|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Nid player double moved the Maleceptor into psychic range of all three Captains. He did his psychic bomb thing, dealing a single wound to each Captain, leaving them on 6 wounds each. The three Captains heroically intervened into the Maleceptor and flubbed all their rolls, barely hurting the Maleceptor. It countered with its 4 attacks, 2 into the warlord and 1 into each other Captain. All hit, all wounded, all failed saves, then rolled a six for damage against each Captain. . But a Maleceptor only has 3 attacks?
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Yeah, the only armies that will really be hurt by this are index armies or armies with really lame faction bonuses. It's going to be a bit of a pain for Sisters if you want three detachments without one being outrider/aux/supreme/flyer though, since combined with the 3 unit limit means that you can only get three canoness, one Celestine, and one Uriah Jacobs. Will have to see if the exceptions include any HQ's Deathwing. Not that anyone was going to bring a Deathwing army to a tournament in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:That would be dandy, but I don't think that's what it says. You are correct. As written, the beta rule requires either spamming assassins or foregoing them altogether. I get what Beer4TheBeerGod is saying. And especially since GW were trying to cut down on spam, and they identified assassins as a problem, they must have meant something else. But as written, it's 3 assassins or none. GW also needs to rethink how this applies to Cypher and the Fallen. With the beta rules, there is literally only way to take Cyper (or Fallen): Cyper plus 3 units of Fallen in a Vanguard. Fluff wise I guess that would make sense? Still seems bizarre for units whose data sheets are part of the Chaos Space Marine Codex.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:Deathwing isn't hurt by the 0-3 limitation at all. You've got standard terminators, cataphractii, tartaros, and Deathwing knights to choose from plus all the characters. What screws them is the weird PL requirement when figuring out what gets to deep strike. Of course Deathwing armies are hurt by this. Deathwing armies are built with Deathwing Terminator spam in mind. Not for competitive reasons, mind you. I am rebuilding a Dark Angels army right now, having not played for a few editions, and with no intention of even running a full Deathwing list, I've still now got too many Deathwing models to ever feature them all together. Your point that I could just go buy Cataphractii and Tartaros Terminators and get functionally the same thing, at an added monetary and aesthetic cost, demonstrates that there should be a carve out. And presumably there will be. All Deathwing armies were a thing even when I played last (3rd ed). Deathwing Terminators counting as troops choices in a list that consists entirely of Terminators, Dreads and Land Raiders would be nothing new. All of which is academic since Terminators are not, apparently, any good right now and presumably they just got slightly worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:How many terminators we talkin'? I've got like 25+ and that's more standard terminators than I'd ever use in 2000 points. That's not even counting the cataphractii and tartaros from my 30k Dark Angels. I've got 35 at the moment. I grabbed the plastic ones from the 7th boxed set in bulk for cheap. And realistically I will have to get more since none of those are close combat. Your point about avoiding tournaments is fair. I mean, I love terminators but I'm building a lot of green wing and Ravenwing because, well, Terminators seem to suck. But I assume the new rules will be adopted as the default. Hate to be that guy asking for an exception to the rules - even when I don't anticipate anyone would actually object. Counting a particular elite choice as troops for specialized lists had long been a thing. Several flavours of Chaos Space Marines get it in 8th. Deathwing Squads seem like an obvious candidate for such treatment. Hopefully they fixed it. And thank you for the combat squad heads up. I had missed that. That does help.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2018 21:26
|
|
Or Deathwing Knights. I really like terminators.
That's really all you can do.
