|
adamantium|wang posted:In this case 3 models of the red unit can see a model in the green unit and fire. However, there is this one weird trick that WAACers Hate: In situations like this, don't use fast rolling (iirc technically it's an optional rule), and revert back to the 'one model, one weapon at a time' default rules. The green player can take a casualty on the exposed dude and then the rest of the unit is safe from further shooting (multi hit weapons could still spread but I guess that's 'thematic' for a blast or something).
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Crosspostin'Lord_Hambrose posted:Finally finished painting my SWA Kill Team. These guys also helpfully help me bulk up my number of Tyranid Warriors with Deathspitters, as that seems like the thing that is good in 8th. One day Spinefist Warriors.... One day...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:However, there is this one weird trick that WAACers Hate: N-nooo. Look at the shooting rules: 1) Pick one of your units 2) Pick enemy units 3) Pick weapons 4) Resolve attacks a) Roll to hit b) Roll to wound c) Allocate d) Damage During resolve attacks you never check if you have range or line of sight to the enemy. That is all done in step 2. EDIT: You can roll each attack separately, with an attack being a single die, if you want to be a slow playing rear end in a top hat. Fun when rolling heavy bolters! LordAba fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Times like this, the stratagem that lets you cut the line on melee attacks becomes really useful. If a bunch of Hormagants or Poxwalkers mob your Primaris, for example, you can try and trim their numbers down so that their ensuing attacks end up being less powerful or accurate. It basically forces you to commit dedicated melee units against Primaris instead of going for a screening carpet. You're spending 2CP to kill, on average, 3-4 Gaunts or 2-3 Orks. Congratulations, your 100 points has successfully removed 18 points from the enemy forces. While there are circumstances where that's useful (for example you are facing Orks and the unit could be brought below 20 models), in general I consider that approach a waste. The problem is that Primaris are a generalist force in a game full of specialized opponents who have strategies in place to nullify their weaknesses. They currently lack the tools to really exploit that flexibility, and when compared to their generalist little brothers their only improvement is in something I would generally want them to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
So I am building an old school Basilisk. (The old kit labeled MKXI Basilisk with a picture of a battery on the front) Anyway, I was happy to find one of these since it comes with track guards and crew, which the new kit does not. I have run into something odd though. I built everything by the instructions but for some reason the gun shield sits much lower than it should. It was just barely clearing the tracks before I modified it to how i wanted it to look. I'm not sure what I did wrong since it is sitting on the artillery deck where it is supposed to go and the deck slides into a specific slot. Has anyone else run into this with the Basilisk model?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Isn't that how it's meant to be? The gun shield of mine is resting on the track guards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Before I modified the shield I wouldn't have been able to put the track guard on due to it being about a milimeter too low. I mean, it doesn't matter too much since I was modifying the shield anyway bu t it definitely caught me off guard. Also, am I the only one who is kind of annoyed that there is no visible ammo storage on the Basilisk unless you go Forgeworld? I also wish I knew where to model a fuel fill cap or grime up the exhaust on a Chimera Chassis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
IIRC the original basilisks were designed before the accessory sprue with the track guards was a thing, so most likely some adaption would be needed to make them all fit together. Official pictures still show it without the track guards (except for the box picture for some reason) so I don't know if the modern kit was recut to fit better - https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Imperial-Guard-Basilisk
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:*Safety Factor sighs as he unboxes his Night Lords* This is a loving cool army mate. I love to play against people who have a real vision for what their force is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
chutche2 posted:Right, I'm thinking stalker bolters like what Telion has. His is Heavy 2, S4, Ap-1, d3 damage, can target characters. They can make it just damage 1 or only 1 shot so telion's is still better. Those storm bolters really feel like a steal at 2 points don't they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
So I've managed to make Possessed not terrible. I mean, it requires 2 HQs worth of support, but I've found a build that actually makes them usable! Jump pack sorceror, dark apostle, 10 possessed. Sorceror makes them faster and hit harder, and the dark apostle makes them more accurate. Lots of high quality AP-2 melee attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:IIRC the original basilisks were designed before the accessory sprue with the track guards was a thing, so most likely some adaption would be needed to make them all fit together. Looking at the sprue, it seems my deck slot is a bit lower. Also didn't know that the new tooling still comes with the track guards, that's awesome. But yeah, I forgot how poo poo the old tooling was back when you had to put on the road wheels for some reason, then put on the track links with no placement guide. I swear that they gave you the track guards just to cover up the inevitable gap in the tracks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
