|
Wouldnt that make the lugging around a million books problem worse than ever before? Since rather than a rulebook your codex and angels of death or whatever you have a rulebook a codex and every incremental campaign book.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Orks only share two keywords, otherwise I would do exactly that. I don't know Orks very well, admittedly, but given that they're relatively cheap can't they make up for that lack pretty easily by filling up multiple large detachments? I could say taking two battalions if not a full brigade. E: This is an actual question, albeit poorly phrased.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Artum posted:Wouldnt that make the lugging around a million books problem worse than ever before? Since rather than a rulebook your codex and angels of death or whatever you have a rulebook a codex and every incremental campaign book. Of course not. It'd be codex, index (for models not updated), campaign book, 2nd campaign book, forgeworld index, and datacards from a model box set release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Battle Focus is unchanged, which blows. But at least we have a good stratagem that kind of replicates old BF, I guess here's hoping that Fire Prisms are actually good again
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Pendent posted:I don't know Orks very well, admittedly, but given that they're relatively cheap can't they make up for that lack pretty easily by filling up multiple large detachments? I could say taking two battalions if not a full brigade. It takes a lot of units to fill those up, and given that Xenos armies are already hampered by the faction rules it makes little sense to me to handicap them in a solution that's meant to help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Artum posted:Wouldnt that make the lugging around a million books problem worse than ever before? Since rather than a rulebook your codex and angels of death or whatever you have a rulebook a codex and every incremental campaign book. I think the idea is that you use the dataslates in the box instead, so you can take the codex + campaign books 1 and 2 if you want but you don't have to. Besides anything else, new stuff in a campaign book should mean that you buy a new box and get the dataslate, whereas one major reason for the codex to exist is that if you last bought Tactical Marines in 1997 you're not likely to have their in-box dataslate easily available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Of course not. It'd be codex, index (for models not updated), campaign book, 2nd campaign book, forgeworld index, and datacards from a model box set release. gently caress it just sell an A5 binder in various styles and make the datasheet easily removeable from the rest of the kits instructions. Corrode posted:I think the idea is that you use the dataslates in the box instead, so you can take the codex + campaign books 1 and 2 if you want but you don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Phyresis posted:Battle Focus is unchanged, which blows. But at least we have a good stratagem that kind of replicates old BF, I guess How do you know BF didn't get changed at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Artum posted:It was annoying enough keeping around the pamphlet for the primaris librarian, who the hell wants to keep loose paper for 5+ units. I don't know if there's any better resolution tbh. Digital is the real answer if you resent carrying the books around and also don't want the dataslates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:How do you know BF didn't get changed at all? "In the new Codex, Battle Focus means warriors count as stationary when firing, even if they moved or advanced... pretty cool!" "no, the rules specifically excludes heavy weapons."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Oh great, GW is transitioning their shovelware approach from mobile games to board games. Hrm. A super simple click base version of the game would be good for my kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Artum posted:gently caress it just sell an A5 binder in various styles and make the datasheet easily removeable from the rest of the kits instructions. mango sentinel posted:Epic reboot Oh, please God, no. From the wording, this looks like it will be reprints of FFG/GW games and brand new games only. Old Specialist Games seem safe for the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Oh, hmm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Did someone say 40k Attack Wing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
The Bee posted:I feel like it would suck for Word Bearers, whose deal has always been Chaos Undivided as a philisophy rather than a means to the end, but every other Chaos faction would at least have god devotion for a CSM/Demon hybrid lists. If they are summoning it isn't a big deal because models summoned aren't part of the initial list, it is just a pool of points you set aside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Can they loving fix Vaul's Wrath Support Batteries, please? Am I missing something about these pieces of poo poo that makes them worth 77 loving points baseline and then another 20, 21, or a whopping FIFTY loving POINTS for the weapon? 127 points for a D-cannon on a fragile-rear end platform? This is one of the most overpriced units in the game, imo also lol at getting hype for ANYTHING WizKids produces in tyool 2017. They're a poo poo company