|
I've got this vague idea that Games Workshop published a retraction for virus grenade, but I can't find anything about it. They did bring out a vaccine squig for Orks, which I definetly forgot about. Maybe people just refused to play a game against someone with one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:I read those comments about the Icarus Array and was like, "Does this mean the Stalker tank is good too?" Thanks for the edit. I had looked at a Stalker and couldn't figure out why it was so terrible. The answer is because I also didn't realize there are two of those guns.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:The whole "you can't attack models on a upper floor of ruins in assault because you are more than an inch away" is a perfect example of getting it wrong. What was the rationale for that change anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Most of the range is up to date, but the few models that aren't are literally from Gorkamorka. The scale of Ork trakks was way off, even back then. Also, the (monetary) price for Ork field artillery is eyebrow raising.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:It is pretty insane that they don't, honestly. Even one that had a nominal fee that actually got updated when the new books release wouldn't be bad. I definitely goof around on Battlescribe on my phone more than I play games. Even if you're not into Warmachine/Hordes, take a look at the Battleroom 2 app they put out. Privateer Press's official app has the complete rules for all models, tracking of every model you own and every model you've painted, and you can use that tracking to simplify building an army. And it has in game support too, including wound tracking and connecting to your opponants army if he's using the app too. The fee is not nominal. While the basic units from their beginners kits have free rules, for complete armies it's something like $10 per army. The bundle for every unit in the game is around $100. The fee includes all rules for new models released within the edition (save 5-6 year life cycle as GW). And it auto updates the rules when changes are made. GW probably won't do this because they want to sell codexes. But they should. It puts the old way of keeping army rules up to date (going through with a pen and stick notes) to shame.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:Building a WarmaHordes app is way easier, though. Absolutely, the way Warmachine/Hordes is designed makes it easier to build an app. They still have to deal with groups, attachments, casters who change form etc. and all sorts of oddball rules, but nothing on the level of equiping war gear on individual models. So a 40k app would be a lot more work. And yes, GW will have to ourtsource parts of it. They absolutely should do it, and as part of the effort build an inhouse team to support the app going forward.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
I doubt he's saying it was 500 pts/week. 2000 pts could be considered a complete army at week 4. Just that 500 pts is too big an increment. Inevitably people will be finishing up in the two days before. Smaller increments means gentler cramming.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Yes, it is entirely reasonable for the necrontyr to have defined themselves and their genders with metal mammary glands, which will, millions of years in the future, manifest in a tiny subset of organisms evolving on a single shitball world. That is indeed “just like” jewelry, since no other organism uses any visual cues to signify status to any additional organisms unless they’re sentient members of the same species. It's a problem with how Eldar are portrayed as well although at least with the Eldar it could be hand waved away with reference to the Old Ones monkeying with the genetics of both the Eldar and humans. It's terrible science fiction, just like the rest of 40k.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I mean, if you really want more than 30 Terminators (which in fluff terms represents nearly a third of the entire Deathwing I think?) Only for the purposes of the Inquisitor standing there with a tallyboard. It's long been hinted that the Dark Angels ignore the 1000 man limit for the purposes of an expanded Deathwing and Ravenwing. The current codex is quite explicit about this in that the composition for each of companies three through ten add up to 100 Space Marines. But companies one (Deathwing) and two (Ravenwing) have "undisclosed" numbers of squads. Two Beans posted:Aren't there also veterans in power armor in the DA 1st company? 1st company Deathwing are always in terminator armour. There are Deathwing members who are not assigned to the first company, and they can wear power armour. For some reason, in this edition Dark Angels Veterans don't get the Deathwing keyword, so they don't get the Deathwing buffs. Outside of their bodyguard rule, they don't seem to serve much of a purpose. So pointless, in fact, that they're not actually listed in the (fluff purposes) force organization chart. It isn't clear if that's an error by GW or more ignoring the 1000 marine limit. Safety Factor posted:Don't forget the 30 tartaros terminators and 30 cataphractii terminators. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE. We can rehash this again I guess. All Deathwing armies were part of 40k from the 2nd edition up until the rule of 3. Games Workshop released the rule of 3 in a rushed response after their dev team was repeatedly crushed by spammy armies. They forgot that Deathwing existed, possibly because terminators aren't used competitively. Players could work within the rule of 3 and go buy Cataphractii and Tartaros terminators to fill out a "Deathwing" army. But Deathwing models are better, people already have them and no balance benefits arise from prohibiting 4+ Deathwing squads. It'll get fixed once Games Workshop remembers Deathwing exist. And in the interim it doesn't matter because no one is taking terminators to a tournament, or objecting if someone did.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
He deserved righteous grief over mamacrons. And "spear means Custodes." And a lot of other garbage. With respect to Sons of the Pheonix, he came off better than he should have because people insist he's wrong about everything. The connotations of the name is a valid point. The rest was dumb, but he looked better than he should have because he did, in fact, have a single valid point. But now the thread really has gone off the deep end. He's being attacked as not being a 40k player for not posting enough pictures of painted minis. That's inane. Since when do normal 40k players paint their minis beyond undercoating, at least after their first squad (half of which was mostly painted).
