|
Early thoughts on Seventh Edition: I'm still not happy with Unbound, as I prefer a less abusive environment for my gaming. I don't deny that a few interesting and fun games will come from it, but I think they'll be greatly outnumbered by abusive and ridiculous lists that are un-fun to play against. The new Psychic phase seems, from early reports, to slow down Psychic power use. Which is fine, I guess. It slows down Prescience spam, and putting the brakes on Malific Summoning spam is a good idea as well. For Battle-Forged armies, the new Allies Matrix at least makes more sense. Tau and Marines as Battle Brothers always stuck in my craw, and having the number of Battle Brothers cut way the gently caress down while the benefits of BBs being increased please me. Of course, my armies are Guard and Marines, so I concede that I may be a bit biased as the new rules only help me. Having multiple FOCs even for Battle-Forged seems at first blush to be potentially abusive, but points limits will still affect things. Sure, it's possible to do two cheap HQs and four minimum sized Troops choices then fill the board with Heavy Support or Elites or whatever your army's specialty is. That's especially viable now that (purportedly) everything can score. Nevertheless, while even Battle-Forged armies can now flood the board with Heavies, how high do the points have to go to be able to afford them? For most of my games, which are played in the 1250-1850 range, the limiting factor isn't the FOC, its points. And by the time you get to 2000+, well you could get multiple FOCs back in Sixth Edition once you hit 2k. Not much change there. Which leads me to the main problem with Seventh Edition. Not enough has changed to justify the cost. I expect this to be the most  edition of the game by a long shot. You've got a lot of people who just bought the Sixth Edition book within the last couple of months who aren't going to be happy about shelling out for Seventh. And you've got people who've learned how few changes there really are between Sixth and Seventh that make it seem even less worthwhile. Seventh Edition may do what GW needs it to, give it a really good quarter to shore up a failing stock price, but I have my doubts that this is good for the long term health of the game.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Do you mean reduces the number of times it is used, or temporally? Because the last thing 40k needs is to take more time. Both, really. Throwing in a "I roll, you roll to counter, then the power goes off, then I decide which power to try next" will slow the game down time wise. Not too much once you get used to it, but expect your first couple of games in Seventh to take measurably longer than a comparable Sixth game. But the Pschic phase will also reduce the number of powers that actually get used. The way the dice mechanics work encourages you to over-spend to increase your chances of the power getting used. Check out that chart in the "What's new for 7th edition" OP. You need at least two dice and preferably three to have a reasonable chance of getting even a Warp Charge 1 power off. Warp Charge 2 and 3 are even more expensive if you want to tilt the odds in your favor. That's fine, but it leaves you with fewer dice to use any other powers later in the phase. So even if you can reliably get one good power off a turn, that means that all the rest of your Psykers are left with dregs for dice and thus, there will be fewer powers activated in any given game. Barring, of course, stupid Unbound poo poo like 30 Psyker armies and the like. Which is another reason I'm down on Unbound, but that's neither here nor there.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I'd buy Houston in particular as a Nurgle plagueworld and Texas as the Eye of Terror.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Let's do some real talk for a minute... Best way to find out is grab a guy and paint him up Steel Legion and see how he looks. Post it here, and we'll let you know what we think. Mind you, I'm a fan of custom chapters/regiments/craftworlds etc. In your place I'd come up with a name and a color scheme I like and just go to work. I'd rather run the Storm Eagles, Void Knights, or 13th Arcadia Guard than any number of Ultramarines or Valhallans. But that's just me.  If you want a book regiment, the best thing to do is experiment. And if you're not sure, experiment then post here.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:New FOC is a lot of loving fun to mess around with. Sure you gotta take two troops but who cares, cause of that battleforged special ability. I've been thinking about re-skinned Daemons. Like use those Cult Assassins as Imperial Daemonettes and the like. Might be a bit cheaper than pure Daemons because I can re-purpose a lot of Fantasy minis that I already have. Dwarves as Nurgle Squat stand-ins, anyone? jng2058 fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Oh duh, I forgot that the "gunners" can Fortify. Yeah, back when I was playing regularly a decade ago GW still cared about the tournament scene. There were Games Days and Grand Tournaments run by GW. And one of the rules when GW was in charge was "only Citadel miniatures." Which put a damper on buying things like the Mantic Thunderfire substitutes. But now? Now that GW's abandoned any control over tourneys? gently caress 'em. Buy what you want from whom you want. I notice that one of the Mantic kits, the "Heat Cannon" comes with enough bits to make both a Thunderfire substitute and an Icaraus Lascannon mount. Or swap it around and make a Quad-Gun and maybe use the Heat Cannon as your Thunderfire? The point is, there are options besides overpriced GW stuff. If you're willing to look for it, or browse a lot on ebay, you can fill out your army for a lot less cash. And without the limits on what minis your tournament army can field, why not have a look? You might find something you like.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