The Open War cards seem like a fun way to enhance pick up games with friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:*Safety Factor sighs as he unboxes his Night Lords* These are awesome! I may copy your Raptor champion/Aspiring champion conversion to do another NL raptor champion of my own. I already have most of those bits lying around, but I'll probably keep up my "winged raptors" theme.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Those storm bolters really feel like a steal at 2 points don't they? They're awesome yeah. They're a great investment to put on something so durable, especially since they're not heavy. I'd have them on every tank if I had the points. I've got them on the razorbacks and chimera because they're already modeled with storm bolters, otherwise they might go elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
LordAba posted:N-nooo. Look at the shooting rules: Actually, the FAQ says that, in the above case, if you do the one roll at a time, you can choose to have the exposed model killed, then the others will get whatever applicable cover benefit they can have, if any, for the rest of the rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Xarlaxas posted:Actually, the FAQ says that, in the above case, if you do the one roll at a time, you can choose to have the exposed model killed, then the others will get whatever applicable cover benefit they can have, if any, for the rest of the rolls. Right, which doesn't contradict what he said. He says you don't check range or line of sight after you get to step 4, but you still check during step 4 if the model is in cover or not. Though does this mean that if you have weapons that are put out of range by removing casualties (Such as having a flamer that shoots last and they remove casualties so that it's no longer in range) that you can still fire it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
You pick the enemy units to target, though. Not enemy models. If you have wounds that need allocation, and your legally-targeted unit has wounds to select, then that unit still takes wounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:However, there is this one weird trick that WAACers Hate: This feels wrong. Rules should NOT change based on if you're fast rolling or not. If the RAW is how they said it is, then even if you're rolling individual dice you should have to keep rolling after the first model dies. Changing that is a fundamental change to the wound allocation / cover system regardless of "fast rolling". Or if it works like you say then fast rolling in that situation would be basically illegal, you HAVE to slow roll it. But this whole thing sounds hosed to me. The fact that GW doesn't make this poo poo abundantly clear with legalese rules is awful. Way too much ambiguity for me in their style of writing. When it comes to like, Magic the Gathering rules, they have a loving tome of official rules that read like they're computer code. There's no arguing that poo poo because its all been defined down to the 20th degree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
chutche2 posted:Right, which doesn't contradict what he said. He says you don't check range or line of sight after you get to step 4, but you still check during step 4 if the model is in cover or not. The Bee posted:You pick the enemy units to target, though. Not enemy models. If you have wounds that need allocation, and your legally-targeted unit has wounds to select, then that unit still takes wounds. The Bee has it: you're targeting the unit, not the models. When it comes to wound allocation, the player who owns the unit chooses who dies first, that gives them the option of putting the rest of the squad in cover, but they're still taking the hits: you don't suddenly become out of range because of the order of wound allocation. Technically, all the dying's happening basically at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Yeah after rereading the rules I think that's how it works. I just saw a lot of video battle reports where they're like "Gotta shoot the flamer first otherwise they might be out of range after casualties" and such.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
That's the intuitive idea, but theoretically you could fire your flamer at a giant conga line of Boyz and only end up burning the ones out of your flamer ranger three times over. I suggested a means of altering that a bit earlier upthread, but it's probably a bit complex on the house rule side of things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:This feels wrong. Rules should NOT change based on if you're fast rolling or not. If the RAW is how they said it is, then even if you're rolling individual dice you should have to keep rolling after the first model dies. Wasn't this the problem with the old rule set? The problem with addressing all of this down to that level of detail is you have rules bloat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
chutche2 posted:Yeah after rereading the rules I think that's how it works. I just saw a lot of video battle reports where they're like "Gotta shoot the flamer first otherwise they might be out of range after casualties" and such. That would be people remembering the old editions, where you had to take casualties from the front and you could end up out of range, yes. GW has made two PDFs that basically say THIS IS A NEW SYSTEM: STOP APPLYING THE OLD RULES TO THIS ONE, and people still get mixed up. I think people who've never played 40k before will actually get to grips with the rules faster than people who've played a lot because of the baggage of "doesn't it work like X?" that we carry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
So mass roll to hit, mass roll to wound, kill the guys in the open, the rest get cover saves?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:So mass roll to hit, mass roll to wound, kill the guys in the open, the rest get cover saves? Exactly!  The only thing you need to single roll on will be the armour saves, until everyone's on the same cover bonus.Of course, if you're fighting an enemy whose weapons have an AP high enough they ignore the benefit of the cover, you just fast roll everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:So mass roll to hit, mass roll to wound, kill the guys in the open, the rest get cover saves? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:Wasn't this the problem with the old rule set? The problem with addressing all of this down to that level of detail is you have rules bloat. If its designed in a clean way it won't be bloated. Bloat is its own symptom of bad design. Xarlaxas posted:I think people who've never played 40k before will actually get to grips with the rules faster than people who've played a lot because of the baggage of "doesn't it work like X?" that we carry. This being my... 4th edition of 40k? Yeah... that poo poo happens a lot. Beer4TheBeerGod posted:So mass roll to hit, mass roll to wound, kill the guys in the open, the rest get cover saves? Sounds right and also reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
