|
Post by maugrim on Apr 7, 2013 12:10:24 GMT
One of my friends came up with "Travel 40k" using Epic 40k figs. Basically instead of using inches, you use centimetres.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Apr 2, 2013 13:35:23 GMT
They didnt disembark but they would jump from the battlements to claim the objectives. There is a hatch to the battlements from each section of the fortress. Did they take the damage for falling? (Leaping Down, pg 95) I know it's only probably a 2 in 6 (assuming 3"-6" fall distance) chance of taking a wound, but it also ignores armour saves, so that's on average 1/3 of the squad being killed by jumping down. Just because there is a Hatch on the roof doesn't mean there is an exit/entrance at the base of the building to exit safely. If there is only 1 door to the building...
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Apr 1, 2013 22:26:19 GMT
How did they disembark from the Building if the door was up against the board edge?
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 28, 2013 18:18:11 GMT
Coredump has the best point.
But if you're playing on Planet Bowling Ball (little to no cover) then surviving to the end versus a focussed shooty army is hard to do. Make sure you have at least 25%+ terrain coverage on the table (plus whatever the Fortification covers). That will mitigate his shooting somewhat, especially if you have good sized LOS blocking terrain. The game was designed with that much terrain in mind - and becomes unbalanced when that much isn't used. And also, Terrain gets placed *after* his Fortification is put down, so you can block the LOS of the fortification with terrain perfectly legally.
Also, make sure both of you are handling fortfications properly - they aren't simple to add to the game. The rules on what happens with Glancing hits versus Penetrating Hits, what happens to the occupants when the building gets hit, the number and location of entry points, the location of fire points, what counts as Battlements and what doesn't, the cover save given to guys on the Battlements, and what the rules on firing the mounted weaponry is (Automatic Fire versus manning the guns). They aren't simple and easy.
As for destroying them - consider them to be immobile Land Raiders and continue appropriately. As their AV decreases due to Glancing and Penetrating hits, more and more of your army can affect them.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 21, 2013 12:25:27 GMT
The other effect, especially if other stores close up like MWG, will be to limit the availability of alternative game systems. Because if there isn't a FLGS - where are you going to pick up/play Infinity, Warmachine/Hordes, etc?
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 20, 2013 18:26:30 GMT
They are definately pushing the "buy whole kit" mentality, both in kit design and retail management styles. This is a definate shift away from the customization ability and conversions that has been the focus before.
Maybe they're taking a page from all these other miniature games that are coming out - have standard figs that only go together one way, pre-boxed in a specific design. And if you want a different design - you have to buy a different box. Although I don't play other systems, not having the customization options available is one of the reasons why, personally, I've shyed away from other games. I like being able to be able to customize my own models to what I want to do. Not be limited in design, shape and so forth.
If they do move towards more of a static box content/design philosophy, that will be a major shift - and a disliked one by the "old guard" but it may be considered "easier" and "cleaner" for new players to be able to get into the hobby... and if they're not concerned with keeping "old guard" around, then anything that lowers the bar for new income sources to start playing would seem like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 20, 2013 18:18:11 GMT
No, this is a change to all North American stores and distributors - so it will affect all FLGS and other Retailers of GW which get their stuff direct from GW at whatever discount they get it at. If they are purchasing it at retail, then they're not under this type of contract. If they aren't, they will be.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 17, 2013 19:32:39 GMT
Of course the prices will be going up during the yearly price hike. Duh....
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 17, 2013 14:14:04 GMT
Here's the agreement: docs.google.com/file/d/0B2zne5ewd4fBemhzRE5KM3BlUGs/edit?pli=1Basically - if you want to get stuff directly from GW or their distributors in North America (on discounted rates I assume), the big points would be: 1) A Brick-and-Mortar store presence, in a safe commercially zoned area, open 20h a week, nothing being sold that would be illegal/unsuitable for a consumer under 18 years old, plainly marked GW area seperate from all other product lines and with a minimum amount of stock ($500) 2) Can not have any kind of online sale of GW products (no shopping cart, nothing) 3) Must keep/sell all GW products in their original packaging (no breaking up of boxes) 4) Can not resell outside of their own respective country They explain these restrictions that they want to support the hobby through consumer's interactions at stores; need to protect their IP/Trademarks; want to ensure that any online sales are done through the best conditions/website (they literally say theirs is the best/only way); and want to discourage "Free-riding" by strictly internet based "stores" who don't have to invest in "supporting the hobby" through actual storefronts. All for the greater profit/glory of GW. Taken on the face, especially if you are an uninterested non-consumer shareholder - all of this seems very reasonable and proper. And that is who this new mandate is written for - it isn't written for us, the educated hobbyist. We know what a load of (please do not swear) it is, and how it will stifle collectors and modellers who don't have deep pockets... and in the end make for LESS sales, not more. They are effectively eliminating, or at least seriously damaging, a portion of their retailers in an attempt to save/maximize their own sales. I'm sure some lawyer and accountant somewhere got a bright idea that they did this, they could simply shift the sales of those boxes that are sold to these retailers and broken up into bits to themselves as full boxes. Not fully understanding that *many* of these bits sales simply would not occur if the purchaser had to buy the full box to get the bit. I can speak from experience in that I would not have at all a Grey Knight army (and the extra full boxes I bought for it) had I not been able to simply buy the arms/weapons/guns alone and use some of my old metal terminator and marine bodies instead of buying full kits. They are also banking on winning the Chapterhouse lawsuit - because once they have done this, if they win they will eliminate anybody else making "add-on" or "copied" versions of bits. But if they lose, they've just eliminated any hope of regaining any kind of bits sales for themselves. And really - one of the biggest things which is slipping by is the section D - You can no longer sell outside your own country. So us here in Canada won't be able to buy stuff from the US (and your cheaper prices). I'd insert the Forrest Gump quote here, but I'm sure you're already thinking it.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 7, 2013 19:23:19 GMT
The number of tournaments that allow FW models is in the clear minority. That alone should scream that FW!=40k. Tournaments are a horrible way of judging that. Primarily because of the ingrained, long-term anti-FW bias that is part of the player landscape and has been for the last 15 years. That alone makes Tournament organizers shy away from including FW. Note though, that Astronomicon has allowed IA stuff for its entire history and not had a problem. It has only been in the past 3-4 years that GW and FW have made a concerted effort to integrate FW rules and models into their mainstream line and game. Has it been perfect - no. But the effort being put forth by GW to do so is obvious. And that effort is bearing fruit as many of the major tournaments this year have been allowing FW models and units.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 7, 2013 19:17:25 GMT
And I would agree, if Forgeworld wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary company of Games Workshop. They even have the rules writers participating in creating the book - for example: Matt Ward for IA10, IA4/5/6 specifically thanks GW staff for advice.