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
From a few pages back:Lungboy posted:It's also a lot easier to test dodgy-looking dice. When I started up again, I followed a link to an article that suggested that mots commonly used dice are, in effect, loaded. Supposedly the combination of soft, rounded corners on the dice coupled with a lot of missing weight on the six side (because of the pips) results in something like a 30% chance of rolling a one, rather than the expected 16.6% Found it again: https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/That%27s_How_I_Roll_-_A_Scientific_Analysis_of_Dice The solution was supposedly dice which are either painted or with numerals etched onto them. Was this debunked or does everyone just ignore it?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Booley posted:No, but it doesn't matter because we can't afford dozens of casino dice Then plasma guns and ones are why the (pipless) Dark Angels dice are $35.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I think a lot of you guys are pointedly ignoring Neuoliminals actual argument, that since Necorn characters change their bodies to be like their former regal status in life No. That argument was debunked, repeatedly. Go read the past 30 pages before you decide to die on this stupid hill too.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:It's a ancient and bad experiment, pay it no mind. They managed to get an experiment involving rolling 1000 dice wrong? Are their details? Or was it determined that they just made it up?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
TKIY posted:The dice had tits. If female Nectrons had pips, no one could complain.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Strobe posted:There are two sample sizes in play. One is "dice", the other is "number of tests". Your expectations about what the authors did are understandable. They are also wrong. Check the article. It was written by someone with at least a passable understanding of statistics. The test design used a sample of 1,000 dice at 1,000 trials, with the results for each die being individually tracked: quote:I then constructed a series of plastic barriers that would be used to keep each die independent of the others. In the lab we have a table that is 4 inches thick solid slate built on hydraulic legs to keep balance and resist independent movement. On this table we put all of the dice in the rolling container and labeled each case, giving each individual die its own chamber and number. My 4 students then shook and rolled the dice 1000 times, recording each individual result. Each die was individually rolled 1000 times, so 4 sets of 36 dice (144 dice) rolled 1000 times equals 144,000 rolls. Each die was tracked on its own and kept separate from the rest. More ones was universal amongst the dice tested. The best performing dice (i.e. the flattest distribution) came up at 23%. The worst performer was 33%. The aggregate average of all dice was a 29% chance of rolling a one. And after the testing, they modified the dice to fill in the corners i.e. straight edges. This helped (19% ones). The only thing I disagree with is conclusion that casino dice should be used. Numeral dice are a thing and presumably would have a flatter distribution. Unless he made the whole thing up. I wasn't sure if someone tried to repeat his trial.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:His samples were garbage; he used 2 cubes of GW dice and 2 bricks of Chessex dice, not 1000 randomly selected dice. His "rolling chamber" is poorly defined and is not necessarily representative of a standard dice roll. His data is not available. The study is bad, over a decade old and it comes up like every three months as if it's some sort of new breakthrough. Sorry for bringing up something that is over a decade old and "comes up like every three months as if it's some sort of new breakthrough". I haven't played in a decade and wanted to know if it had been debunked. Thanks for your responses. I get that it would be preferable to draw dice from more sources. I wouldn't describe drawing four different large lots of dice from two manufacturers "garbage". Especially since the dice from both manufacturers had the same problem. The chances that both GW and Chessex experienced a transient issue which caused them to make dice in multiple lots that roll excess ones seem low. As to not replicating a rolling motion, I could see that if they started all of the dice on the same number or something - although even then, the huge number of trials shows that the dice were rolling over. If this is the extent of the debunking, thanks for letting me know. I think I'll order some numeral dice.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Given GW's skull fetish, I can't imagine those dice are better.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If "dude who like girls in non-dimoprhic power armor who isn't as fervently against feminine stuff as you" is the worst of the hobby you've seen, then you must be a part of the worlds greatest game store. That isn't remotely what he said.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Booyah- posted:This is the red flag: That is very helpful. Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Immanentized posted:Question re: charge phase and the Custodian Stooping Dive stratagem- AFAIK, Mind Worm trumps all fight first abilities. I don't think there's an ambiguity in "...may only be chosen to fight in the Fight phase after all other eligible units have fought, even if they have charged or have an ability that would allow them to fight first." It also says "This effect lasts until the end of your turn." So yes, it would last until his turn is done and your turn starts.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Mr. Funktastic posted:Finally finished painting up a unit of Allarus Custodians, first of my Custodes units to get finished. Next on the table are 9 Custodian Guard. I don't like Custodes, and I really don't like Gold Custodes, but yours are excellent.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Killer_Bees! posted:I did up a bone theme up at the beginning of 8th, it’s pretty simple and you can batch paint like a manic. These are great. What's the recipe?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Endman posted:What's going on with the Fallen at the moment? GW overlooked them. The only way to take them is as a -1CP detachment, or as three squads together with Cypher. Which makes their placement in Codex Space Marines kind of  I posted about it right after the FAQ, and it hasn't come up since. Seems like there are not a lot of people using Fallen in their armies.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 11:48
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:That is the most You've got your chicken and egg reversed. At the time of the US revolution against "King George", the UK's economy was basically a libertarian wet dream. The US system was a copy paste job. An argument could be made that love of business ripping people off was behind a lot of the UK agitation against EU rules. See the outrage over English milk "chocolate" being relabeled. Requiring "chocolate" to contain a minimum amount of chocolate is an attack on UK sovereignty. 
