Halfpint100 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Was released today, check the last page. Lets us use any missing weapon options from the index, with index rules and points. POWER MAULS ARE BACK https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf CoffeeGrunt, Beams, Guardsman Bob and 1 other 4 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShredder Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Ah, excellent. I'm glad they clarified this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duz_ Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Me too! Should end my many arguments everywhere! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feral_80 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 GW's ability to awkwardly multiply FAQs, avoid to clarify important issues, and instead introduce unnecessary complications and inconsistencies, never ceases to amaze. noigrim and Imperator Deus 2 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris521 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 While helpful for now, it unfortunately still means that the writing is on the wall for non codex things in later editions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 While this is good news, it's a bit messy Going back and forth between books isn't ideal. Good for some units of course but for things like a power weapon there was no good reason for them not to be in the codex. I know we get a lot of mileage on jokes about GW's planning abilities, but I'd rather we didn't have such an open goal Vel'Cona 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 GW's ability to awkwardly multiply FAQs, avoid to clarify important issues, and instead introduce unnecessary complications and inconsistencies, never ceases to amaze. Exactly, why can't they put such rules changes into the appropriate place, the errata? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micahwc Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Yay Power Mauls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardsman Bob Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I’m a little shocked. The trend after 3rd was a habit of reducing Guard options. Getting the middle finger when the 8th Codex didn’t surprise me at all. This early Christmas gift however is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I for one am happy to put some power axes back on my characters. Since most of this is simplified into army creation tools anyway (such as Battlescribe), it's really a small issue long-term from a reference perspective. Yes, it shows poor foresight, but hey at least it's not 6th edition :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcolepticltd Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 GW's ability to awkwardly multiply FAQs, avoid to clarify important issues, and instead introduce unnecessary complications and inconsistencies, never ceases to amaze. Exactly, why can't they put such rules changes into the appropriate place, the errata? Because they still want to continue selling those indexes even after they've gotten around to all the codexes - That way even people buying in after the 'you'll only need these indexes' sham was up - will still be pressured into buying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noigrim Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 (edited) 7+ saves ! Bum! death guard nerf! (at leas in my store) Edited November 16, 2017 by noigrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardsman Bob Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I’m really expecting a quick release of 9th edition, once all the codices are released and every army is brought into line with 8th.Games Workshop releases a new edition every couple years reguardless. They are a publishing company that does miniatures to support a monopolistic business model. It’s been that way consistently for most of the 21st century. Considering they were never able to deal with the issues of AP5 verses horde armies in the span of 3rd to 7th edition I don’t think they are really listening. At best the leadership won’t listen to the Nerf-Croud and the more talented Devs will have sway over the Matt Ward wannabes. narcolepticltd 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noigrim Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Aaand that's why I don't buy books anymore, miniatures are a far safer inversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Withershadow Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I knew I should have given everyone power mauls. Akrim 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrim Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Just finished putting a Maul on the Commander haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeGrunt Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Wow this thread is surprisingly bitter. our_baz, OnboardG1 and Azekai 3 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir_Einarsson Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Wht about re-rolls made before modifiers? Is that changed? I was sure that re-rolls are after modifiers (-1 to hit due to heavy for ex.). And now is written that re-roll is before modifiers And then with final result you add modifiers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfpint100 Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 Wht about re-rolls made before modifiers? Is that changed? I was sure that re-rolls are after modifiers (-1 to hit due to heavy for ex.). And now is written that re-roll is before modifiers And then with final result you add modifiers... It has always been the case. re-rolls then modifiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir_Einarsson Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Ok, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfpint100 Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 Ok, my bad No worries, they like hiding things in obscure places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patchestheclown Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 I have a question about the FAQ (this may have been an older FAQ) when it talks about getting cover saves from indirect fire. From how I read it, GW is saying that if a unit is nearby a piece of terrain that has special rules to give it "aoe" cover then you would get cover saves from indirect fire. 1. Does this mean that if a unit is within 1" of sandbags that they would get a cover save from my arty? 2. Does that mean that a tank completely out of LOS behind a giant building does not get a cover save from my arty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShredder Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 I have a question about the FAQ (this may have been an older FAQ) when it talks about getting cover saves from indirect fire. From how I read it, GW is saying that if a unit is nearby a piece of terrain that has special rules to give it "aoe" cover then you would get cover saves from indirect fire. 1. Does this mean that if a unit is within 1" of sandbags that they would get a cover save from my arty? 2. Does that mean that a tank completely out of LOS behind a giant building does not get a cover save from my arty? I believe it's also referring to vehicles and such that need to not only be in cover but also be at least 50% obscured from the firer. It's saying that, if you cannot see the target *and* the target is in cover (or near cover in the case of Barricades) then it counts as being obscured (and so will benefit from the cover save). To answer your questions: 1) Yes. Even if they're in front of the sandbags. 2) Correct. patchestheclown 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Ruminahui Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Ok, my bad No worries, they like hiding things in obscure places Plus, the rule is pretty counter-intuitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardsman Bob Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Wow this thread is surprisingly bitter.To be perfectly fair GW made their own bed. Jacking up prices astronomically fast, poor game development, lawyers threatening meaningless lawsuits over iffy concepts of intellectual property, persecution of non-GW stores, instead of using the new Primarus rules to adjust the current Marines as a fundemtal fix they spun them off as a new line to make more money. This is a company that took over twenty years to figure out the concepts of 3rd Edition were a bad idea. That’s me being positive since it is entirely possible the changes in 8th were just a rule set change to justify more printing. Now that would be bitter. narcolepticltd 1 Back to top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now