In the starting portion of Imperial Armour Aeronautica: "This book is primarily focused on updating the rules for Forge World Flyers and associated vehicles and units for use in games of Warhammer 40,000 and Apocalypse..." and "Warhammer 40,000 unit: This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organization charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."
As far as the main rule book mentioning things: It never states that you can use White Dwarf for rules either. So goodbye Sisters too. Or FAQ/Erratas. If you really want to do down that path - there are a multitude of things which are not included in the main rule book. Probably because they felt they were obvious - like since Forge World is part of Games Workshop, the rules and models they were putting out would be considered Games Workshop rules and models. Or was the GW logo plastered on everything not a dead giveaway?
But hey - I know I'm not going to change your mind. Heck, I'm not even attempting to defend the unbalancedness of FW - I agree that some units are horrible (just like some Codex units). But what I am disappointed in are the individuals, like sooo many out there, who made the anti-FW decision long ago and will stubbornly refuse to change their minds, regardless of the weight of evidence, until Games Workshop somehow/somewhere puts it down in black and white. And probably not even then.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Mar 7, 2013 13:36:11 GMT
FW's still very much an opponent's permission sort of thing. Maybe back in the '90s it was permission only, but you won't find any such verbiage in the recent publications. Its actually the opposite now. Read any of the Imperial Armour books published in the last 10 years. Its even more plainly plut in the last 3-4 years. Games Workshop is publishing new rules for its 40k games via Forge World publications which are clearly marked as usable in regular games. If you don't like playing against certain units, that's *your* decision as a player. Stop trying to lay blame on the guy on the opposite side of the table. All he/she is doing is taking GW at its word and using a model/unit they said could be used in GW's game. There are just as many (if not more) unbalanced and wonky things in regular codexes as there are in Forgeworld ones. Just because somebody is taking playing Scythewing/Leafblower/Fateweaver/Draigowing - do you refuse to play them because they're exploiting a broken unit/rule? Technically, you can - but that's your choice. Blaming the unit or rule or even source isn't the answer. Learn to adapt to the new stuff in the game, just like when any other new codex appears with new and possibly broken units and rules. That's the reality of playing GW - there's always the newest and greatest toy on the block and its going to stay.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Feb 24, 2013 23:45:24 GMT
Actually - certain sales would have skyrocketed with the release of the Codex. People would buy lots of the new plastic Trygon models, regardless of that one mistaken rule, because they were the amazing replacement for Carnifexes (which got amazingly nerfed). Also, plastic gargoyles would've sold like hotcakes because they became instantly effective - both on their own and as a mobile cover field. New termagaunt sales would've gone up - both because of Tervigons, and because alot of the old Termagaunts would've had Devourers not Fleshborers so would need to be modified. Tyranid Primes/Warriors would've sold some more units as well. Once the Swarmlord and the actual model for Tyranofex and Tervigons came out they would've also sold well. And even Pyrovores... although they'd have been used for Biovores if anything.
When you look at GW Sales tactics, it is incredibly obvious with certain codexes that the "new" figs that got buffs in the codex are their targeted sell points, and older figs that got nerfed are not.
It is only when you get a completely new codex revamp (Dark Eldar, Grey Knights) that you get an across the board re-balance and rebuild of the army. Of course, even with GK you saw older models nerfed (Kazmarov) and new models (Coteaz, Dreadknight, Terminators) buffed. It was also obvious with the Necron codex - Lords, Warriors, Destroyers (kind-of), and Flayed Ones down (and Pariahs completely gone); Deathmarks, Immortals, Overlords, Flyers, Spiders, and Wraiths up. Chaos was a more mixed bag - some of their new units might look good on paper, but don't actually play out well on the board (currently). Dark Angels less so - their "new" units got some of the best rules.
Whenever a new codex appears - check out which models are coming out at the same time, or within a month or so. Those will be the ones which get the best buffs in the Codex.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Feb 23, 2013 17:59:36 GMT
The Trygon in Imperial Armour 4 had the same rule, except it made actually made sense since you designated a unit to arrive via the Tunnel. They (our Cruddy writer) removed that line from the rule when they transfered the unit from IA.
|
|
|
Post by maugrim on Feb 14, 2013 17:56:42 GMT
In 5thi believe there was a rule that if there was 2" or more of area of area terrain that you are in, between you and your target, it received the cover save. Did that carry over? That 'rule' was a common misunderstanding; but there really was no such rule in 5E. And there still isn't in 6th. It is back from either 3rd or 4th ed, where if the gun firing was more than 2" into the Area Terrain your enemy got a cover save from the terrain. Forests (BRB pg 102) always give 5+ cover to units within its boundries, even if you've adjusted the locations of the actual "trees" you are using in it.
|
|