2d6 is a terrible idea. You'll never roll a '1' and trooper number 7 will die more often than not. If you haven't got a d10, do this: Split the squad into two five man groups, A & B. Roll a d6. On a 1-3 take the wound from group A. 4-6 group B. Once you're down to a five man group, roll a second d6, re-rolling 6s, to determine which of the five guys take the wound. Repeat as needed.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
From a tournament standpoint you're screwing yourself with the All Daemons All the Time list. It took those guys six hours to play a full game, and most tournament slots don't go past four. Even granting that you'll get batter at massive Deep Strikes with practice, there's still a really good chance that you'll never complete a full game. And short games prevent you from getting all those new Daemons into play. That said, one could easily see an intermediate list, say 20-25 Warp Charge dice, backed up by more heavy hitters (CSM Allies & Helldrakes!) being fast enough to play in a tournament setting while still being totally overwhelming. In casual play, of course, ADAtT is pretty much unstoppable. I mean, yeah, the Marines scored a Draw in the game. But they got very lucky with their Objectives, the Daemons got very unlucky, and by the end there the Daemons were one Dread away from tabling the Marines while the Daemons had thousands of points left and the ability to summon even more. So yeah, it's totally pay to win now. Buy enough Daemons, summon them all, never taste defeat again. Unless your Objective Cards are terrible or you're facing another Daemon army, that is.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Wow, the Mega-kannon is even more disappointing than the punisher cannon was. Clearly someone hasn't seen Pask in Leman Russ Punisher or a Vulcan Mega-Bolter on a Stormlord at work. Hell, even though Rending ain't what it once was, Assault Cannons are still good guns. GW likes rotary weapons just fine. And Guard players love them.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Well one more marine to absorb a wound in the devastor group would be the first thing I'd do. This. Six man Dev Squad works better than five because your MLs last longer. For that matter, while I like me a Twin-Linked Lascannon as much as anyone, having only two wounds between you and losing Missile Launchers is less than ideal. I've gone to full ten man Dev Squads with a Rhino. If you want the TLC Razorback, try a six man Tac Squad instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Because Crisis Suits have wounds instead of AV, and Riptides are just really big Crisis Suits. If he's bringing a Riptide, make sure you've got lots of Lascannons and Plasma to throw around.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:I'm just glad Striking Scorpions can fit into DE Raiders now. Sort of: 40K rules posted:Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity. So you could add Battle Brother ICs to a unit in an Allied Dedicated Transport, attach a Terminator Captain to a Guard Veteran Squad in a Chimera, for instance. But you couldn't deploy a Marine Tac Squad into the Chimera pre-game or things like that. And of course that only matters for Dedicated Transports. Your Land Raider taken as a Heavy can start the game with whatever the gently caress it wants, even a Guard Conscript squad. The Emperor alone knows why you'd want to, but you could do it as well as any number of more useful versions.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Pacheeco posted:Why would Scarabs be scoring? Does Swarms not exist anymore? The stupid local GW store didn't receive my rulebook shipment when I went there on Saturday so I'm stuck here like a non-7e having peasant until like Wednesday. Swarms can score now. Everything can score now. Park a Basilisk on that Objective that you hid behind the hill and rack in the points at the end of the game. The only thing that can override that is that your Troops in a "Battle-Forged" (ie not Unbound) get the Objective Secured rule (formerly owned exclusively by Tyrannid Gargoyles) and get priority over non-Battle Forged Troops if multiple units are within 3" of an Objective.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
muskets posted:Orks lose their Orky powers, too - they just get Daemonology. Until the new dex in a few weeks, anyway. So now Orks can't do anything that they've historically been able to but can use a power set they've never so much as sniffed at before until now? (Until the Codex pops, that is.) That's....that's so GW. 
