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.

why are people so hanged up on the necron reanimator being tall?

As long as the terrain is 5" at its tallest point and your model is less than 18 wounds you are protected from LOS along the entire width of the terrain piece. Or has this changed somehow?

The fact its fairly slim should make it easier to hide. Its not like a flyrant or a blood thirster with huge wings poking out either side...

Ragnar69 wrote:
Stern guard already have special bolters that are replaced by the combos, that's why they are cheaper

But the special weapon replaces that too. Sternguard combi-melta costs five points sternguard meltagun costs ten. How does that make any sense with the current combi-weapon rules?

 Argive wrote:
why are people so hanged up on the necron reanimator being tall?

As long as the terrain is 5" at its tallest point and your model is less than 18 wounds you are protected from LOS along the entire width of the terrain piece. Or has this changed somehow?

The fact its fairly slim should make it easier to hide. Its not like a flyrant or a blood thirster with huge wings poking out either side...

last i recall, tails, wings, weapons, and banners didnt count for los? but i might have the wrong edition in mind

 nintura wrote:

 Argive wrote:
why are people so hanged up on the necron reanimator being tall?

As long as the terrain is 5" at its tallest point and your model is less than 18 wounds you are protected from LOS along the entire width of the terrain piece. Or has this changed somehow?

The fact its fairly slim should make it easier to hide. Its not like a flyrant or a blood thirster with huge wings poking out either side...

last i recall, tails, wings, weapons, and banners didnt count for los? but i might have the wrong edition in mind

I dont have my brb to hand. The battle primer pdf doesnt cover LOS after a skim read.
As far as I remember any antenna / weapon barrel doesn't count for LOS. But wings are considered part of the "body".

Anyway. Your model could be a foot tall as long as its standing behind terrain feature that's 5" or taller and doesn't have 18+ wounds you cant be seen.

Maybe what people mean is that being so tall is detrimental to try and hide using other terrain stuff thats lower than 5" though.. Which is a fair point.

 Crimson wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
Stern guard already have special bolters that are replaced by the combos, that's why they are cheaper

But the special weapon replaces that too. Sternguard combi-melta costs five points sternguard meltagun costs ten. How does that make any sense with the current combi-weapon rules?

Depends on how you do the math. If you are only looking at it is 16.7% reduced hit then it is a no brainer. However if you look at it as 50% more misses than the equation is different, especially when considering re-rolls. It’s why stormshields were pretty mandatory on captions, even when they had a native 4++.

when doing any of this math requires adding in the cost of the platform rather than just the weapon. Melta gun is about 20% more. Personally I wouldn’t bother with the combi weapons on veterans since there are so many other more efficient platforms.

 Leth wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
Stern guard already have special bolters that are replaced by the combos, that's why they are cheaper

But the special weapon replaces that too. Sternguard combi-melta costs five points sternguard meltagun costs ten. How does that make any sense with the current combi-weapon rules?

Depends on how you do the math. If you are only looking at it is 16.7% reduced hit then it is a no brainer. However if you look at it as 50% more misses than the equation is different, especially when considering re-rolls. It’s why stormshields were pretty mandatory on captions, even when they had a native 4++.

when doing any of this math requires adding in the cost of the platform rather than just the weapon. Melta gun is about 20% more. Personally I wouldn’t bother with the combi weapons on veterans since there are so many other more efficient platforms.

What are you even talking about? With the current rules you can fire combi-melta as a melta with no penalties to hit. It is a meltagun and other stuff on top of that. There is no sane way to do the maths that results it costing less than a normal melta...

Haven’t the combi weapon points be out of wack since 9th dropped? Part of the “normalizing” of points to multiples of 5. Expect when they didn’t. For reasons.

I’ve been not following points that closely, as I’ve been playing PL crusade games and knew they were going to be updated in the codex.

I'm more curious as to when we will see the first marine supplement, and which one or two will it be. I'm thinking Deathwatch simply because they said to expect it soon in the stream for 9th way back. If so, I wonder if it will be this month, or in November.

Ok, we need to see the rules for combi-weapons. Has anyone seen those? My Chosen and terminators need to know.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm more curious as to when we will see the first marine supplement, and which one or two will it be. I'm thinking Deathwatch simply because they said to expect it soon in the stream for 9th way back. If so, I wonder if it will be this month, or in November.

