Jump to content

Big FAQ has dropped.


Joe

Recommended Posts

It's a frustrating choice to be sure. We have it well confirmes at this point that Cruddace loves his IG, but the state of Marines is pretty sad in comparison to most armies.

 

Heck, I'm building Slaanesh daemons and they get better vehicle rules than Matines do and they're wimpy little chariots.

It's a frustrating choice to be sure. We have it well confirmes at this point that Cruddace loves his IG, but the state of Marines is pretty sad in comparison to most armies.

 

Heck, I'm building Slaanesh daemons and they get better vehicle rules than Matines do and they're wimpy little chariots.

 

His first army was Dark Angels and we're still sitting here in bottom tier! 

 

It's a frustrating choice to be sure. We have it well confirmes at this point that Cruddace loves his IG, but the state of Marines is pretty sad in comparison to most armies.

 

Heck, I'm building Slaanesh daemons and they get better vehicle rules than Matines do and they're wimpy little chariots.

 

His first army was Dark Angels and we're still sitting here in bottom tier! 

 

You may be his first army, but you weren't his first love.

Some posts hidden for poor content/flaming.

ERJAK - You've been on the B&C long enough to know posts like that are not appreciated nor will they be tolerated.

Keep it productive and lose the flaming/baiting or you'll see yourself with a warning.  

RE Marines not getting chapter tactics... I dont get it at all, but it appears that the Rhino & Land Raider/speeder STC vehicles are exempt from them (as Sisters didnt get them either) So it does appear to be a design concept.

 

Re Terrain:  The need to go back a couple of editions to the mix of area & TLOS terrain, for the sake of half a page of extra rules covering area terrain they have made the game harder for CC units and the 2nd player.

 

Re Grey Knights, I feel that the FAQ isnt the place to fix them... but rather a WD index with a downloadedable changes document... ie if you have the codex then you download the pdf for free OR you can buy the WD and get the rules and data sheets etc.  Reason why I wouldnt want them in CA is they would then feel the need to put the background in and take up too much space in the CA for other stuff.... like new terrrain rules :p

 

Overall this FAQ is a step in the right direction and I hope they keep going that way.

RE Marines not getting chapter tactics... I dont get it at all, but it appears that the Rhino & Land Raider/speeder STC vehicles are exempt from them (as Sisters didnt get them either) So it does appear to be a design concept.

 

 

It's not just Rhino and Landraider STC. It's any vehicle for those armies. GW just doesn't want subfaction rules on vehicles for factions with power armour it seems.

 

 

Centurions with hurricane bolters still bolter discipline, so they aren't really tied together.

 

Also Hurricane bolters are already at a premium thanks to Stormraven spam early in the edition. 10pts for 6pts worth of storm bolters.

I'm just saying if they feel the problem was a more durable platform having Hurrican Bolters that were better than their current points then a points bump would have made more sense than taking away options from an army that already struggles.

It is entirely possible that GW needs to make balancing decisions not just based on the state of the game today, but also based on future changes we don't yet know about.

I've got to say, GW could radically shift everything if they changed to Line of Sight blocking terrain rules. It would rebalance so much.

 

In most of my games I use the first floor blocks line of site rule from ITC and it helps so much! 

Just port Bolt Action terrain over.

Is 50% of the target (either unit or single model, works the same) obscured from at least 50% of the firing unit?

They have cover.

2" of "area terrain" blocks LoS, so a single strand of trees or hedgerow is cover, a forest blocks LOS.

 

Units that can fire without LoS do so at -1 to hit unless they have a spotter.

 

Make soft cover -1 to hit (non-stacking), hard cover -1 to hit, +1 to save.

Because hiding behind a fortified trench shouldn't give you the same protection hiding behind a hedgerow does.

 

(Bolt action does stacking negatives to hit, but the system doesn't use armor saves as a thing. Ww2 flak wasn't exactly great)

 

 

I've got to say, GW could radically shift everything if they changed to Line of Sight blocking terrain rules. It would rebalance so much.

In most of my games I use the first floor blocks line of site rule from ITC and it helps so much!

Things I ran into issues with - definition of first floor. You see, in North America, that's the term used for the ground floor.

