POTMS will do something different! -GW

[Medjugorje]

no, they said exactly this. I remember. But as I said before, LR  will have that new rule after new Codex release. Because I dont think there will be a new Space Marine Codex, I expect a new Blood Angels Codex and therefore a new sheet for all vehicles with that rule.

[MegaVolt87]

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes? 

[emperorpants]

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes?

 

That would be awesome.

[War Angel]

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes?

 

 

NO! Those were taken away for a reason! Everyone kept leaving the launchers set to auto, and the chapter serf would go in after the battle to clean up THE MESS LEFT BEHIND.... damned candy bars everywhere..... walks out and BAM! Assault ramp goes off, frag launchers going into the hanger bay..... the serf is dead from shock or fear.... it’s too much man.... they had to be taken away to teach you a lesson.

[emperorpants]

 

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes?

NO! Those were taken away for a reason! Everyone kept leaving the launchers set to auto, and the chapter serf would go in after the battle to clean up THE MESS LEFT BEHIND.... damned candy bars everywhere..... walks out and BAM! Assault ramp goes off, frag launchers going into the hanger bay..... the serf is dead from shock or fear.... it’s too much man.... they had to be taken away to teach you a lesson.

Lol.

[MegaVolt87]

 

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes?

 

NO! Those were taken away for a reason! Everyone kept leaving the launchers set to auto, and the chapter serf would go in after the battle to clean up THE MESS LEFT BEHIND.... damned candy bars everywhere..... walks out and BAM! Assault ramp goes off, frag launchers going into the hanger bay..... the serf is dead from shock or fear.... it’s too much man.... they had to be taken away to teach you a lesson.

 

 

Or maybe the machine spirit was setting them off when too many serfs were showing off by taking too many date nights in the LR troop bays. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes?

NO! Those were taken away for a reason! Everyone kept leaving the launchers set to auto, and the chapter serf would go in after the battle to clean up THE MESS LEFT BEHIND.... damned candy bars everywhere..... walks out and BAM! Assault ramp goes off, frag launchers going into the hanger bay..... the serf is dead from shock or fear.... it’s too much man.... they had to be taken away to teach you a lesson.

Somebody needs to watch that techmarine more closely.

[Dracos]

I wonder if this is going to show up in TSOALR. Kren and Frep, the Laurel and Hardy of 40k. Love em.

[Lemondish]

One thing that has been immensely satisfying over the past several weeks has been watching people eat crow every single time they make an assertion about some perceived slight by GW, imagined or otherwise.

 

I have it on good authority that it's only a matter of time before you'll also need to prepare that dinner plate.

[Daynga-Zone]

Just for the heck of it I went through all the Goonhammer articles where they transcribed the 9th edition twitch chats. I remember very specifically a transcript stating that Stu Black said PoTMS would “do something different” but can’t find it. Maybe it was on Reddit. Either way the current ability is redundant so deleting it makes sense. I expect it will still do something different in the future, but if not I’m not sure it’s fair to hold them to every little thing they mention in a livestream. Heck, warcom gets stuff blatantly wrong in print all the time. There’s a lot of rules and complicated interactions that even seasoned veteran players can interpret incorrectly or misremember, I wouldn’t call them liars for getting something wrong on the spot. It could’ve been planned at one point for it to do something else and that idea was scrapped, changed or will just be implemented at a later date.

 

Edit: SP

Edited July 14, 2020 by Daynga-Zone

[SydonianDragoon404]

Anyone want to start guessing at what POTMS will be? My guess is ignoring penalties to hit. 

[War Angel]

I wonder if this is going to show up in TSOALR. Kren and Frep, the Laurel and Hardy of 40k. Love em.

My thing? That would be awesome. If he sees this he has my permission (don’t know if he needs it or not but go for it)

[Medjugorje]

 

Can we get assault ramps back as well when POTMS in the 9th ed codexes?

 

NO! Those were taken away for a reason! Everyone kept leaving the launchers set to auto, and the chapter serf would go in after the battle to clean up THE MESS LEFT BEHIND.... damned candy bars everywhere..... walks out and BAM! Assault ramp goes off, frag launchers going into the hanger bay..... the serf is dead from shock or fear.... it’s too much man.... they had to be taken away to teach you a lesson.

 

haha^^ -  but to be honest, the assault ramp could be just disembarking 6" instead of 3". Would be very nice

[Excessus]

*Let's stay clear of the assault ramp thing, it has nothing to do with potms as was this topics original purpose. Also, remember to post constructively. *

 

 

 

My take on it, since chaos LRs should get the same rule whatever it will be, is that we haven't seen everything yet. The quote (if indeed true) doesn't even state a specific time where it would actually do something different either. It might be in the next CA for all we know if it isn't in this. Theoretically it should have something to do witth the shooting though, since it has done that historically speaking, maybe it'll become a strategem?