I expect them all to come as a bunch. Maybe not on the same weekend, but there isn't much point in dragging them out or wandering into December. One of the few other things we know for sure is medusas vs mortal Slaanesh box for AoS. But hopefully there's more to November than 3 books and a box.

Actually given the number of necron and marine kits for this release, and that today's Sunday preview is mostly necrons (for 40k) there might be a little spillover into November. Maybe they'll save the assault intercessors and/or bladeguard kits for the BA/SW weekend and go for a choppy theme.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, we need to see the rules for combi-weapons. Has anyone seen those? My Chosen and terminators need to know.

They got the same changes as their base weapons (i.e. 12" flamer, dead on natural 1 plasma, etc), but are otherwise the same. They can still shoot either part any number of times and can still shoot both parts at -1 to hit.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm more curious as to when we will see the first marine supplement, and which one or two will it be. I'm thinking Deathwatch simply because they said to expect it soon in the stream for 9th way back. If so, I wonder if it will be this month, or in November.

IMHO we can make some guesses based on BL release dates.

we have 3 space marine books set in november a blood angels and death watch release scheduled for the 31st. and a reprint of Space Wolf due for "sometime in october" (didn't they just reprint that one awhile back? jeeze GW publish something NEW for the wolves instead of reprinting the same book over and over please)



my guess is that we'll get space wolves out on the 24th and blood angels and death watch on the 31st.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, we need to see the rules for combi-weapons. Has anyone seen those? My Chosen and terminators need to know.

They got the same changes as their base weapons (i.e. 12" flamer, dead on natural 1 plasma, etc), but are otherwise the same. They can still shoot either part any number of times and can still shoot both parts at -1 to hit.

Excellent. Thank you, kind sir. *massive exhale of relief*

Edit: Has anyone seen the Centurion data sheets? Have siege drills changed any?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, we need to see the rules for combi-weapons. Has anyone seen those? My Chosen and terminators need to know.

They got the same changes as their base weapons (i.e. 12" flamer, dead on natural 1 plasma, etc), but are otherwise the same. They can still shoot either part any number of times and can still shoot both parts at -1 to hit.

Excellent. Thank you, kind sir. *massive exhale of relief*

Edit: Has anyone seen the Centurion data sheets? Have siege drills changed any?

Siege Drills: Sx2, AP-4, Damage 3. Centurions are base 3 attacks, WS3+.

...I don't know what they did before, sorry.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, we need to see the rules for combi-weapons. Has anyone seen those? My Chosen and terminators need to know.

They got the same changes as their base weapons (i.e. 12" flamer, dead on natural 1 plasma, etc), but are otherwise the same. They can still shoot either part any number of times and can still shoot both parts at -1 to hit.

Excellent. Thank you, kind sir. *massive exhale of relief*

Edit: Has anyone seen the Centurion data sheets? Have siege drills changed any?

Siege Drills: Sx2, AP-4, Damage 3. Centurions are base 3 attacks, WS3+.

...I don't know what they did before, sorry.

The same. Thanks. Just working on a theory, this derails it a bit. Dang.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

Has anyone seen the Centurion data sheets? Have siege drills changed any?

Siege Drills: Sx2, AP-4, Damage 3. Centurions are base 3 attacks, WS3+.

...I don't know what they did before, sorry.

Looks like same as before from what I'm seeing, assuming they're still S5 base

Oh does the spyder get 12 shots with their particle beamers now? Seems like they still get 2 and they’re 6 shots base. That seems awesome along with all the other buffs they got.

 Argive wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Argive wrote:
why are people so hanged up on the necron reanimator being tall?

As long as the terrain is 5" at its tallest point and your model is less than 18 wounds you are protected from LOS along the entire width of the terrain piece. Or has this changed somehow?

The fact its fairly slim should make it easier to hide. Its not like a flyrant or a blood thirster with huge wings poking out either side...

last i recall, tails, wings, weapons, and banners didnt count for los? but i might have the wrong edition in mind

I dont have my brb to hand. The battle primer pdf doesnt cover LOS after a skim read.
As far as I remember any antenna / weapon barrel doesn't count for LOS. But wings are considered part of the "body".