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Arbite posted:So if I'm reading this right, my Unbound Dark Eldar would be able to shove a Shadowseer into every raider and as long as I stay 25" or further away from everyone they can't do a drat thing to me? Not without some work. First of all, Unbound doesn't free you from the unit rules. You can't buy Shadowseers by themselves, you'll have to buy Harlequin squads then pay for the Shadowseer upgrade. So you're looking at 120 points for each bare-bones Harlequin + Shadowseer squad. Second problem, Raiders and Venoms are Dedicated Transports that Harlequins can't get for themselves. So you'd have to buy a bunch of Warriors (45 a pop for a nearly useless 5 man Warrior Squad) and then the Raider itself (60 for a wargearless one). Third problem, since it's a Dedicated Transport only the Warrior squad that bought it in the first place can start the game deployed in it. You'll have to spend your first turn loading your Harlies into your Raiders and if you don't go first there's a good chance a lot of those Raiders are going to get blown off the board before your Harlies can get into it. If you get first turn, all is well, you can load up happily but then... ...the fourth problem is that you've spent 225 points to get a single Dark Lance or Disintegrator that, yes, will be hard to kill. In an 1850 point game you can buy eight Harlie/Raider teams with forty nearly useless Warrior squads to try and draw fire and rush Objectives. I guess it could work, maybe, but I don't think it's exactly game-breaking the way the Tzeentch Daemon army is. Here's how I'd do it at 1850 if I was dedicated to the tactic. Harlequins x5 (90) w/ Shadowseer (30) Kabalite Warriors x5 (45) w/ Dark Lance (25) Raider w/ Disintegrator (60) That's 250 per grouping. Buy seven of them for 1750. Use your Dark Lance Warriors as tank and MC hunters, while your Invinco-Raiders gang up on infantry, especially ones on Objectives. Twenty-one shots per turn of S5 AP2 will have an effect even if cover soaks a lot of it. You'll have 100 points left, maybe buy a Talos to draw fire away from your Warriors or something. Or whatever else you like for 100 points. So yeah, you could do this in an Unbound army but you'll be vulnerable if you don't get first turn, and large or fast armies will probably be able to get within Raider killing range some of the time anyhow. Twenty-one hard to kill Disintegrator shots per turn with seven Dark Lances backing them up is pretty mean, but is it mean enough to deal with some of the other ridiculousness that'll you'll face in Unbound? I have my doubts.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Asdrubael Vect and his 200 point Raider. Maximum point sink, but at least it's a dedicated transport that only specifies it has to have Vect and "nine other" models in it. And is also allround AV 13 open-topped and has three dark lances, so just load up the meltas and that one not-Dark-Reaper guy too while you're buying the harlequins. And actually, when I went back to read the power entry it's worse than that: "Any unit wishing to target the Shadowseer or the unit she is with..." So you can't even confer it on a Raider from a distance. Given the text explictly says "This power is available permanently with no Psychic Test needed" and further that they've never explicitly called it a Blessing, you could argue that the Blessing in a vehicle prohibition wouldn't count since you aren't making a Warp Charge test or anything. Where it falls apart, though, is that the Raider isn't part of the Harlequin unit and therefore won't be affected. Oh well, it was a fun thought exercise but alas, invalid.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Arbite posted:Ah well, thank you both for clearing that up. It was nice to have a vague flicker of hope, though. I hear ya, man. My brother plays Dark Eldar, and he hasn't been a happy ham since they took away his Haemonculi on Hellboards.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
The Gate posted:What do you mean "at best"? What's better than a 360 degree fire arc from a turret? Torrent rules have not changed. Big end's gotta be farther away than the small end.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