 

Not so true across the pond. The confusion was hilarious. Friendly guy couldn't understand why the second story provided much more protection than the ground floor.

I've got to say, GW could radically shift everything if they changed to Line of Sight blocking terrain rules. It would rebalance so much.

In most of my games I use the first floor blocks line of site rule from ITC and it helps so much!
Things I ran into issues with - definition of first floor. You see, in North America, that's the term used for the ground floor.

 

Not so true across the pond. The confusion was hilarious. Friendly guy couldn't understand why the second story provided much more protection than the ground floor.

Eyup, the First Floor =/= Ground Floor with British English leads to a lot of confusion. And in a game like 40k which people love to do the RaW vs RaI, you know it'd be ridiculous.

 

I mean, you know that point of confusion is a common one when a video game made by a British company had to change a quest description to address this because a large majority of it's playerbase wasn't British (Runescape for those wondering).

 

 

 

I've got to say, GW could radically shift everything if they changed to Line of Sight blocking terrain rules. It would rebalance so much.

In most of my games I use the first floor blocks line of site rule from ITC and it helps so much!
Things I ran into issues with - definition of first floor. You see, in North America, that's the term used for the ground floor.

 

Not so true across the pond. The confusion was hilarious. Friendly guy couldn't understand why the second story provided much more protection than the ground floor.

Eyup, the First Floor =/= Ground Floor with British English leads to a lot of confusion. And in a game like 40k which people love to do the RaW vs RaI, you know it'd be ridiculous.

 

I mean, you know that point of confusion is a common one when a video game made by a British company had to change a quest description to address this because a large majority of it's playerbase wasn't British (Runescape for those wondering).

There really isn't any RAW argument - for one, it's ITC which is basically a collection of house rules. In addition, the ITC missions clearly define it as the bottom or ground floor to avoid this confusion. We have a tendency to use local colloquialisms in everyday speech rather than the rules verbatim, though, so its the friendly games with new players where these things happen I think. If you do find someone trying to put the screws to you on this, just take a peek at the ITC general guidelines.

 

Ohhhhhhhh. OK, that makes that rule make *much* more sense.

Really now? :biggrin.:

 

 

Really! I mostly just paint these days, and certainly don't do tournaments. I've not read the ITC rules themselves, only heard them in passing referred to here, always as the 1st floor. I do know about the american usage to describe the ground floor as the first floor, but it hadn't 'clicked'. I just assumed that people were like using the rule to pretend buildings were massively higher, so that a single story building was standing in for a skyscraper, thus blocking LoS for everything behind it.

 

Counting the *ground floor* as blocking LoS to protect infantry makes a lot more sense, obviously, I just never put it together.

 

Presumably the British usage of dice (a dice, two dice) in the official rules (I believe Americans use die for the singular) has caused similar confusion across the pond at some point.

Presumably the British usage of dice (a dice, two dice) in the official rules (I believe Americans use die for the singular) has caused similar confusion across the pond at some point.

Pretty sure thats not a regional thing... is it? Id thought singular dice was just a recent thing thats been spreading all over? Or maybe I just dont read enough american rulebooks....

I guess that's an advantage of not being native british nor american. We've been learning british english in school and since I'm on the internet quite a bit I also see a whole lot american english so it all became a wash for me and now I'm just assuming both are right ... in cases like the 1st floor question I can just fall back on common sense instead of assuming one or the other based on the language I've grown up with. :P

Wouldn’t this only be an issue if you have players from the UK and US playing against each other, which is an infinitesimally small number of games outside of big international events.

Not really an issue so much as a funny interaction I had once. Probably should have been clearer when I was mentioning it, sorry!

 

As far as the ground floor of ruins blocking line of sight, I've been helping the FLGS model up the GW terrain to have boarded up windows and barricaded doorways to take this ITC house rule and make it as official as we can.

 

As far as the ground floor of ruins blocking line of sight, I've been helping the FLGS model up the GW terrain to have boarded up windows and barricaded doorways to take this ITC house rule and make it as official as we can.

 

 

Yeah I've been doing the same with our clubs terrain.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.