Anyway. Your model could be a foot tall as long as its standing behind terrain feature that's 5" or taller and doesn't have 18+ wounds you cant be seen.

Maybe what people mean is that being so tall is detrimental to try and hide using other terrain stuff thats lower than 5" though.. Which is a fair point.

There's no universal 5" tall, infinite los blocking terrain. That's for obscuring traits so unless you agree all terrain is obscuring(against rulebook recommendations) then there's still 5" terrain that doesn't block los

 nintura wrote:

 Argive wrote:
why are people so hanged up on the necron reanimator being tall?

As long as the terrain is 5" at its tallest point and your model is less than 18 wounds you are protected from LOS along the entire width of the terrain piece. Or has this changed somehow?

The fact its fairly slim should make it easier to hide. Its not like a flyrant or a blood thirster with huge wings poking out either side...

last i recall, tails, wings, weapons, and banners didnt count for los? but i might have the wrong edition in mind

In 9th edition no part of the model is excluded for drawing LOS to. If you can see an antenna, the entire baneblade attached to it can be destroyed - just like an entire unit of imperial soldiers can be destroyed if one has a hand poking out from behind cover.

Considering how any attempt at excluding non-crucial parts of models in the past has led to people modeling for advantage, I think this is the only way to do it.

This actually makes modeling for advantage even more bigger issue

Exactly.

If the rules stated that antennae, banner poles, random spikes, gun barrels, pointing hands (and equivalents) specifically didn't count, then there's be no reason to model for advantage, as it wouldn't matter if they could be seen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Exactly.

If the rules stated that antennae, banner poles, random spikes, gun barrels, pointing hands (and equivalents) specifically didn't count, then there's be no reason to model for advantage, as it wouldn't matter if they could be seen.

They idea is it's 100% reciprocal if you can see you can be seen, ignoring obscuring terrain rules.

As I had seen people argue this numerous times as GW has tried various other approaches to line of sight.

What is a wing and what is hull on say a void raven?

Oh you can't see Mortarian it's only his wing you can see and that doesn't count, but it says from any part of the model for Mortarian to shoot you.

The simplest rules while seeming janky tend to leed to less feels bad moments of one-sided being favoured.

Ice_can wrote:

Oh you can't see Mortarian it's only his wing you can see and that doesn't count, but it says from any part of the model for Mortarian to shoot you.

The simplest rules while seeming janky tend to leed to less feels bad moments of one-sided being favoured.

Uuuh every time there's been "X doesn't count" it's gone both way...Why create new problems by introducing new rules when you could go with rule as it's been before? If something doesn't count for X it doesn't count for Y either.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Oh you can't see Mortarian it's only his wing you can see and that doesn't count, but it says from any part of the model for Mortarian to shoot you.

The simplest rules while seeming janky tend to leed to less feels bad moments of one-sided being favoured.

Uuuh every time there's been "X doesn't count" it's gone both way...Why create new problems by introducing new rules when you could go with rule as it's been before? If something doesn't count for X it doesn't count for Y either.

Because GW can't do consistent writing, they often use from any part of the model as if its copy and pasted, without thinking if it is what they mean.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Oh you can't see Mortarian it's only his wing you can see and that doesn't count, but it says from any part of the model for Mortarian to shoot you.

The simplest rules while seeming janky tend to leed to less feels bad moments of one-sided being favoured.

Uuuh every time there's been "X doesn't count" it's gone both way...Why create new problems by introducing new rules when you could go with rule as it's been before? If something doesn't count for X it doesn't count for Y either.

You seem to have forgotten why all those riptides and stormsurges on ebay have their guns modeled at the same odd angle. We had quite some editions when you could draw LOS from gun gun barrels but not shoot them.
In 5th there were multiple issues with models that had "X doesn't count" parts block entire parts of a model - RAW a vindicator could not be shot when standing directly in front of it because neither the siege shield nor the demolisher cannon were hull.
Last but not least, there are multiple issues with parts of a model "not counting" that prevent you from moving into melee range.
"Everything counts" is the one and only solution that does not create rule nightmares.

Ice_can wrote:
What is a wing and what is hull on say a void raven?

I cannot believe that this wouldn't be obvious.

