|
Apparently this book feels the need to apologize for daring to impose some kind of structure to your otherwise glorious and perfect narrative experience and must reiterate the basic social contract for sitting down and playing a game for each individual rule. Who the hell is going to be so sensitive to playing by points costs that it has to be presented as a negotiation? "Alright everyone let's start the tournament, begin by debating the merits of points VS non-point play, each participants gets five minutes to state their case and if they don't agree the game can't be held and is a draw, go."
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:I'm trying and failing to see a way by which you can attempt to Deny conjurations. You can try to deny ANY power, it's just when it happens against your units that you get potential bonuses. So, basically just roll and hope for sixes.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:
Nah, look closer down the same page. It's a little obscure but "If none of your units were the target of the enemy's psychic power... you can still attempt to deny the witch." The only difference is that you can't apply modifiers to the dice rolls. (And you can attempt to deny anything, from blessings to conjurations.) I'm not really sure why they list that as an exception to the weirdly specific general rule of "you have to choose a unit to deny" but there it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
So the terrain rules. They sure reference Citadel Terrain a lot, huh. And scratch-built terrain gets a special section. quote:Many players enjoy making their own terrain features from scratch (thus the term "scratch-built terrain"), and it's also possible to improvise a perfectly useable set of terrain using everyday objects at hand. Players that do so will need to devise their own datasheets for the terrain models they have created. Don't worry, this is very easy if you use the rules and datasheets presented here as examples of how to do so. For example, if you chose to use both the Basilica Administratum and Sanctum Imperialis models to make a single large ruin mounted on a scenic base, you and your opponent could agree that this piece of scratch-built terrain would use the rules for ruins and have both the Eternal Progress to Victory and the Benevolent Light special rules (og 186 and 187). Yes, kitbashing from extant terrain pieces is scratch-building. And there are no rules for "generic" terrain pieces that I can spot (aside from craters and ruins I guess?), it's all Citadel. e: It's not just me who finds the "if you and your opponent agree" mealy-mouthed phrasing hugely annoying, right? Tell me it's not just me. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 06:03 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
I mean more like there's no rule for "a forest" at all. There's only the Citadel Woods Twisted Copse. If you want to just use some forest or random ruin you own in your game, you officially have to houserule it in. There's no "area terrain", the cover saves are instead listed on each individual Citadel terrain piece. The only "generic" rule I can see for terrain is for what stuff counts as difficult terrain, but otherwise stuff like Dangerous/Impassable is on a per-Citadel Terrain model basis. There's some "battlefield debris" rules but only for specific things I'm pretty sure are all sold by them too. This could all be old hat to people but it's a little jarring to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Honestly? Honestly it is jarring to you that a company would name specifically it's own products from their range that are designed for a specific role, when talking about that role? It's more jarring when "a forest" doesn't even exist as a rules concept and has to be specifically houseruled into the game. They literally call out anything that isn't a Citadel product as not being in the rules and needing to be written by the players. Like the Twisted Copse is not a "generic forest", it refers to a specific product and has a specific set of unique rules. There are no rules for "generic forest", or even a "generic ruin". That's what's jarring about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
The exact phrasing is "For each individual result of 6+, one Warp Charge point has been successfully nullified. If the total number of nullified warp charge points is equal to or greater than the number of harnessed Warp Charge points, The Deny the Witch test has been passed and the psychic power does not manifest." So no, you have to actually negate every single success they roll to negate a power. That's really why I wouldn't particularly rely on DtW.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:The wording seems really misleading or at least unhelpfully confusing, since it uses the term 'successfully nullified.' Oh, I successfully nullified something! Awesome. Only that might not actually mean anything in practical terms. The entire section is weird, see the previous "why the hell is denying any power an exception to denying a power against a specific unit" confusion. I'm sure this makes sense somewhere in Nottingham. Deny the Witch feels a little weird to me in this respect honestly. There's as written no possible way to get a bonus to denying conjurations or blessings (not even by being close enough with a psychic hood since it only lets you redirect from a friendly unit to yourself), and the chances I'm ad-hoc mathing out in my head make even two-charge blessings really difficult to counter. Meanwhile getting even a single +1 bonus when it targets your unit is huge, but that won't happen unless it's a witchfire effect or a malediction meaning those powers are going to be comparatively depreciated. All in all, the successful psychic phase is looking like a buff-and/or-summon one. Hope you still like divination.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Actually, if I remember correctly in Rogue Trader you could in fact summon Daemons with normal Psykers. I think that was the case so I think it's a really odd throwback. Going back to Rogue Trader is the best idea obviously. A sneak preview of an upcoming special Inquisition character:   