This is why the Tactics Warlord list exists. Didn't build a flexible enough army to grab Objectives on their side of the board? Make your Objectives worth more or discard more of them or get more of them! Alternatively, just play to table 'em!1 1 = This will be how most broken Unbound armies will play most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Hey, guy that suggested putting Bloodletters in a Landraider: Bestest idea!  HiveCommander posted:Being able to simply have a free mulligan of all the cards you draw at the start of the game would be a huge help, or even allow more than one discard per turn, so you don't get stuck with "Kill a flyer" against a dude fielding 6 Imperial Knights or something. This is what the new Tactical Warlord abilities are all about. Objective Deck management. Go Battle-Forged to get the re-roll and pick Tactical every time so you can manipulate the deck. You won't get "discard two every turn" each and every time, but you'll get something regarding the deck each game.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:So, ignore two-thirds of the Warlord Traits to make the cards slightly less imbalanced? The guy said that all he wanted was to discard more than one Objective Card per turn. I pointed out that hey, if you want that, take a Tactical Warlord because that option is on that chart. Not all card talk is about what you want. Some of us are willing to try some of the options presented in the rules before storming off in a huff about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
The Sex Cannon posted:Just play, man. You might have fun! I dunno. One of the hard lessons I've learned after 30 years of gaming is that "Bad games are worse than not playing at all." There's a certain mentality that gamers get into where we think that since it can be hard to get a group to play 40k or D&D or whatever your tabletop poison of choice is, that you should always take every chance to play since you never know when you'll find another one. But if you're not going to enjoy yourself in a game, and especially if your displeasure makes the game less fun for others, you should just not play. Only Tuxedo Jack knows if the Objective Card tournament will cross that line for him. Are there ways to mitigate the randomness of the cards? Well, yes, but in doing so you're cutting yourself off from other options. Highly maneuverable armies to try and objective grab could work, but that eliminates whole factions who aren't good at that. Taking a Tactical Warlord will reduce how much the cards screw you, but that means you lose every other type of warlord. And so on and so forth. If Jack isn't willing or able to do those things because it won't be fun for him, and if playing the games themselves aren't fun, then maybe he just shouldn't play. That said, if there's time before the campaign to try it out, I would suggest that he try using some of the mitigation techniques in a test game or three to see if that makes the cards more palatable. Either that or maybe see if there can be a "Jack Only Plays Eternal War" exception made for his games or something. If the alternative is losing a player, they may be willing to throw you a bone. You get some of what you ask for and none of what you don't, after all. Might as well ask. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:The problem is that A, this costs you your warlord trait (and so isn't even an option for some armies) and B, usually doesn't work anyways. Only three of the Tactical traits actually let you discard cards for new ones, and one of them is one use only while another of those only works before the start of the game. Fer gently caress's sake. We just went over this. I was responding to a guy who wanted to either get a mulligan or discard more than one card per turn and I was telling him that if that's what you want, go Tactical Warlord. I am not proposing that this is a cure-all solution for people who don't like the Objective Deck. Context matters, people. Read the whole post including the quotes before you misconstrue poo poo!
