|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 5, 2014 17:11:02 GMT
That's a very old rumor, but it could be true like the spore pod/hive node one of yore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mauler on Nov 5, 2014 17:16:31 GMT
Liking that the pods have made a comeback. I think the fact this single model improves on the entire codex just drives home how much they were lacking at the time of the codex drop. Glad GW gave them back, whether planned or a reaction to backlash from their loss, I don't care. I think almostmercury might be on to something. That seems to be a good combination of everything we've seen so far. As an MC I agree it has a 360 degree firing arc, and also the fact that it moves means it can rotate/move to fire all the guns. That said, the "can target multiple enemy units" is a weird thing to throw in on a model that has to shoot at the nearest enemy, so it could make sense if the writer had measuring distance from each gun. That would mean the width of the model itself could put different enemy units closer to different guns. That said, it is also just as likely GW messed it up forgetting it was an MC and not a vehicle. In the end, something to agree on with your opponent prior to playing. Not a big deal, and neither option are game breaking. I'm really liking the Mucolid spores as well. I wish you didn't sacrifice all three spores for a single hit against a flier...but because they are troops, you could potentially drop in 6 units of 3, for up to 6 S10 hits against fliers and field MCs in every other slot for some a pretty resilient army. I don't think mucolids are a solution to fliers on their own. However, in combination with the crones tentaclids and vector strike they become a decent mop up option. Tentaclids and Crone vector strike to strip HP down, and then if the flier moves closer, it can be threatened by the mucolid. I think one of their best advantages will be area denial and forcing fliers to choose between non optimal firing arcs or risking a big hit. They also look like the are large enough and stand tall enough to likely block LOS for gargs and shrikes. These new units are certainly not at the request of us customers. Consider that a codex is a 2-year project, ours was released 10ish months ago. Tooling for the new models is started one year down the line of the codex development (which is model-driven) and then takes another year to get from creating the tooling/moulds to shop shelves. Nope, these, the two MCs from last week and whatever we get next week ('Thropes most likely) will have been in the works (literally) for a year with the designs being done before then. The Instinctive Fire rule has this side-panel in the WD:  ...so it's clear how GW expect it to work without bulking out the unit's datasheet too much. The IF special rule itself replaces the MC firing rules so it's perfectly feasible to measure from the barrel like a vehicle if required. Personally I think it's a good thing; we get to spat shots at multiple units if they're there and in range, if there's only a single target in range then those poor sods get the whole lot regardless of the weapon's facing. I now have a reason to dust off my FW Mieotic Spores. They looks about the same height so ill just run me as the new spores. And they're cheaper! YES! These Mucolids are *EXACTLY* what Meiotic Spores are in the IA4 story in that they mob and take out a Thunderhawk, but there's no way in merry hell that a S5 Meiotic Spore which can't hit flyers could even scratch a Thunderhawk when reading the rules. I suspect that the FW IA4 units were changed specifically not to conflict with these new units which would've been well in production by then. |
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 5, 2014 17:21:54 GMT
...so it's clear how GW expect it to work without bulking out the unit's datasheet too much. The IF special rule itself replaces the MC firing rules so it's perfectly feasible to measure from the barrel like a vehicle if required. Personally I think it's a good thing; we get to spat shots at multiple units if they're there and in range, if there's only a single target in range then those poor sods get the whole lot regardless of the weapon's facing. No, not really. This is how the WD writers feel it works; they are not the rule designers. And again, no, you're wrong. You need a rule to state that you fire from the guns. By default, you shoot from the base. Vehicles have a rule modifying this. IF has no modifier. I don't really care which way is better for us. The best way is to go by the rules - good or bad. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm492 on Nov 5, 2014 17:25:28 GMT
