldn't you remove the same 5 models either way?

Hold on I see. using 10 as an example:

0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0

Removing one at a time you're forced to remove from one end, but if you get it below 6 & remove all at once you just take the entire back or front row.

20 models for maximum line length without risking the whole unit

0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - 0

if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right

yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter

0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 -0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -0 - 0 - 0



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

Fast rolling will still be a thing

in the pdf we got I did not found rules for fast dice rolling, so you can roll all hit and wound rolls at once, but have to allocate wounds and make armour saves one by one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ragnar69 wrote:
If anyone would deny me fast rolling saves I would pack up and leave.

Do you always pack up if someone else does not accept your house-rules or do you at least ask before the game starts which house-rules should be used?

 kodos wrote:


20 models for maximum line length without risking the whole unit

0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - 0

if there are 5 loses total, I remove from the right side
if there are 9 loses total I remove 6 from the left and 3 from the right

yet if I don't know how many models I will lose, I cannot do this formation at all as there are too many cases were I will lose models for "out of formation" no matter were I start
and this will be the only save line which is much shorter

0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
- 0 -0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -0 - 0 - 0

And if you lose 3 models total where do you remove from to prevent out of formation losses?
You are making an extreme edge case scenario to back up your point.

There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.

I will be fast rolling saves as always. If my models have ended up in a position where it looks like mass removal of models will advantage me over single saves, I will do saves one at a time.
I guarantee, it will be few and far between that I will ever have to not fast roll.

Ragnar69 wrote:
If anyone would deny me fast rolling saves I would pack up and leave.

Same here. It's just much more convenient and speeds the game up a ton.

Doohicky wrote:

There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.

it is not about fast dice rolling, but to put wound allocation after save rolls instead of before

and I already said a lot of times that 99% of the community will ignore the new rules and put wound allocation at the end, as otherwise it will just slow the game down
but this is still an house rule to change wound allocation and not an optional rule about fast dice rolling, so make sure to clear that with your opponent on what house-rules are used instead of just asuming that he uses the same as you do

PS:
it is ironic that the game is not even out and the community already decided not playing #NEW40k but their own house-ruled version

 kodos wrote:

Doohicky wrote:

There will of course be some tiny edge cases where fast rolling may give a small advantage on not losing extra guys, but for vast majority of players and games it makes zero difference.

it is not about fast dice rolling, but to put wound allocation after save rolls instead of before

and I already said a lot of times that 99% of the community will ignore the new rules and put wound allocation at the end, as otherwise it will just slow the game down
but this is still an house rule to change wound allocation and not an optional rule about fast dice rolling, so make sure to clear that with your opponent on what house-rules are used instead of just asuming that he uses the same as you do

PS:
it is ironic that the game is not even out and the community already decided not playing #NEW40k but their own house-ruled version

An appropriate mid ground might be to ask your opponent what order they're going to remove them then fast roll?

It's really simple, you just say how you would allocate your wounds down a line of troops. You then roll all dice, removing models in the order you just stated. FFS, why would you do it one at a time? If you allocate a hit, you have to keep allocating to that model until it is dead, so do that in advance...it's really being pedantic.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I think it's more of a case of, in the 15 model squad, lining them up in three rows of 5. If you assign hits before rolling wounds, it's possible you might blow out the middle three - causing the group to break into two incoherent 6 man squads; thus 6 of those models will be lost to the loss in coherency.

If you assign the hits after wounding, that could never happen, as the defender could just remove models from one end or the other, and never from the middle.

why would you ever assign hits to the middle rank in 9th when you know this is a thing?
Fast rolling will still be a thing

For some reason I was thinking you had to assign the hits out no more than one to model before you could assign a second. Maybe I'm thinking of an old edition, but my bad.

 bullyboy wrote:
It's really simple, you just say how you would allocate your wounds down a line of troops. You then roll all dice, removing models in the order you just stated. FFS, why would you do it one at a time? If you allocate a hit, you have to keep allocating to that model until it is dead, so do that in advance...it's really being pedantic.

There is a small subset of the dakka community with some hobby overlap of people who play warhammer. The hobby doesn't seem to have an official name, but the main premise is "making random strangers as unhappy as possible by tricking them into believing you're going to play a game of warhammer 40,000."

it seems to be a pastime that is much more common in online games like League of Legends but has some overlap in the online 40k community.

Are you going to tell me now that you never used the Assault Weapons ability because RAW?

 Tyran wrote:
Are you going to tell me now that you never used the Assault Weapons ability because RAW?

I didn't. I let my opponents though as I am a generous god.

 bullyboy wrote:
It's really simple

it is, ask your opponent before the game if he is ok with house-rules or not
if yes, decide on which ones should be used
if no, decide if you wanna still play the game or just pack up as playing without house-rules is not worth your time
simple and easy

but just don't assume that everyone wants to use house-rules by default and that everyone wants to use the same house-rules as you do
doing this little social interaction prevents a lot of troubles if people just kindly ask which costum version of 40k they want to play (and don't insist on RAW later if you agreed to house-rules before but forgot to mention that specific case)