Coteaz summoning Bloodletters

[Gentlemanloser]

Because house rules aren't official. There's an emepheral weight behind using rules you paid for, to using rules you made up yourself.

(On a more serious answer, official rules are the only common ground seperate groups of players have to share with each other. Unless we all start playing the same house rules.)

[boreas]

Well, a full army of DKs would be fun.... Once. Maybe twice. And then you look at your 7 DKs, carefully bought (around 550$ here, 55hours work at minimum wage), carefully painted (if you're goning to be beardy, you should at least have class!) and think: Okay, I'm tired of this, what will I do with all those. And how do I find new friends?

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

I think I'd also count the entity bound in Crowe's Sword as a captive entity. Figure the same 'omniscient morality license' that permits them to bathe in the blood of virgins for the greater good of humanity would also allow them to coercively conscript the demonic for the greater good of humanity.

Firstly, they didn't bathe in the blood of virgins. Sisters do not a take a vow of celibacy. Secondly, they didn't bathe, they used the blood to fight a daemonically infested nano-weapon. Thirdly, as I keep needing to point out, Knights would never summon daemons. 

 

Crowe's sword is with the Chapter because they can't put it back in the warp (it'll just find a new master), they can't leave it in a room somewhere (as people will try to break in to steal it), and they can't destroy it. So, the safest place to put it is with Crowe, because he's the most pure soul in the entire Chapter (and thus best able to resist the whispers of the sword), plus he's a moving target and best placed to defend against the mortals it lures to reclaim it. 

 

The grimoire of true names may have made it into the armoury as a way to weaken the demons, but like many sorcerous tools, contains within it the ability to manipulate as well as abjure.

You're technically correct, in two ways. Yes, the Grimoire is a list of true names, and invoking a true name is a pact of sorts with the daemon in question. However, Knights only invoke true names to weaken a daemon, not to capture or enslave it. It's described as having the same effect as a stun, momentarily throwing the daemon off guard as it responds to the source of its existence (ie the true name its creator gave it when it was created). And yeah, if the Grimoire ever fell into the wrong hands, it would enable the user to summon and bind daemons. 

 

 

Requiring players to self-select into exclusive Groupthink enclaves is not a feature. It's a bug. 

 

I agree. I hate comp, but at bare minimum, most expansions to the game need to be banned, as well as Unbound. Unbound is only fun for friendly games, it makes zero sense for a competitive match. Same as Apoc. I think that's what tourney organisers will end up doing, along with banning Formations (which are purely about selling models and have no positive impact on the game). 

 

 

Basically, GW see Unbound lists as the basis for every 40k game, and included it so players wouldn't have to worry about whether it was 'allowed' or not.

 

No one cares what GW think. The player base will have to figure it out on their own, just like we did with Escalation and Stronghold. 

 

 

So sure, you can refuse to play an Unbound list, but do you want to become 'that guy'?

 

Refusing to play Unbound is like refusing to play Apoc. It doesn't make you 'that guy', it simply means you don't wanna play 'who has a bigger wallet'. Anyone can tell you, whenever a tourney hosts an Apoc event, the only winners are the guys who bring stuff like Reavers. It's boring and I think most players are going to ignore Unbound entirely for pick up or competitive matches. For friendlies, its good for hilarity. 

 

[Gentlemanloser]

Don't get me wrong RD, I think 'unbound' is one of, if not the largest rules mistakes GW have ever made.

 

I'm just highlighting that they think this rule is the basis, the backbone, of 40k now.

 

If the majority of the playerbase is going to dismiss the backbone of the game, that speaks volume about the designers.  Doesn't it.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

Don't get me wrong RD, I think 'unbound' is one of, if not the largest rules mistakes GW have ever made.

 

I'm just highlighting that they think this rule is the basis, the backbone, of 40k now.

 

If the majority of the playerbase is going to dismiss the backbone of the game, that speaks volume about the designers.  Doesn't it.

Agreed. I'm depressed we have to resort to ignoring what could've been interesting variants of 40k, simply because they don't work in a competitive setting. I wish GW would hire some actual game designers, instead of just it being amateur hour wheel of fortune every time a new edition comes out. We stuck gold with 4th (still one of the most enduring editions of 40k), 5th made vehicles viable and was overall a solid edition of the game (remember, codicies unbalanced 5th, not the core rules). 6th was mediocre, I think in time we would've adjusted. 

 

Now though...all bets are off. 

[boreas]

I agree with GL. Refusing an Apocalypse game was refusing to play a specific variant of WH40k. Refusing an unbound list is refusing to play WH40k.

[DinoDoc]

I agree with GL. Refusing an Apocalypse game was refusing to play a specific variant of WH40k. Refusing an unbound list is refusing to play WH40k.

Refusing to play an unbound list is exactly the same as refusing to play an Apocalypse game. The reasons for refusing apply to both and until GW puts a gun to my head and forces me to play Apocalypse, I will proudly be "that guy."

[Gentlemanloser]

The point is, you might just as well start refusing to face guys that use a single Riptide, or Helldrake.

 

Or if Hammernators cause you problems, just refuse to play versus them.  Or Land Raiders.

 

If you're going to start refusing core rules, then there's no real distinction or limit to what you can or will refuse to play.