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Corrode posted:I dislike this purely because I have a bunch of Imperial armies and I'm really enjoying being able to freely mix them and use more of my stuff, but I accept that's selfish. I'd rather see something like "must share two keywords" for the current detachments, and then a bonus detachment type which is like 1 HQ and 0-1 or 0-2 of every other slot (including DTs) which only needs to share one keyword. Maybe gives 1 CP, maybe none. That way you can still mix and match stuff, but you don't just get to take a full Guard brigade + Guilliman and Razorbacks. I'd support something like that, but drop it to 6-9 inches, this way you don't have to worry about getting smoked off the table by Obliterators/Tau Commanders/etc, but you don't have that infuriating one single conscript model prevents you from shooting 4 Lascannons into Guilliman's dumb face because he stands a fraction of an inch closer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:If they are summoning it isn't a big deal because models summoned aren't part of the initial list, it is just a pool of points you set aside. That's fair. Certainly makes summoning a good option for Chaos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
raverrn posted:Did someone say 40k Attack Wing? battlefleet gothic x wing clone would be pretty rad 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:I'd support something like that, but drop it to 6-9 inches, this way you don't have to worry about getting smoked off the table by Obliterators/Tau Commanders/etc, but you don't have that infuriating one single conscript model prevents you from shooting 4 Lascannons into Guilliman's dumb face because he stands a fraction of an inch closer. The thing is, once Guilliman is sitting 6-9" away you have a single turn to shoot him before he plows through your line. That's not very fun either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Artum posted:Wouldnt that make the lugging around a million books problem worse than ever before? Since rather than a rulebook your codex and angels of death or whatever you have a rulebook a codex and every incremental campaign book. Yeah, though they'll likely update the digital books at least with the new datasheets, and the sheets themselves may be available. I don't know that there's a better print solution than bringing your codex + printed sheets/cards for the units you are using in some kind of binder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Broken Record Talk posted:The thing is, once Guilliman is sitting 6-9" away you have a single turn to shoot him before he plows through your line. That's not very fun either. You know what? You get nothing...there. Enjoy getting violated by flaming swords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
I know i'm going against the grain here, but Re: Lords of War - I disagree. In some armies it's perfectly feasible to only have 1 below 25% of total points if you're playing at least 2,000, but say I'm using my AdMech and going up against a Guard army. How the hell am I supposed to beat it? Tons of indirect fire and multiple heavy weapons platforms that will just tear me to shreds. At the very least if I take a knight (or two), i'll be able to soak up some shots and get halfway up the table before being shot to poo poo, and be able to pour out enough fire to whittle away the amount of stuff on the table to have a fighting chance. My very first taste of 8th was against a Guard player that took a Basilisk and a Manticore, and just parked them behind a building. I got tabled in round 3. Unless you completely rework this game from the ground up, Lords of War are important equalizers that belong in the game. I get that some people utilize them in a way that's crazy overpowered (Guilliman), but they're not going anywhere. I expect them to release more Primarchs and probably more LoW for different factions. Plus, Knights look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
25% of 2000 is also an awkward number in a points system not designed around it. Cool, I can take a Banehammer but not a Doomhammer. A Stormsword but not a Stormlord.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:I know i'm going against the grain here, but Re: Lords of War - I disagree. In some armies it's perfectly feasible to only have 1 below 25% of total points if you're playing at least 2,000, but say I'm using my AdMech and going up against a Guard army. How the hell am I supposed to beat it? Tons of indirect fire and multiple heavy weapons platforms that will just tear me to shreds. The only change they need to make to lords of war is scrap the superheavy auxiliary detatchment, that way you're running up against the generally agreed upon 3 detatchment limit and you dont get as many command points for bringing a bunch of insane poo poo as you do from bringing a god damned army.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Artum posted:The only change they need to make to lords of war is scrap the superheavy auxiliary detatchment, that way you're running up against the generally agreed upon 3 detatchment limit and you dont get as many command points for bringing a bunch of insane poo poo as you do from bringing a god damned army. Do you mean the regular superheavy detachment? The auxiliary is the 1-slot with no CP attached.