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Uh, I'm sorry I pointed out reasons why your proposed solution to a problem has problems? I realize you were responding to someone, I was explaining why, as a mechanic, that solution is not very good because it runs into several factors that trip it up. The fact that you suggested it kinda implies that you believe it is at least functional, because otherwise you wouldn't have said anything- and something with less than a 50% success rate I don't feel is terribly functional, even as a band-aid. Play a battle-forged army. Get a re-roll for your Warlord trait. 75% of your rolls now involve discarding cards or getting an extra one which is nearly as good. Two of the other three results give you more points for scoring objectives which isn't as good but can still help. Only one really sucks, forcing a random discard by your opponent, and that will happen 1 out of every Seems like a reasonable band-aid to me. e: math jng2058 fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
So I had an idea about how to use the Objective Cards while reducing the randomness. Battle Plans At the start of the game, after the map has been constructed, sides chosen, and objectives placed but before units are deployed, both players select seven Objective Cards to represent their plan of action for the upcoming battle. Each card must be assigned a turn number, so your cards will be assigned #1 through 7. At the end of each turn, the player reveals the card he assigned for that turn. If he achieved his objective, he scores the points for that card. If he failed, he loses the points for that card1. Note that because there are three separate "Secure Objective #X" cards for each Objective, it is possible to choose holding the same Objective as many as three times. To prevent defensive armies from dominating the game in this way, point values for Objectives are as follows: Objectives placed in your own Deployment Zone (or Friendly Zone on the map) are worth 1 point a piece. Objectives in No Man's Land are worth 2 points a piece. Objectives in your opponent's Deployment Zone (Enemy Zone) are worth 3 points a piece.  Note that random game length is still in effect. Keep in mind that Objective Cards assigned to Turns Six and Seven may never be played if the game ends at the end of Turn Five. Example: A Guard Player looks at the above map and who is deploying in the Green Friendly Zone against a Tyrannid player decides he will play defensively and chooses the following Battle Plan: Turn 1 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 2 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 3 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 4 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 5 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 6 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 7 - Kingslayer (1-3 points) The Guard player is planning for a defensive game. He hopes to use his firepower to keep the Tyrannids from capturing the Objectives in No Man's Land but is ceding any points the 'Nids choose to horde in their own zone. With his defensive plan, he is unlikely to accomplish Linebreaker (1 point), but depending on who goes first may achieve First Blood (1 point). Finally, if he manages to kill the enemy Warlord (likely a Hive Tyrant of some variety), he will score Slay the Warlord (1 point) and Kingslayer (1-3 points) if the game lasts until Turn Seven. That means the Guard player has a maximum point total point value of 12, but since the game likely won't get to Turn Seven and he's pretty much giving up Linebreaker, his likely score will be in the 5-7 range. His opponent, the Tyrannid player, is deploying in the red Enemy Zone. He plans on a rapid advance along one flank, while holding his home objectives with a couple of Biovore units. His plan is: Turn 1 - Secure Objective 1 (1 point) Turn 2 - Secure Objective 2 (1 point) Turn 3 - Secure Objective 3 (2 points) Turn 4 - Secure Objective 3 (2 points) Turn 5 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) Turn 6 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) Turn 7 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) The Tyrannid plan is much more aggressive. If totally successful, including secondaries, he will score as many as 18 points! However, this plan requires his push at the Guard left to succeed. If it fails, the point penalty will cripple him in short order. The game will be won or lost in the battle for Objectives 3 and 5. One problem with this setup is that many of the current cards in the deck will be under-used, particularly the "Kill a X by the end of your turn" cards. Even granting that knowing you need to kill some Psykers in Turn 3 will make one maneuver a certain way, the penalty for failure will likely discourage many people from trying it. Some amendment of the cards may be required. Also, something will need to be done to adjust the or eliminate the Tactical Warlord, which is currently incompatible with this scheme. There may be some way to allow Tactical Warlords to adjust their plans somewhat on the fly as the battle progresses, but I haven't really given much thought to a mechanism for such. Anyway, that's my idea off the top of my head. Thoughts? 1 = This may be too aggressive for some players. If you don't like the penalty, amend the rule to: "If he failed, the card is discarded and the points it represents are lost." I can see it working either way.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