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
AgentF posted:90 free summoned models by Turn 2: It's okay, the totally randomized objectives equalize the playing field. 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
This table at 3++ is a little handier than the one in the second post because it also lists the chance of Perils. Of course, Perils just means "at least two sixes", so it also handily doubles as a "chance to deny a WC2 power" table. Throwing ten dice to deny a single Warp Charge 2 blessing will work a tiny bit more than half the time, assuming the caster didn't harness even more power than required. Conjuration is a base Warp Charge 3 power.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
LordAba posted:I could only make it 4 minutes in. Anyone want to summarize? A demon army starting at 1850 points ends up at almost 4000 points. Game is decided basically at random.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
The important question to ask here is "would the situation be considerably better if they had all been demon models?" Either people will proxy a bunch, or else the person with the most money gets to bring four thousand points to a 1850 game. It's not quite pay to win, but it's not pretty either way.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I'm just glad Striking Scorpions can fit into DE Raiders now. Can Battle Brothers start inside each other's transports though?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I have my doubts. 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. Of course, since you can't use the Shadowseer's power at all while in a vehicle on account of it being a blessing, it's all moot. 
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
They only get that bonus when they're personally denying. You're still rolling sixes to stop blessings and conjurations because as written no UNIT is denying on those rolls. But at least you're close to immune to witchfire and curses!
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:That Knights FAQ... I would be loving passed off if I bought the Knights book More so than for having bought a book with rules for two models in it?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Right now I'm more interested in hearing how the random objective cards pan out. So far I've heard nothing in between either praise for how fun they are or total slams for how they replace player actions with a deck of cards as the determiner of victory. They are going to be the real test of seventh edition, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
It's actually remarkable, once you start designing games and sit down to think about things, how good and tight design serves everyone's interests. You know those units you like but never bring? Tight design would give them a role on the table. This makes the unit more attractive to the tactical player, more attractive to a competitive player looking to tweak things, more attractive to the player who plays to theme (because a theme that works is more interesting than one that doesn't) and more fun and interesting for people who take whatever is cool (because it looks cool and then it also does cool things). It's a mistake to think that you have to design for theme first to make people take thematic armies. The original reason Force Organization Charts were put in the game weren't balance related, but theme related: they were intended to make people take armies that looked like armies, not just a Dreadnaught Conga Line or Predator Parade, and thus reinforce the intended feel of the game on the table directly. The limitation opened up what people felt they could and should bring, whereas ~pick whatever works for your forged narrative~ will just encourage monolisting and cheese. Strong competitive-oriented design that lets more units function and which limits choices can serve pretty much everyone well. Going the opposite route isn't a design choice. It's lazy. The same applies when a game becomes too random and thus starts to remove player agency from actions in the game; it's not enhancing play, but what it does do is obscure that the underlying play is unbalanced. And trying to justify a game that doesn't play fair by saying "you should have fun even if you lose" loses sight of some fundamental reasons for why people play and make games at all. And if someone says that it obviously can't be done, well, that's quitter talk. It's hard. It can't be done to absolute perfection. Neither of those are reasons to just quit trying forever like GW seems to have.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm sorry, but I have absolutely zero faith in the ability of some idealised pan-forum Council of the Spergers to produce a workable, streamlined, fun revision for 40k. Even less so that it would gain any sort of acceptance within the community. Most of seventh edition has been out for years, it was just called "sixth edition". e: Also, fair to say, I'm already working on a ruleset for lapsed local players who look at seventh edition and just laaaaaaugh because they remember the last time the game was like it is now. This is just for local people who own models and want to use them more, so I'll write more, get some games in and get back to people about it if they're interested. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