Ice_can wrote:
Oh you can't see Mortarian it's only his wing you can see and that doesn't count, but it says from any part of the model for Mortarian to shoot you.

Well obviously it would work in reverse ie. cannot draw LOS from antennae, banner polls, etc.

Ice_can wrote:
Because GW can't do consistent writing, they often use from any part of the model as if its copy and pasted, without thinking if it is what they mean.

Remember when in 5th edition we had competent writer that actually played the game? With the most balanced books in 40k history, points and options tailored to individual units (on datasheets, too, instead of stupid flipping 575754 times to armory/points page insanity), very generous counts as (no 'model/paint scheme X can only mean X'), LOS rules written with not penalizing modelling in mind (that was edition that ignored banners, guns, wings, hands, etc), rules written to be flavorful and to cover holes in army (outright telling you to convert chapter master or chief apothecary instead of 'buy this specific no-options captain' we have now)?

Alas, loud children didn't like two words of fluff so we had to suffer for three editions with Kelly, Cruddace and co instead, TYVM whiners

I was actually reminded of 5th edition book while reading this one, BTW - in 5th edition, Chapter Master was introduced as peer of the Imperium, ruler of particular subsector, and brilliant strategist. Someone who actually did important things. Waving a sword wasn't his job, hell, 5th edition created Honour Guard, unit made out of guys whose only job was keeping enemies busy so Chapter Master can command in peace. Now, in 9th edition, HG is gone and Chapter Master's introduction is that of a Rambo who charges enemies first so he can rack biggest Fortnite killcounts, killstreaks, and killsteals, very little mention of commanding anything. Gee, I wonder which one is more fluffy/sensible

 Irbis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Because GW can't do consistent writing, they often use from any part of the model as if its copy and pasted, without thinking if it is what they mean.

Remember when in 5th edition we had competent writer that actually played the game? With the most balanced books in 40k history, points and options tailored to individual units (on datasheets, too, instead of stupid flipping 575754 times to armory/points page insanity), very generous counts as (no 'model/paint scheme X can only mean X'), LOS rules written with not penalizing modelling in mind (that was edition that ignored banners, guns, wings, hands, etc), rules written to be flavorful and to cover holes in army (outright telling you to convert chapter master or chief apothecary instead of 'buy this specific no-options captain' we have now)?

Alas, loud children didn't like two words of fluff so we had to suffer for three editions with Kelly, Cruddace and co instead, TYVM whiners

I was actually reminded of 5th edition book while reading this one, BTW - in 5th edition, Chapter Master was introduced as peer of the Imperium, ruler of particular subsector, and brilliant strategist. Someone who actually did important things. Waving a sword wasn't his job, hell, 5th edition created Honour Guard, unit made out of guys whose only job was keeping enemies busy so Chapter Master can command in peace. Now, in 9th edition, HG is gone and Chapter Master's introduction is that of a Rambo who charges enemies first so he can rack biggest Fortnite killcounts, killstreaks, and killsteals, very little mention of commanding anything. Gee, I wonder which one is more fluffy/sensible

That's very interesting regarding the status of Chapter Masters. And, yeah, it also makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Incidentally, it's also one of the reasons I've never been particularly eager to field Vect or The Silent King or similar characters. It just seems like they really don't belong on a random battlefield somewhere.

Anyway, I agree about 5th edition. I think the sad thing is that GW has gotten very close to having a solid system in the past, but instead of ironing out a handful of issues, they instead just throw the baby out with the bathwater and replace a lot of things that worked well with a load of random, untested mechanics.

From bolter and chainsword:

Warriors £29
Skorpekhs £34.5
Hexmark £21
Giant - useful for 40k lootin' £120

They went full cray on the pricing imo.

Warriors for £29 or recruit edition and get the warden, Lieutenant and 5 assault intercessors for £32.50.

Elite edition £65

Same warriors and destroyers are £63.50 separately but then you get the rules, outriders, 5 assault intercessors, captain and overlord extra for a mere £1.50

Can anyone kindly check the wording on Vassal Dynasties and the Dynasty-specific things?
If I'm making a custom Dynasty and choose it to be a Vassal of Nephrekh, is there anything I miss out on? Stratagems or relics or anything? Or does it end up being "Nephrekh but purple"?