|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:What’s the deal with unique space marine codexes like space wolves and blood angels? 40k is weird and always has been and its crazy how badly GW communicates this stuff, because they just kinda expect you to already know how the game works since its so hard to get started with. Some space marines use the space marine codex and either just go plain jane or have small variations. Others use their own specific codex, and if you're doing that you can't use anything from the main space marines codex in the same detachment. its EITHER you use the space marines codex OR you use blood angels / space wolves / custodes / whatever. However, you can have allies of space marines and blood angels in the same army. The same thing applies to Chaos Marines and Death Guard or Thousand Sons. Note that many of the units in the space marines codex appear in the blood angels codex, some with the exact same stats, some with slight changes. Either way, if you're fielding blood angels you just use the blood angels codex. (To make things really silly, you could in theory have an army of "blood angels" that use the space marine codex instead of the blood angels codex if you really wanted, although it'd be a little weird. And then you couldn't take any of the blood angels unique stuff like furiosos or Dante unless they're in another detachment or you lose battle-forged status)
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Existing groups like Blood Angels are specifically called out as no, you can't actually call them that then not use the rules for them. Just like you can't call your Imperial Fists successors Ultramarines. It's literally in the codex. It's also literally printed in the Marine Codex that BA/DA/SW will get their own. Remember kids, just because you don't know doesn't mean it hasn't been communicated. You could just not have bothered to read the instructions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
That sounds a lot like WYSIWYG nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
I think WYSIWYG is actually a good principle as long as you give people the tools to do it  Also why would you make a Blood Angels army and then not have them actually be Blood Angels? I realize "Because I can" is an answer to that but it's a very That Guy way to go about things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:That sounds a lot like WYSIWYG nonsense. It's very literally as simple as just not giving them the BLOOD ANGELS keyword. Nobody is going to stop you from running your red marines as the Genesis Chapter or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:I think WYSIWYG is actually a good principle as long as you give people the tools to do it It’s great for hyper competitive play, something, 40k was never great at. “Uh excuse me I noticed you are trying to use the ability of an Auspex but on your model I don’t see one modeled on it. JUDGE!!!!!!!”
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:It’s great for hyper competitive play, something, 40k was never great at. I mean, letting people easily know what they're up against is a good thing even if people want to be rule lawyer assholes about it (which is going to happen anyway.) You could also jsut agree to forego it with your opponent on a case-by-case basis, I think it's a good default though. Inspector_666 fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Pendent posted:It's very literally as simple as just not giving them the BLOOD ANGELS keyword. Nobody is going to stop you from running your red marines as the Genesis Chapter or something. Yes I understand that. If I want to play with Blood Angels rules I’ll just run my guys as Blud Angels. Run your Ultramarines as UltraMaroons whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:It’s great for hyper competitive play, something, 40k was never great at. Wysiwyg is also good for casual play. Just play with the poo poo on the models even if it isn't good. The game is just easier and more immersive if stuff is what it says it is. I don't enforce it in my casual games because that wouldn't be casual, but it has a place there too and I try to stick to it and encourage it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Yes I understand that. If I want to play with Blood Angels rules I’ll just run my guys as Blud Angels. Then what is there to complain about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Then what is there to complain about? The only real complaint I have personally is the weird poo poo about not being able to use named characters if you write your own successor chapter. How do you even enforce that? Why even write that in the book? My wife started making pink/magenta blood angels with a different chapter name and obviously I told her just use the characters anyway but why discourage people like that? A bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Badablack posted:Tyranids have plenty of tools to handle knights. Lots of mortal wounds, lots of hit penalty debuffs, scads of cheap dudes. They’re still a bear to fight en masse. I’m excited to hear how this goes. I’m starting to pick up GSC to field as ambush troops alongside my guard. As I was typing that out I realized that a counts-as