How bad would it be to let people consolidate into combat, but it doesn't count as charging and it's not rolled or resolved until the next turn? Or else you just grant cover saves to units that have just finished combat, abstracted as there still being survivors or people running away that impede the line of fire or make friendlies reluctant to shoot.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Moola posted:Are you even allowed to make non-mega threads in trad games? The current mod actually encourages splitting discussion if it starts getting cluttered sometimes, so  .Also, is there any resolution to the question of Hemlock Wraithfighters getting the Telepathy primaris power? All the language in the book suggests that you get Psychic Focus by "generating" your powers from one discipline, and it's unclear whether not rolling and getting one specific power counts. I mean, having the perfectly silent Hemlock psychically scream until people bleed from their ears is more interesting than it is now.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Games > Traditional Games > Warhammer 40k Houserules - Forging our own (terrible) narratives I like using the cards for something more strategic, but the sticking point to me is the victory points. I feel like they'd be more interesting if they weren't all just "you randomly get this much more towards winning" and you instead got some other benefit.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
I'm redoing my old models entirely and decided to go whole hog on the knight thing and will straight up base them on the Teutonic Knights. Because why the hell not. Then seventh dropped and everyone at the local club got real mad. I still don't know whether to smile or  at that, considering my timing.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
It's also easy to think of marines surviving horrific injuries and returning to battle after recuperation where other units would simply be killed off entirely, just like how catching a unit in an assault doesn't have to mean every single person is slaughtered. You lost twenty marines in your last 1850 battle? A good number of them got up again later.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Once was "yeah that's maybe a coincidence", twice made me laugh in that "fuuuuuck" kind of way. Three times makes me sad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
The Red Waaaghron.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:drat, I should have done that. Welp, next time I'll remember to do that. Wait until you hit the people that promise international shipping to get a larger amount of people clicking on their product and then go * *this product is not actually shipped internationally unless you want to pay lots extra There's also a lot of people trying to sell either at or above MSRP for unpainted stuff that isn't in the box. 40k ebay is strange.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
The plastic kit I ordered from Japan the other day slaps my entire experience with GW around without effort. GW is the big rooster in wargames, but outside wargames there are some magical things being done with injection molded plastic and rubber, and much cheaper than GW offers. Kotobukiya and Bandai are downright nutso good. In wargaming there are some great things being done with resin, but most of the hobby is focused on imitating the top dog, producing things that are compatible with the top dog or produce poo poo like the dickboobomination linked to earlier. GW is on top, like it or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Yeah actual model kits are phenomenal. Yeah, just don't look at their "collectables" or "figurines", particularly Kotobukiya USA. Turns out the miniature consumer base is terrible outside wargames too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
They also don't like the Psychic Phase. This is a writer taking one look at the new phase, going "gently caress this" and writing a sixth edition psyker.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
I love how everything* of 40k is basically gone in Two Feet from Bread's SAmart thread. *except tyranids
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Wow, they can get up to 5 per entry so for a fully squad 230 bucks. Wow, Orks really have to be one of the most expensive armies to play. This has reached the point of parody. I bought a 100 model army for a different game for that amount earlier this year.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Two Feet From Bread posted:What day did 7th edition come out? 24th of may, so a saturday.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
At least he's not in competition for HQ slots, but does the Orc unique FOC even have a LoW slot?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Can't take an Allied detachment, but the Lord of War spot is fine... Apparently. Just say that Imperial Knights aren't taken as an Allied detachment, they're an Imperial Knights detachment (  optional)(Yes, the book says they're technically a type of ally detachment, but c'mon, that's just a cheap way to shut out cool units.) Speaking of the knights though, if I were to take a full-knights list I can easily fit knights into 1500 points and 1850 points values, and I suspect they're priced to do exactly that, but I can't figure out a way to include the 400 point Knight Lancer since it also has a secondary restriction (no more Lancers than there are other knights in the army, so no 5-Lancer list at 2000). I don't even own enough models for such a thing but it irritates me a little. Of course there's Unbound but pretty much everyone I know who even wants to touch the game universally reviles even the concept. We're all old enough to remember that the justification for the original FoC was to make armies look more like armies on the tabletop, i.e. story reasons, so seeing the same reason used to strip it away rings false.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
It's only a sticking point because the Deep Cut ones slide more, reportedly. That's easy to work around if your table has a rough texture or if you get a tablecloth underlay, but Frontline doesn't need workarounds. I'm still getting Deep Cut purely based on the price point, though. Shipping like that is murder.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
4 knights can make a 1500 point army and 5 knights can be 1850.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the quarterly to see if it's true, but there could easily be a connection between investors now getting votes on how the company is run, the increased dividend and Kirby getting ousted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Clearly the answer is a separate list discussion thread. Infinite topic split go!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 00:42
|
|