|
So my latest eBay order came in today, containing a wealth of Chaos Space Marines stuff. And although it wasn't listed as part of the auction, the seller threw in a copy of the 3rd edition codex. Having just started 40k a couple years ago, this is great fun to look through. Had no idea that daemons apparently weren't their own army back then. I also like the (very brief) tactics section, which I can definitely see 1999 me trying to memorize because "That's what it says to do!" Does every old codex contain stuff like that? Wondering if I should start trying to scrounge up other old ones for fun.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
I'm fairly certain that the old Necrons codex had something similar. Pretty funny for an army whose only strategy was essentially, "move forward."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
I would like to thank Bulbasaur for the best idea.  Helmets for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
I've got a lot of those old codexes so if you want to see scans of a aprticular one, just let me know!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
I habitually refuse to use non-full faced helmets, both because painting faces is very difficult and also because why is your face exposed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:I've got a lot of those old codexes so if you want to see scans of a aprticular one, just let me know! Do you have the old 2nd edition Imperial Guard, I wouldn't mind seeing Marbo's rules. I forget them now. I think he was 2nd edition?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
people used to talk about lists and strategies and poo poo now its all pics of paintjobs and hollismason
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Do you have the old 2nd edition Imperial Guard, I wouldn't mind seeing Marbo's rules. I forget them now. I think he was 2nd edition? Marbo wasn't in 2nd, although we did get this little guy:  Marbo first popped up in Codex Catachan in 3E where he is literally Stallone:  e: Sniper and Ambush rules for completeness and avatar material:  
adamantium|wang fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
REAL MUSCLE MILK posted:I habitually refuse to use non-full faced helmets, both because painting faces is very difficult and also because why is your face exposed? Because it's Warhammer 40 fuckin' K and nothing in it even remotely makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:Because it's Warhammer 40 fuckin' K and nothing in it even remotely makes sense? I enjoy the scattered references to things like this in the novels, like when one of the Iron Warriors sees an Imperial Fist sergeant without a helmet and immediately shoots him, or when one of the Night Lords dudes is constantly being targeted by the enemy and he starts to wonder what gives, then remembers he has those ridiculous bat wings on his helmet that make him stand out, and starts to think maybe they're a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
I don't know how many Necron players we have in the thread but if you did miss this in the codex it is possible now to have a first turn charge with Scarabs pretty easily now because you can produce them at any point in the Spyders move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
My friend wants to play some 40k on Saturday, and for some reason he wants to play 650 points! Here's my Necron list: HQ: Necron Lord- Staff of Light Troops: 38x Necron Warriors (Not sure how to divide them up) Dedicated Transport: 1xGhost Ark 649 points
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Necron Overlord w/ Staff of Light 14 x Warriors 14 x Warriors 10 Warriors in Ghost Ark Is the best way to split it as thy come in minimum squads of 10. That's a even divide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
So I was just perusing various 40k approved FW units and I came across the Tantalus. Anyone ever seriously consider this thing? It's a bit expensive, but holy hell it can be deadly combined with Eldar. It can Deep Strike, puts out 12 S5 AP2 shots, and has a carrying capacity of 16 (open topped). It also has a 5+ Invuln and 5 HP at AV12. It just screams, "Feugan and a bunch of Fire Dragons"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Hencoe posted:I would like to thank Bulbasaur for the best idea. That looks ace! Nice! I thought about doing the same thing, but all my tacticals have those. I'm trying to wait out and see if the upgraydd pack has anything good, but I might just use one of these instead: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I don't know how many Necron players we have in the thread but if you did miss this in the codex it is possible now to have a first turn charge with Scarabs pretty easily now because you can produce them at any point in the Spyders move. Nope. 6" + 6" = 12" 12" charge + 12" = 24". You start over 24" away. Basic math. EDIT: If you place the scarabs before moving them you would gain ~3", which means you would need a ~9" charge. Not what I consider pretty easy. Considering how easy it is to see coming it wouldn't work more than once. LordAba fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Nope. 6" + 6" = 12" 12" charge + 12" = 24". You start over 24" away. Basic math. ...or you might be going second, in which case enemy units will have already moved toward you before your first turn starts
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
If an opponent moves a good assault target toward a fast-moving assault unit they deserve what's coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Nope. 6" + 6" = 12" 12" charge + 12" = 24". You start over 24" away. Basic math. I think what he is implying is... Spyder move in front of the scarab unit, then produces a new 40mm base at the extreme of 2" coherency. That is over 3" of extra model base at the front of the scarab unit, thus starting their move essentially 9" from center line instead of 12" away. Combine that with enemy scouts or enemy first turn and you are in an adventagious position, especially if you bide them behind an aegis line and leapfrog new models infront in the safety of your turn. But this is a trick they did before and it was neat, but not a real game changer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:17
|
|
will blow your mind.