GSC catachan force could be really cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:The only real complaint I have personally is the weird poo poo about not being able to use named characters if you write your own successor chapter. It’s an odd choice, but even simpler to fix because successor chapters don’t make sense from a rules perspective because there’s no special rule customization like there was in earlier editions. “This is my army, it’s counts-as x” fixes the whole problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:The only real complaint I have personally is the weird poo poo about not being able to use named characters if you write your own successor chapter. Seems like a weird nitpick when you can tell your opponent before the game, "these are Blood Angels I'm going to use their codex" and your opponent will either agree, or you didn't want to play with them anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
WSIYG is a wonderful aspiration and a wretched demand. General Olloth posted:The only real complaint I have personally is the weird poo poo about not being able to use named characters if you write your own successor chapter. It's in the Dark Angels book too, notwithstanding that Azreal himself showing up on the field with a DA "successor chapter" would make sense. Strobe posted:Existing groups like Blood Angels are specifically called out as no, you can't actually call them that then not use the rules for them.  The designer's commentary agrees with Zaphod: quote:Q: If I can choose a keyword for a As Blood Angels are a Chapter of the Adeptus Astrates, using <BLOOD ANGELS> for <CHAPTER> is allowed. Maybe GW will get to what Strobe is claiming they have said eventually, but they havne't gone there yet and it would be pointless if they did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:The only real complaint I have personally is the weird poo poo about not being able to use named characters if you write your own successor chapter. The pieces I'll admit is annoying is that successor chapters only get access to a lovely relic, meaning that if I want to take Gabriel Seth, a FLESH TEARER I then lose access to stuff like the Standard of Sacrifice or Angel's wing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Maneck posted:
 Space Marine Codex man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Maneck posted:WSIYG is a wonderful aspiration and a wretched demand. It's called out that you can't do that in the space marine codex.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Maneck posted:WSIYG is a wonderful aspiration and a wretched demand. No, it is literally spelled out in the Marine Codex that it is not allowed. The Dev Commentary is to disallow things like Stratagems from affecting things that are clearly not eligible except under the douchiest RAW interpretation possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Get beer to update his sheet. Add a column for knights. I did that, right? Or maybe I only did it for the guns and not the points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I did that, right? Or maybe I only did it for the guns and not the points. I haven’t check it in awhile. Good on you for doing stuff, my friend. I thought a cool idea for an Ork army would be a grot army based around Da Red Gobbo from Gorkamorka. Then tabletop tactics did an Ork battle report where they just bought a new Ork army that is a pure Gobbo army with beautiful conversions and painting. I have my work cut out for me. Also I need to actually sit down and check my budget to see if I can afford to do this hobby lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
^^^Job lots of piles of ork stuff are pretty common on ebay if you don't mind having to do a decent bit of *highly illegal* conversion to turn everything into what you want.Inspector_666 posted:I mean, letting people easily know what they're up against is a good thing even if people want to be rule lawyer assholes about it (which is going to happen anyway.) You could also jsut agree to forego it with your opponent on a case-by-case basis, I think it's a good default though. For weaponry I definitely agree that it should be nice and obvious what everyone has, but for bits of wargear I can't really be expecting people to buy multiples of kits they might not otherwise be using just for the 1 piece that GW graciously decided to put in there. Looking at you shock prows. On that note I got some blasters off of shapeways and I am pleasantly surprised, they look pretty good. I guess it can vary a lot though because these dreadnought autocannons are hilariously oversized and made of...chalk? eSportseXpert fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Blackstone Fortress website is up. Basically just confirms that the robot is one of the Men of [X] and gives a name to the CSM lord and his warband (Obsidius Mallex and the Servants of the Abyss).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:Blackstone Fortress website is up. The more I've seen them I'm going to place the technocultists into my "don't like them" category for these sculpts. It's a small list, but the posing and the wired dangly bits makes it looks awful. It's like something out of a 90s made-for-TV movie about cyberpunks of 207X. Everything else is dope though. Those psykers are just screaming to become either an AM counts-as HQ or a real Chaos-tainted support unit in a new release.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:
Your'e right, but Zaphod's "really silly" point isn't wrong. The SM codex has different rules for <CHAPTER> as it applies to datasheet access versus special rules access. You cited p. 194 of the Space Marine Codex, the first page of "Sons of the Primarchs". It's from the section on access to special rules and says that Blood Angels cannot get access to Space Marine special rules. But see also p. 130, in "Defenders of Mankind" on p. 130:  The codex allows <BLOOD ANGELS> units, using the Space Marines datacards, which units get neither the Blood Angels army rules nor any of the special rules from Space Marines. Doing this would be "really silly", but would allow <BLOOD ANGEL> Centurions or whatever, with a heavy penalty as opposed to just calling them Ultramarines. Some say there's no way GW intended to allow that. I say they provided two different rules for using <CHAPTER>, and the one on p. 194 strips access to special rules rather than prohibiting it outright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Maneck posted:Your'e right, but Zaphod's "really silly" point isn't wrong. Your M.C. Escher takes make bricks look smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Maneck posted:Your'e right, but Zaphod's "really silly" point isn't wrong. KEYWORDS: Bad Poster, Mithering, Furthermore richyp fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Maneck posted:well, ackshually...
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:Blackstone Fortress website is up. Fuckin' called it. I'm excited to see if this goes somewhere narratively significant for 40K at-large.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Maneck posted:Your'e right, but Zaphod's "really silly" point isn't wrong. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
I've got a Kill Team game against Death Watch tonight. First time I'm playing with Commanders I'm actually considering running: Level 3 Foul Blightspawn (Logistics) Plague Marine Champion (Leader) Poxwalker x15 The Commander is packing a 15" gun that makes D6 shots, 2D6 Strength, AP-3 and deals 3 Damage. Auto hits, reroll 1's to wound. Just have my Leader sit with his thumb up his rear end generating CP safely in the back so that I can put Cloud of Flies on the Blightspawn every round, and then have my Wall O' Pox just blocking charge lanes. My questions are: 1) How much of a shitlord would I be for subjecting my opponent to this 2) What problems might it run into? If he just embraces the zerg and charges into me then my lovely 2-Attack WS5+ S3 Pox aren't going to kill anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Fake James posted:I keep seeing this posted here, Reddit, and other social media sites despite there being no reason 'men of iron' would be present on a Blackstone Fortress that just drifted into the galaxy, nor did men of iron look like that in ~the lore~, but people really want to believe what they want to believe I guess  You sir, are utterly and completely wrong. You challanged me with little cited evidence and with a fragrant disregard for civility and common sense. I would insult you, but your own ineptitude is already doing a fine job of that. Good day to you. I'll have my vindication to go please. Foul Ole Ron fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:
Cool. Although it'll be sad if that's the entire explanation for the Men of Iron rumours going around for the past year, rather than a new faction or min-faction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Maneck posted:Cool. Although it'll be sad if that's the entire explanation for the Men of Iron rumours going around for the past year, rather than a new faction or min-faction. Just add the Blood Angels keyword to them then you can include them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
richyp posted:Just add the Blood Angels keyword to them then you can include them. No, it would have to be Iron Warriors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Maneck posted:Cool. Although it'll be sad if that's the entire explanation for the Men of Iron rumours going around for the past year, rather than a new faction or min-faction. Apparently the datasheet has the faction keyword ROBOTICA IMPEREALIS for him as well. But you'd have to think if the Men Of Iron are still kicking around they wouldn't really want to work with the Imperium...
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:
lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:
Godspeed you Noble creature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Not everything needs a codex there are already 16+ Things can be cool one offs
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Obviously they can't use <CYLON>, but it's more like "Empire of the Machines" than "Machines of the Empire" Still awesome as a potential new faction that'll never happen and just be vaguely hinted at in the lore for 10 years before a supplementary codex right before a new major version which is instantly abandoned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:44
|
|