So harsh nameless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mauler on Nov 5, 2014 17:30:45 GMT
...so it's clear how GW expect it to work without bulking out the unit's datasheet too much. The IF special rule itself replaces the MC firing rules so it's perfectly feasible to measure from the barrel like a vehicle if required. Personally I think it's a good thing; we get to spat shots at multiple units if they're there and in range, if there's only a single target in range then those poor sods get the whole lot regardless of the weapon's facing. No, not really. This is how the WD writers feel it works; they are not the rule designers. And again, no, you're wrong. You need a rule to state that you fire from the guns. By default, you shoot from the base. Vehicles have a rule modifying this. IF has no modifier. I don't really care which way is better for us. The best way is to go by the rules - good or bad. Given that 1) you/we don't know who wrote the article - which are frequently penned by the design team themselves - and 2) the person that did is in direct contact with the design team who most likely introduced them & the WD crew (if they're not the design studio themselves) to the new unit in the first place, I'd say that they're in a much better position to say how the special rule works than any of us. We'll see how wrong I am if it's FAQed but as far as I'm concerned that's a statement in an official publication regarding the unit & rule so that's how it works, given that it's on a page headed with "The Rules" in a nice big font. lol |
|
|
|
Post by slithernaut on Nov 5, 2014 17:47:14 GMT
I think they could use the same name, they did in our latest dex. And I hope the Doom comes back he was fun to play, sometimes feast, most of the time..not so much. Cheap enough however to just have fun with that and she was unique and had a strong fluff appeal. GW owns the name "Doom of Malantai" in terms of rules and fluff and what not. Chapter House owns the rights of the name of the physical Doom of Malantai Model. All Geedubs has to do is rename the Doom of Malantai, but they didn't, we clearly saw the Doom of Malantai mentioned in the Zoanthrope section of our 6e codex, like you said. Fingers crossed! |
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 5, 2014 17:49:56 GMT
Unfortunately, it's not a rule at all. If you want to play without following the rules, that's cool, I'd encourage that, it's a fun way to play.
The section that says "The Rules" are not the actual rules what-so-ever. They are an article on the rules. White Dwarf is notorious for getting the rules wrong. The actual rules are included on the data sheet. Stating things like this confuses people.
Using the IF rules on Datasheet and BRB, explain to me how you measure shooting from the gun? You really can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyseer on Nov 5, 2014 17:58:17 GMT
Unfortunately, it's not a rule at all. If you want to play without following the rules, that's cool, I'd encourage that, it's a fun way to play. The section that says "The Rules" are not the actual rules what-so-ever. They are an article on the rules. White Dwarf is notorious for getting the rules wrong. The actual rules are included on the data sheet. Stating things like this confuses people. Using the IF rules on Datasheet and BRB, explain to me how you measure shooting from the gun? You really can't. Beer and pretzels. Simple as that. For a tightly competitive game, strict adherence to written rules is an understandable must. We see this in strict consistent wording in games like Magic: the Gathering. For GW, who openly intends their game to be a casual beer and pretzels experience, an article in WD illustrating intended use is enough evidence. Just different frames of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 5, 2014 18:19:50 GMT
And what happens in one year when everyone forgets some sidebar in a white dwarf because they just have the rules in the box (or just the single datasheet)?