The trick to understanding Space Marines is that they aren't looking for a fair fight. They don't show up en masse on major battlefields to get ground down by attrition until there's no one left. That's what the Guard is for. The Marines are the ultimate special forces instead. They drop in on you from a drop pod, hit you with a tank force outta nowhere because they had their tanks airlifted in behind your lines. They fuckin' TELEPORT INTO YOUR HQ. What Space Marines do is figure out, thanks to better tech than Guard get access to and hundreds of years of experience, where exactly to hit you that will hurt the most. And then they do that, blow the poo poo out of your critical supply line, decapitate your best general, and steal your battle plans. And then they pack up and head back to orbit, analyze your wreckage, and do it again. And again. And again and again and again. Meanwhile, tens or hundreds of thousands of Guardsmen are pushing in on your lines, when you're out of ammo, leaderless, and they know where you hid your reserves because they've got your plans. What we're playing on the battlefield every time we play 40k with Marines in it is when something's gone wrong, because Marines don't want to be in a fight that's 1850 vs 1850. They want to have 1850 in Marines vs 500 in very surprised Orks. If you're fighting 1850 vs 1850 it means the situation is so desperate that an even odds fight is the best they can manage, or they're fighting someone as good. Like Chaos Marines with ten thousand years of experience, say. Or some Eldar muthafucka who looks into the future and gets there first. Or there are so many fuckin' Bugs that it took tactical brilliance to maneuver yourself an even odds chance to blow up that Hive Node. All you need to do is get past that Hive Tyrant and all his buggy friends... In short, every battle we players fight out is generally the critical point of a much larger action. It's where one side or the other will make a crucial breakthrough. Where some irreplaceable weak point in the Defense Laser network is just off the board. It's about access to the Necrons' main control node, or the entrance to the crashed Rok that if you can just get past these guys in your way you can rig the thing to explode and cripple the enemy force. And within that structure it makes sense that the Marines aren't invincible badasses. Because they're fighting against the other guy's best troops who are also trying to attack or defend their own critical objective point. tldr: Marines only make sense as elite special forces dropping in to wreck your poo poo, then vanishing again to hit you elsewhere. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 23:18 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:This is spot on, and it's just a shame that most of the writers of the background just portray them as having no intelligence (in the military or everyday sense of the term) and charging in and mostly getting killed while taking out a bunch of chumps along the way. Obviously 40k is fantasy in space etc. But no SM missions, as published by GW, ever make sense. Yeah, that story got published in one of the Tyrannid codexes, as I recall. Gotta make the Bugs look good in their own book. And yeah, in general the writers get the Marines wrong, though occasionally they get it right. Sandy Mitchell's Ciaphas Cain novel The Emperor's Finest shows how devastating marines can be as they systematically neuter a Genestealer infestation. Abnett's Iron Snakes book does a reasonable job as well, with Marines being dangerous and effective at their jobs, even when there's only one of them on site.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:I just realised that Commissars will only summarily execute a nearby psyker if it looks like they'll summon a daemon by accident. If the psyker summons them on purpose they're fine with it. Which is hilarious when you realize that you can't ever summon a daemon with a Perils roll... HiveCommander posted:I really want to try writing up a field evacuate mission now; flyerspam deployment, Marines deploy 6" either side from the centre of the table, attackers have a 12" deployment. The marines have to get X amount/points' worth of units within 6" of the opposite short table edge to the attacker's deployment to win, to simulate a fighting retreat which they should be able to manage with no complaints thanks to the Rapid Fire buff and Snap Fire from 6th and 7th That sounds pretty fun, actually. See the whole "use Unbound to forge a narrative" is doubly dumb. Not only does it unbalance the game, but it doesn't really do a good job of making an interesting story. Scenario design, like the Escape from Space New York mission here is what makes for good narrative, not building an army made only of Wraithknights and Wraithlords! Ignite Memories posted:I posit that a Rok cannot crash - it can only land. You say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to...
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Yeah, Drop Pods used to have such a restriction, but with the 6th Edition Marines book, it was left out. After all, no vehicle could score, so why put in a redundant rule? And of course they thought to throw in a Drop Pod exception for 7th Edition, right? No, of course not. They were careless and will likely never FAQ it. So yeah, Drop Pods are us!