[DinoDoc]

The point is, you might just as well start refusing to face guys that use a single Riptide, or Helldrake.

 

Or if Hammernators cause you problems, just refuse to play versus them.  Or Land Raiders.

 

If you're going to start refusing core rules, then there's no real distinction or limit to what you can or will refuse to play.

IMO: There's a difference between refusing Apocalypse games and picking random units out of codices to ban from your sight. At least for me.

 

As for the limit on what I will refuse to play, unbound lists and right now anything with a D-weapon (I haven't seen the new rules for them yet).

[Gentlemanloser]

It used to be clearer.  You would say not to expansions, but the core game was all alright.  Everyone had to be bound by it.  Now, you're saying no to a core rule.

 

(A closer exmaple would be saying no to dual FoC.  A core rule, that was mostly ignored.)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah dual FOC never really mattered, because by the time you filled out Elite or Heavy, you'd run out of points anyway. 

 

I don't see any alternative with regards to Unbound. It's massively unbalanced by design. It simply cannot work outside of a game with friends. 

[Gentlemanloser]

There is a massive difference in broken-ness between (lowest to highest);

 

1) The ability to slightly cheese your FoC by allying with yourself.

2) Double the FoC with Dual FoC.

3) Ignore the FoC entirely and load up on cheap ICs, MCs or Solodins.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

3) Ignore the FoC entirely and load up on cheap ICs, MCs or Solodins.

 

I'm actually keen to try out a Solodin army. A handful of incredible warriors face down entire armies. Of course, in reality, they'll just fight 7 Daemon Prince or whatever, but it could be good if both sides agree to not go full retard. 

[Gentlemanloser]

Just go full Lone Wolves. (Counts-as Paladin)

Then win by default when your opponent kills them all!

Hmmm. If a Lone Wolf is your Warlord, does your opponent get a point for killing your Warlord when he dies?

[jeffersonian000]

Just go full Lone Wolves. (Counts-as Paladin)

Then win by default when your opponent kills them all!

Hmmm. If a Lone Wolf is your Warlord, does your opponent get a point for killing your Warlord when he dies?

OMG! I am so doing that! A pack of Lone Wolves, its the perfect contradiction to compliment being Unbound. Double Plus Bonus Round to GML!

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

:D

 

Now do you run them naked to up the ease of killing them?

 

Or do you tool them up in TDA?  Because for their cost, their stat line and abilities rock!

 

Same cost as a Paladin, you get TDA, Same Stats, Wolf Claw and Melta Bomb.  With Counter-Attack, Fearless, Beastslayer (reroll to hit versus Walkers, MCs, T5), Eternal Warrior and FnP.

 

Could always plump for a little more and give them all a Storm Shield instead of the Wolf Claw...

[Valerian]

Just go full Lone Wolves. (Counts-as Paladin)

Then win by default when your opponent kills them all!

How do you figure that it's an auto-win?

[Quozzo]

Just go full Lone Wolves. (Counts-as Paladin)

Then win by default when your opponent kills them all!

How do you figure that it's an auto-win?

you gain a VP everytime one dies. But if any are alive at the end of the game they give your opponent a VP each.

[Valerian]

Just go full Lone Wolves. (Counts-as Paladin)

Then win by default when your opponent kills them all!

How do you figure that it's an auto-win?

you gain a VP everytime one dies. But if any are alive at the end of the game they give your opponent a VP each.

That's not how they currently work. The Lone Wolves "A Glorious Death" special rule was amended years ago.

"Page 29 – Lone Wolves, A Glorious Death.

Replace the last two sentences with: “Furthermore, in missions that award Victory Points for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed, a Lone Wolf does not concede a Victory Point if he dies in battle. Instead, to represent his failure to meet a spectacular end, a Lone Wolf awards a Victory Point in such a mission if he survives until the end of the game!”

So, the only Eternal War mission that the rule even applies in is Purge the Alien, and even then it doesn't help you gain VPs, and you'd need to get more killed than stay alive to have a chance of winning.

V

[DinoDoc]

Just go full Lone Wolves. (Counts-as Paladin)

Then win by default when your opponent kills them all!

How do you figure that it's an auto-win?

It doesn't. If the enemy kills them all, the lone wolf player looses regardless of anything else that might happen rules wise.

[Gentlemanloser]

Pfft.  Technicalities! :P

[Valerian]

Apart from Grey knights anyone can use Malefic demonology, but unless they're a daemon, they get perils on any double.

[Gentlemanloser]

So GK have been locked out of Daemonolgy?  Was that in a recent WD scan?

 

Can an Inquisitor from Codex: Inquisition have access to Daemonolgy?

 

Can we represent 'Radical' Inquisitors at all?

[DinoDoc]

Anytime you use Daemonhosts and/or Jokaero, you are representing Radical inquisitors.

[Valerian]

So GK have been locked out of Daemonolgy? Was that in a recent WD scan?

 

Can an Inquisitor from Codex: Inquisition have access to Daemonolgy?

 

Can we represent 'Radical' Inquisitors at all?

Grey Knights get Sanctic only; everybody else can get Maleafic, but not Knights.

 

Actual rule book, not WD.

 

Presume Inquisitors get Maleafic, since they aren't Grey Knights.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/resources//blogs/2014/05/19/2xlTR.jpg