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2018 14:52
|
|
thing I've heard today.
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Back in 3rd edition I had a competitive IW army. The best game I ever had was in the Baltimore GT against a DA opponent that was equally competitive. It was a lot of intense rolling, maneuvering, and countering that went all the way to the last turn. I still remember that game. As someone who played Darks Angels in second and (briefly) third, I'm confused by the idea of a competitive DA list in that edition. Maybe that was prior to their codex? The 3rd ed DA codex was a mini codex which made added a small number of rules to the Space Marine codex. For Dark Angels, the changes were either objectively bad or a mixed bag. The first special rule was no non-human allies. So no ratlings, ogryns. And also no assassins or inquisitors, even though those are human. Not a big deal, but a clear negative change from the vanilla codex. The second special rule was "intractable". This is what absolutely killed the army. Roll a one before moving any Dark Angel unit which has an enemy unit within 24". On a 1 the Dark Angel unit loses its ability to move and assault. They can shoot, but get no bonus to shooting. They get stubborn for that turn (they'll need it since they're probably about to get shot to hell). Stubborn made Dark Angles autopass morale checks (handy since they're standing still for absolutely no reason) but it comes at the expense of not being able to voluntarily fall back. That was a serious liability in 3rd edition. Stubborn was therefore a mixed bag. GW had different thoughts on the subject, apparently, since Death Wing Terminators cost 52 points each versus 42 for vanilla Space Marines, and the only difference between the two was the stubborn rule. Ravenwing had a 6+ invulnerable save. Bikers only. This also made the bikers cost 45 points instead of 35  In short, in 3rd Darks Angels were actually played as Space Marines painted green/white/black. Maybe that's what you played against?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
zeal posted:So, given all the above it's perfectly legal for the list I described to take the Angel's Wing on a Slamguinius captain, Kurov's Aquila on a Guard character, and the Veritas Vitae on another BA character, for net 2 CP Why on earth are you not making your warlord a Dark Angel with the Brilliant Strategist trait? Once you do that, statistically you're not actually spending CP when you use a 1 CP stratagem.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Artum posted:Theres also the option of having your warlord be the guard officer with grand strategist and kurovs aquila, then paying 3 for the wing and the veritas so every time you spend a command point you actually get two rolls for command points, meaning you can actually net gain command points by spending them, and less than half the time do you actually spend a command point. It seems obvious one army should only have access to one set of stratagems/wargear or else things break. But here we are.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Artum posted:I'm in the odd position where I point these out to people even though I abhor that sort of min maxing and never do it myself. Presumably you want to play with people more than once.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:A -1 to hit doubles your chances of killing yourself. Against BS4 it also increases your miss chance by 50%. I would argue that the only effect that's more powerful are modifiers to the wound roll due to how the wound chart is structured. Negative hit modifiers stand out as an oddity in what is otherwise an edition marked by simplified rules with gradients rather than hard prohibitions. The Strength/Toughness table was abolished in favour of the simplified (doubled +2, greater +1, equal 0, lesser -1, half -2). While every army has an intended way to wound high toughness units, any unit can do it in a pinch at the expense of decreased efficacy. With negative hit modifiers, the choices to counter them are limited. Get close? Succeed on a Deny the Witch roll? That's about it, because positive hit modifiers are rare, ignoring negative hit modifiers is even rarer. And -2 negative to hit isn't tough to achieve, in a game where lots of armies only hit on 4+ and some only hit on 5+. They're a bad, or at least improperly executed, design choice.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
whiteshark12 posted:
It was noted in the thread when it came out. Seems like an incorrect ruling but infantry based missile launchers needed some love. A related rules abuse question for the experts ITT: is there some reason Dark Angels, Blood Angels etc. can't now fire 4 Flakk Missiles in a single turn? I ask because: The Space Marine Codex has the original stratagem, which says it can be used "... just before a friendly ADEPTUS ASTRATES Infantry model attacks". Armies can use Space Marine Stratagems, "If your army is Battle-forged and includes any Space Marines Detachments". Presumably they forgot they're using keywords now and meant ADEPTUS ASTRATES but that's irrelevant for the purposes of the question. It is often said that the above stratagem was copied and pasted into the other marine codexs, but that's not actually the case. It's not even just the key words that have changed. For example, the Dark Angels stratagem says it can be used "...just before a DARK ANGELS INFANTRY model from your army attacks". So 1) Is there a rule reason why a DA, BA or SW (or GK I guess?) army cannot use a stratagem from the Space Marines codex, and then 2) use the imperfect clone found in their own codex? The closest I can find is this, page 131 of the SM codex: quote:Note that there are several Space Marine Chapters - such as the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights - that deviate significantly from the Codex in terms of organisation and fighting style. The rules and abilities for these Chapters (any any successors they may have) will be detailed in their own codexs. I don't see this as a prohibition. By the same token, I'm struggling with why a Dark Angels army can't take a unit from the SM codex, replace <CHAPTER> on the datasheets with "DARK ANGELS", and in the process create Dark Angels units with Grim Resolve that aren't supposed to exist. Space Wolves can't because they're an index army and the index took the time to expressly forbid that - but the codexes whoops over that detail AFAIK.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Look one paragraph up. I did notice the paragraph that makes absolutely clear that <Chapter> is that it be replaced with a Space Marine Chapter! But since Dark Angels etc. are also Space Marines (or ADEPTUS ASTARTES when GW remembers to use keywords), I think that supports this abuse being legal. The Designer's Commentary point is very helpful when the complete designer's commentary is considered: quote:Q: If I can choose a keyword for a Blood Angels can't be a <REGIMENT>. But since they are <ADEPTUS ASTARTES>, they can be a <CHAPTER>. The Designer's Commentary seems to confirm this exploit is legal. Any takers on double (quadruple) Flakk Missiles?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Read the paragraph below that. This is helpful. And after a ctrl+f inspired by this, I owe Corrode an apology. I thought he quoted a (very similar) paragraph from p. 131, but he was quoting 194. So quadruple Flakk missiles are out. Unless one devastator squad is designated as being from Ultramarines. Which can be done within a single detachment, since they would share the <ADEPTUS ASTRATES> keyword? That said, the rule on 194 expressly applies to that section. Datasheets are in an earlier section (starting at 131). So DA Centurions are legal?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Artum posted:BLOOD ANGELS isn't <CHAPTER> in any way no matter what you changed chapter to be, they were very clear on this for every instance of people asking this for every race. It may be clear to you that Blood Angels aren't a <CHAPTER> per 131 of the Space Marine Codex, but I'm not seeing it. So help me out. The Designer Commentary explains that the reason why Blood Angels can't be a <REGIMENT> is because they're <ADEPTUS ASTRATES>. Just like everything in the Space Marines Codex. If there's another source, great, help me out. Trying to figure out what the rules are as a new player is a marathon. Speaking of which: Artum posted:[b]This loophole falls at the first hurdle since copy-paste stratagems came up up the faq and things like the space marine and blood angels stratagems named flakk missile are considered the same stratagem and you can't use the same stratagem more than once in a phase. Which FAQ should I look to? I used ctrl+f for stratagem to check the BIG FAQ, the Designer's commentary, the Space Marine FAQ and the Codex: Dark Angels FAQ. Don't see it. Is there another place I ought to look? Edit: found it: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf Now I know that the Designer's Commentary FAQ (which clarifies the rules) is not the same as the FAQ which clarifies the rule book. It only took 4 people and 6 different FAQs. Thanks all. Except whoever decided to have different consolidated FAQs for the same set of rules. Maneck fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 29, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Immanentized posted:Anyone with experience using Tamiya extra thing plastic glue on gw models? I've had good experiences with it, but I only use it on fine parts where I'm afraid of seepage and am over the top paranoid with clamping. For most stuff, I use thick airplane glue.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 03:20
|
|