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:I know they didn't have that rule in 6E or 5E, and I sure don't remember it from the 4E book (although it might have been there.) In either case, that was rather a long time ago. Pretty sure it was 4th, and that'd have been around 6 years or so.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Can someone else confirm/deny this Drop Pod strategy? Our local groups rules lawyer is disputing adamantiumwang's interpretation. On what grounds? Everything can score and no one can find a "Drop Pods don't score" rule anywhere. SRM posted:Is there anything in the rules about immobilized vehicles not being able to score? That's what kept drop pods from scoring before. Nah, that's not in there. Only things that keep you from scoring are Swooping or Zooming, Falling Back, being an empty building, or specific rule that says you can't score (ie Death Company). PantsOptional posted:There's no exception made for all-Reserves armies as there may have been in prior editions, and since by definition they can't come in until the second game turn, Drop Pod army loses. Unless I'm missing something here. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:He maintains that immobilized vehicles cannot score. Well, ask him to show you in the 7th Edition rulebook where it says that immobilized keeps you from scoring.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Yeah thats what im saying. Delaying til turn 2 is an auto lose. Unless you've seeded the board with a few token units, preferably long range shooters like Thunderfires or Devastators.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Man I WISH Dark Angels got Thunderfire Cannons. Devs still work if you don't want to bother with Allies. A ten man Dev squad placed far enough back and in cover should be able to stay alive long enough to get your DW in by turn two, especially if you attach a Rhino. Two Dev squads will almost certainly survive, even if you go second and have to make it through two rounds of fire.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:It doesn't matter, of course. It's just space Barbies. But it is spirit breaking. I was going to just take a break from the group to paint my new IG army, but then I realized they're using my PE tiles, and I kind of wrote the campaign (until the group rewrote most of it), so I feel obligated to play. I don't want to be a poor sport. It evens out the skill factor. If you're a great modeler/painter but a lovely player (and every 40k group has at least one guy like that) then the cards give you more of a chance. There's nothing for it if you're committed to playing than to just accept it's now beerhammer time and to try out ridiculous armies and have as good a time as you can. Don't take it seriously and look for the fun where you can find it.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Well hang on, while the Pods themselves don't score now the units they carry do. There's no reason you can't just drop the pods a few inches between the Objective and your enemy, then deploy the unit backwards onto the Objective. The Pod will provide some cover and even HtH armies will have to go around it to get to you, though I guess some of them will be smart enough to charge the pod to get to you quicker, and you'll still score a ton of points in the early rounds before they dig you off those Objectives. Might be enough to win a lot, in fact.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Direwolf posted:Alright, so with my shock at my Ravenwing turning into mush, it's been forever since I've run Deathwing, what do we think of this list: A little light on anti-tank for my tastes, though my local meta is vehicle heavy. The double fire your Krak missiles and still shoot the Storm Bolter is a nice trick for the Cyclone guys. I'd swap an Assault Cannon for one Cyclone to give yourself some S8 to whip around. Otherwise, it seems pretty solid.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
BobFromMarketing posted:So we are doing a random pick kill team thing at my local shop and given the relatively low point value I figured it would be a good attempt to learn 40k. I already plaY WHFB. I randomed necrons for this and the rules are 200 points, 0-2 troops, 0-1 elites, and 0-1 fast. I am sort of at a loss for what will work well in this as necrons are pretty alien to me. Any suggestions? Hard to go wrong with a mass of Warriors. 15 Warriors for 195 points. You can glance vehicles to death, get back up 1/3 of the time, and put out 15-30 shots for anti-infantry work. Monsterous creatures could be troublesome to you, but at 200 points you're not going to run into too many of those.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Anyway, I think I have some of the group rethinking the Maelstrom cards now, which is good... And I won the first game of our campaign! (So that's good!) Glad things are working out for ya, more or less. Keep us updated on how it goes...it'll be interesting to observe the evolution of your group's meta, even if from afar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
UberJumper posted:Is it possible that GW is going to do something similar to what they did with the Imperial Guard where they renamed it since they couldn't trademark it? I don't know if Sisters of Battle is unique enough to be trademarked. ` They're already the Adepta Sororitas officially, no need to call them anything besides that for copyright purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 05:23
|
|