You have to go by what actual rules are. That's all you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyseer on Nov 5, 2014 18:31:34 GMT
And what happens in one year when everyone forgets some sidebar in a white dwarf because they just have the rules in the box (or just the single datasheet)? You have to go by what actual rules are. That's all you have. Incorrect. Firstly, if people start playing casually the WD intended way, then that's the way it'll be played casually. Forums like this will keep the questions and arguments alive for a long while. There will be plenty of exposure because plenty of people will bring it up as a "why is it stated this way?" question. Secondly, WD are digital now, and there are plenty of us who keep digital copies of our books on us when we game. Those never quite go out of print. In competitive environments? They'll likely have FAQ'ed it themselves to their preference. So it'll be irrelevant there. |
|
|
|
Post by almostmercury on Nov 5, 2014 18:36:21 GMT
There is no reason for the Instinctive fire rule to identify that the guns can fire at different targets if you aren't measuring distance from the weapons. Now, combine that with the 360 degree firing arc, and you just measure distance from the gun but the model doesn't block line of sight from itself. So, if a single unit is closest to all of the guns, all of the guns fire at the unit even if it's at 180 degrees. That's how I interpret it, as well. No, they're right. According to RAW, LOS is measured from base to base and MCs fire in 360 degree (or, my Carnifex can shoot you out of it's ass). It's true that the comment bar isn't an official FAQ. But I feel that it carries some weight of explanation, because the 'rulebook' for the models is the WD. Either way, they've written the rule in a way that fits vehicles, but then gave the model the Monstrous Creature type. Whether the intention is to fire in arcs or not is debatable (I'd like to maintain a 360 degree arc), but I'm certain that they gave it 5 guns that can all fire in different directions so that it actually shoots in various directions. But as it stands, this isn't how Instinctive Fire, determining LOS, and Monstrous Creature types go together. That being said, the Sporocyst is going to create problems for this interpretations, as it doesn't have a base. So, I guess you must measure from the gun? You certainly don't measure from the hull; it isn't a vehicle. |
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 5, 2014 18:42:36 GMT
And what happens in one year when everyone forgets some sidebar in a white dwarf because they just have the rules in the box (or just the single datasheet)? You have to go by what actual rules are. That's all you have. Incorrect. Firstly, if people start playing casually the WD intended way, then that's the way it'll be played casually. Forums like this will keep the questions and arguments alive for a long while. There will be plenty of exposure because plenty of people will bring it up as a "why is it stated this way?" question. Secondly, WD are digital now, and there are plenty of us who keep digital copies of our books on us when we game. Those never quite go out of print. In competitive environments? They'll likely have FAQ'ed it themselves to their preference. So it'll be irrelevant there. Most of my games are beer and pretzels. We go by what the rules say. The rules are clear. The sidebar is irrelevant. There really is no discussion. You are just playing by what you perceive is RIA. But I feel that it carries some weight of explanation, because the 'rulebook' for the models is the WD. You have to move away from the thinking of "rulebook". They created these datasheets to be a one stop shop of the rules you need to play the model. It fits better into the unbound way they'd like us to play. |
|
|
|
Post by almostmercury on Nov 5, 2014 18:50:31 GMT
That still doesn't help with the Sporocyst which is also an MC, with the Instinctive Fire rule, but without a base.
And unless the rules do, in fact, come in the box, then the WD is effectively the rulebook, not just an introduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyseer on Nov 5, 2014 18:53:53 GMT
Most of my games are beer and pretzels. We go by what the rules say. The rules are clear. The sidebar is irrelevant. There really is no discussion. You are just playing by what you perceive is RIA. With due respect, so are you. We're both going by printed words in an official GW publication. Simple as that. You can claim we're not playing by the rules all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that an official GW source has text that can be perceived as clarification to a confusing rule. You and yours can play it your way. Me and mine will play it the WD way. Everyone else will choose similarly between the two interpretations until it is FAQ'ed. |
|
|
|
Post by nameless on Nov 5, 2014 19:00:49 GMT
Most of my games are beer and pretzels. We go by what the rules say. The rules are clear. The sidebar is irrelevant. There really is no discussion. You are just playing by what you perceive is RIA. With due respect, so are you. We're both going by printed words in an official GW publication. Simple as that. You can claim we're not playing by the rules all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that an official GW source has text that can be perceived as clarification to a confusing rule. You and yours can play it your way. Me and mine will play it the WD way. Everyone else will choose similarly between the two interpretations until it is FAQ'ed. I don't think you're trying to be disrespectful. Here's my problem with that. There are lots of little fluffy "ruley" bits from that same text. The white dwarf often gets rules wrong. Also, the pod can move. Do you use firing arcs on infantry models? If someone told me that I'd have to shoot in the firing arc of an MC (which doesn't exist, mind you), I'd tell them that the devastator unit with missile launchers can't fire at my guys that dropped behind them without turning around. What about a holstered plasma pistol? I guess that can only shoot down? This is the problem with following fluffy rule bits. Not everyone is on the same page. |
|