|
Isnt there a restriction on assaulting in the first turn of any game? Not if you go second of course, but if you go first?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Isnt there a restriction on assaulting in the first turn of any game? Not if you go second of course, but if you go first? This restriction is only for units that have deployed using Scout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Infiltrators can't charge the first turn either. If I remember right, this was only for the first player turn 6th edition, but now it's the entire first game turn regardless of if you go first or second. I could easily be wrong though as I don't have access to a rulebook right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Infiltrators can't charge the first turn either. If I remember right, this was only for the first player turn 6th edition, but now it's the entire first game turn regardless of if you go first or second. I could easily be wrong though as I don't have access to a rulebook right now. You are correct. You cannot assault in the first turn if you used Scout or Infiltrated. You also cannot assault if you arrived from Reserve in any way (though this obviously can't happen first turn anyway).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
quote:Decided I wanted to get a second army, so I stopped by my local GW store on the way home today to pick up my order. Am I doing this right?  That stack is worth more than my car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:That stack is worth more than my car. It is nice to see people keeping the economy rolling forward, isn't it? Meanwhile, I saved £10 on an order for the new Shadowseer, new Deathjester and pair of Starweavers by ordering from DarkSphere.co.uk rather than from GW directly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
that guy would play loving tau
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
How the hell could you afford that from working at best buy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
VolatileSky posted:How the hell could you afford that from working at best buy? When you live with your parents you have a ton of disposable income.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
While we're posting ham images, this has been making the rounds today: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:While we're posting ham images, this has been making the rounds today: That's honestly one of the more productive uses of a lecture theatre I've seen
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
That guy is probably paying for that course he isn't learning from as well as the Hams he also isn't learning from.Big Willy Style posted:There Heroquest gargoyle is back and he is pissed I have a Heroquest set with the box still. I think I cut up a goblin model and a skellington for 40k use but the rest is in there. The nostalgia value isn't so much to me that I'd refuse to sell it (even my brother that isn't a nerd played it with us when we were children, I think he chose to be the barbarian).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:You are correct. You cannot assault in the first turn if you used Scout or Infiltrated. You also cannot assault if you arrived from Reserve in any way (though this obviously can't happen first turn anyway). quote:A unit that deploys using these rules (Infiltrate) cannot charge in their first turn. quote:A unit that makes a Scout redeployment cannot charge in the first game turn. Scouts can if they go second, infiltrators can't at all. Guess which Genestealers have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:That guy is probably paying for that course he isn't learning from as well as the Hams he also isn't learning from. Or he is from glorious scandinavia and doesnt pay a thing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
spacegoat posted:Scouts can if they go second, infiltrators can't at all. Guess which Genestealers have. Incorrect. 7th Edition fixed that. Scout states "a unit that makes a Scout redeployment cannot charge in the first game turn." Game turns, as defined on page 17, are "two player turns." I'm currently refreshing myself on all the rules in prep for my GT this weekend, so I'm just sitting here with the book at work being a terrible nerd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Oh Jesus loving Christ GW. Why the distinction?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:While we're posting ham images, this has been making the rounds today:
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
There's a very, very good reason why there's a distinction between a player turn and a game turn. Why the outrage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
There is in the general sense, but when two separate rules refer to two separate cases of "turn" to say the same thing, that's garbage rules writing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
/\/\/\ Edit: Yeah, that. MasterSlowPoke posted:There's a very, very good reason why there's a distinction between a player turn and a game turn. Why the outrage? I think he means why the distinction in those two restrictions for assault across two different rules, not the player turn/game turn as a whole. It's likely that each rule was written by a different person and they simply didn't unify the wording in final editing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Because scout is different to infiltrate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 15:22
|
|