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Artum posted:The only change they need to make to lords of war is scrap the superheavy auxiliary detatchment, that way you're running up against the generally agreed upon 3 detatchment limit and you dont get as many command points for bringing a bunch of insane poo poo as you do from bringing a god damned army. Scrapping the Superheavy Aux means you can only take LoW in threes or in a Supreme Command, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:25% of 2000 is also an awkward number in a points system not designed around it. Cool, I can take a Banehammer but not a Doomhammer. A Stormsword but not a Stormlord. Some options are excluded and that is kind of the point. For example, I can't take a glaive until 2500 points in 30k. It is a very powerful tank and if it were allowed in lower point games it could be pretty unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:25% of 2000 is also an awkward number in a points system not designed around it. Cool, I can take a Banehammer but not a Doomhammer. A Stormsword but not a Stormlord. It's worked just fine in 30k since 6th edition?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Isn't 30k generally played at above 2000 points? I have no desire to see the standard for 40k go any higher and at 2000 most lords of war flat out can't be used in the vast majority of games with the 25% limitation The problem is with specific LoWs, not with the class as a whole. Knights are pretty well balanced right now, to the point where I actually feel comfortable actually using mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Do you mean the regular superheavy detachment? The auxiliary is the 1-slot with no CP attached. JoshTheStampede posted:Scrapping the Superheavy Aux means you can only take LoW in threes or in a Supreme Command, though. Right yeah other way around got the names mixed up, scrap the 3-5 one that gives cp, make the regular one cost a CP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Isn't 30k generally played at above 2000 points? I have no desire to see the standard for 40k go any higher and at 2000 most lords of war flat out can't be used in the vast majority of games with the 25% limitation
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:25% of 2000 is also an awkward number in a points system not designed around it. Cool, I can take a Banehammer but not a Doomhammer. A Stormsword but not a Stormlord. It's like vehicles built on the same chassis aren't entirely equal in power! I should be able to take a Rhino in the same approximate points limit as a fully loaded Predator!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Broken Record Talk posted:It's like vehicles built on the same chassis aren't entirely equal in power! I should be able to take a Rhino in the same approximate points limit as a fully loaded Predator! Yes, you should. You pay different points for those, but it would be silly to say you can't bring a predator to the game at all if you can bring a Stalker or Whirlwind or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Just a reminder that if anyone wants an anniversary Primaris Captain I will be getting some this weekend. Shoot me a PM and I can get one for you. The Sex Cannon can verify I am less terrible than most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
I have that model, it's pretty drat cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
How much are they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
xtothez posted:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/19/craftworld-focus-saim-hann-oct-19gw-homepage-post-3/ So I have a themed eldar force, almost all jetbikes/vypers/shining spears, with characters on jetbikes and dark eldar and harlequin jetbikes. I really like the saim Hann tactic. Really helps fix vypers, which was my main gripe as I kind of need them to carry my heavy weapons. Charge re-rolls are a very nice to have on characters and shining spears, as well as a few cc infantry units I don't have. Jetbikes (index) are in an odd place. I think they were a perfectly good unit with shuriken cannons. Not great or game winning assets, but good. Catapults are so drat short ranged that as good as the firepower can be, it's just not a very usable unit. Scatter lasers were objectively worse than cannons, so I'm glad they have maybe been balanced out? I appreciate it's a fine line, if you make a unit like that, where each one can carry a heavy weapon, too many ppm, they become very easily spammable. I wouldn't rush to judge though, S6 isn't what it was, with no ap modifier and D1, they can't be the dominant weapon they were in previous editions. Really like the saim hann tactic, as I said, but it's probably not much competitively over the others shown so far. Biel tan is strictly better on non-scatter laser windriders and shuriken Cannon vypers, probably drat near the same on shining spears. What is the emerging consensus on the eldar craftworlds? It's not too exciting or easy to leverage for a particular power play, but Ulthwe might be the best? 16% boost to survivability is worth a fair bit, helps everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Phyresis posted:
Yeah, I saw this somewhere and was confused given that that is literally what the rule does now.  Phyresis posted:Can they loving fix Vaul's Wrath Support Batteries, please? Am I missing something about these pieces of poo poo that makes them worth 77 loving points baseline and then another 20, 21, or a whopping FIFTY loving POINTS for the weapon? 127 points for a D-cannon on a fragile-rear end platform? This is one of the most overpriced units in the game, imo No, I think you're right. Which sucks because they're pretty cool looking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Zasze posted:battlefleet gothic x wing clone would be pretty rad I've been saying that for years. I'd play the poo poo out of that game, and I don't even give X-Wing a cursory glance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 18:47
|
|