You should be making saves 1 at a time anyway, any time you have more saves to roll than you have identically outfitted guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:You should be making saves 1 at a time anyway, any time you have more saves to roll than you have identically outfitted guys. True, this isn't Warhammer fantasy where you have units of 50 identically equipped clanrats. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:You should be making saves 1 at a time anyway, any time you have more saves to roll than you have identically outfitted guys. I play Orks so I'm not familiar with your crazy talk. Also what does it matter so long as the saves are the same? You allocate wounds to previously wounded models anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I play Orks so I'm not familiar with your crazy talk. If you have a unit of 1 wound models, say marines, and one guy has a storm shield, you may want to pile all the saves on him until he fails one and dies. You can't just say "Ok all 5 go on storm shield guy" and then roll 5 3++ saves before you know if he's going to make them all. Because it matters which order he fails them in - if he fails the first one the rest have to go on guys with shittier saves, but if he fails the last one he got the benefit of the shield for saves 1-4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:If you have a unit of 1 wound models, say marines, and one guy has a storm shield, you may want to pile all the saves on him until he fails one and dies. You can't just say "Ok all 5 go on storm shield guy" and then roll 5 3++ saves before you know if he's going to make them all. Correct. And it can matter with cover too. You roll saves for the guys outside of cover until they're all dead, then you start allocating wounds to the guys that are in cover. The only time you really "batch roll" saves is if all the guys are identical and there's no cover issues involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
WhiteWolf123 posted:Correct. And it can matter with cover too. You roll saves for the guys outside of cover until they're all dead, then you start allocating wounds to the guys that are in cover. You can batch roll if all of the saves are identical. Their loadout doesn't actually matter. It only matters in cases where some of them have different saves, be it from cover or from shields. 10 marines take 10 saves. The sergeant, special weapon guy, and heavy weapon guy are equipped differently but have the same saves. Scenario one: You roll all 10 saves together. 5 of them die, and you kill 5 bolter marines. Scenario two: You roll 7 saves for the 7 bolter marines. 4 die, you then roll the 3 remaining saves on the bolter marines again, and one additional dies. There's not any actual difference here, because you can allocate more than one save to a single model until he dies, you don't have to allocate all the saves to each of the 10 models ahead of time. It could get tricky in the case of guard infantry where one model in the unit can have 2 wounds because of a weapon team. I think in this case you'd have to roll saves seperate for the weapon team, because once it becomes wounded it has to keep getting saves allocated to it. So I don't think you could fail 5 saves in a guard unit, kill 4 guardsmen then put 1 wound on the weapon team. But correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Anyone watching the tennis? Andy Murray is winning the match but his opponent looks much more grimdark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
chutche2 posted:You can batch roll if all of the saves are identical. Their loadout doesn't actually matter. It only matters in cases where some of them have different saves, be it from cover or from shields. Yeah, when I said "identical loadouts" I should have said "identical saves", sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Xarlaxas posted:Exactly! But it they are completely obscured by a building, they get no cover saves and just take wounds?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:If you have a unit of 1 wound models, say marines, and one guy has a storm shield, you may want to pile all the saves on him until he fails one and dies. You can't just say "Ok all 5 go on storm shield guy" and then roll 5 3++ saves before you know if he's going to make them all. Because it matters which order he fails them in - if he fails the first one the rest have to go on guys with shittier saves, but if he fails the last one he got the benefit of the shield for saves 1-4. Right. Which is why I specified why it would matter so long as the saves are the same. EDIT: Missed your follow up post. We're good! chutche2 posted:It could get tricky in the case of guard infantry where one model in the unit can have 2 wounds because of a weapon team. I think in this case you'd have to roll saves seperate for the weapon team, because once it becomes wounded it has to keep getting saves allocated to it. So I don't think you could fail 5 saves in a guard unit, kill 4 guardsmen then put 1 wound on the weapon team. But correct me if I'm wrong. You absolutely can do that. You choose how wounds are allocated, so you allocate the last wound to the heavy weapon team.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
HardCoil posted:But it they are completely obscured by a building, they get no cover saves and just take wounds? Depends on if a building provides cover or not at all. I believe that stuff like barricades and ruins will provide cover if the enemy is shooting you through it and you're within an inch, but bog-standard buildings? Not sure....
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Xarlaxas posted:Depends on if a building provides cover or not at all. I believe that stuff like barricades and ruins will provide cover if the enemy is shooting you through it and you're within an inch, but bog-standard buildings? Not sure.... If the target is not within the building (ie touching it) then no it won't. The rules are kind of dumb in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:35
|
|