[emperorpants]

*Let's stay clear of the assault ramp thing, it has nothing to do with potms as was this topics original purpose. Also, remember to post constructively. *

 

 

 

My take on it, since chaos LRs should get the same rule whatever it will be, is that we haven't seen everything yet. The quote (if indeed true) doesn't even state a specific time where it would actually do something different either. It might be in the next CA for all we know if it isn't in this. Theoretically it should have something to do witth the shooting though, since it has done that historically speaking, maybe it'll become a strategem?

If it does come back, my guess would be it will allow a unit in combat to shoot a unit outside of combat. Or perhaps it will allow units to shoot into combat without the -1 to hit. If they are very generous it could be a invuln or feel no pain, but those are doubtful, as it will probably be shooting related as you say. Maybe they will ignore negative shooting modifiers?

[Brother Kraskor]

I saw a suggestion somewhere that it would make the vehicle count as having double the number of wounds remaining for the purposes of the damage chart. Plausible!

[emperorpants]

I saw a suggestion somewhere that it would make the vehicle count as having double the number of wounds remaining for the purposes of the damage chart. Plausible!

Yeah, I've seen this be suggested too. It would be a big help especially for executioners, as their points hike makes them a pretty big investment. Especially since they lack an invuln.

[Lemondish]

I wouldn't be surprised if it returns as a stratagem.

[Brother Kraskor]

I wouldn't be surprised if it returns as a stratagem.

 

Maybe to allow a vehicle to shoot twice?

[chapter master 454]

So I think if they are going to change the rule, it would be a very bad place to put it in a FAQ/Errata. Not everyone has direct access to the FAQ at all times and as other fraters have made clear that having to haul FAQs around is tedious when you need it everytime to prove what the rule does (instead of a simple it does/doesn't). It is very possibly that Power of the Machine Spirit will act differently in the next codex from what it is now. For now, it is easier to just delete the current version and move forward with 9th and while some would like to sneak peek the new version with this, it isn't something GW would want to put forward yet. Got to keep the hype-train running somehow, just notice how indomintus is being handled and was even designed. It could be possible that if we were to play with the new version of it, it may break units that use it or cause balance issues.

 

I can understand it feels like betrayal but ultimately you can't just ad-hoc through rules or replacement rules into FAQs without due reason or need. It is possible that the lack of replacer may point towards a release close at hand for marines shortly after 9th drops.

[Kallas]

I can understand it feels like betrayal but ultimately you can't just ad-hoc through rules or replacement rules into FAQs without due reason or need.

 

Except the dozens of rules changes, modifications and clarifications that they put into the FAQs currently?

 

This argument holds no water whatsoever.

[emperorpants]

So I think if they are going to change the rule, it would be a very bad place to put it in a FAQ/Errata. Not everyone has direct access to the FAQ at all times and as other fraters have made clear that having to haul FAQs around is tedious when you need it everytime to prove what the rule does (instead of a simple it does/doesn't). It is very possibly that Power of the Machine Spirit will act differently in the next codex from what it is now. For now, it is easier to just delete the current version and move forward with 9th and while some would like to sneak peek the new version with this, it isn't something GW would want to put forward yet. Got to keep the hype-train running somehow, just notice how indomintus is being handled and was even designed. It could be possible that if we were to play with the new version of it, it may break units that use it or cause balance issues.

 

I can understand it feels like betrayal but ultimately you can't just ad-hoc through rules or replacement rules into FAQs without due reason or need. It is possible that the lack of replacer may point towards a release close at hand for marines shortly after 9th drops.

Good post. I don't entirely agree, I feel that it would have been an easy change and It would have made the most sense to do it in a faq as they changed other rules that way. Still, I appreciate the discussion. Edited July 17, 2020 by emperorpants

[SkimaskMohawk]

At this point, I think making arguments about carrying faqs or not having access to them is approaching non validity.

 

You download the faq onto your phone. You bring the phone with you. You have access to the faq.

 

Smartphone technology is pretty ubiquitous at this stage, to the point where they just published an app where one of its "premium features" is its rules repository. There's clearly an expectation of having a smart phone with data to reference rules that can be changed.

 

Also erratas have been a thing forever, where they explicitly change a rule to make it function a certain way. Look through the marine and supplement faqs to see how many things were changed.

Edited July 17, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

People will complain about having to bring a charger .

[Lemondish]

 

 

I can understand it feels like betrayal but ultimately you can't just ad-hoc through rules or replacement rules into FAQs without due reason or need.

Except the dozens of rules changes, modifications and clarifications that they put into the FAQs currently?

 

This argument holds no water whatsoever.

I kind of think it does. They're usually pretty reserved with their changes in FAQs. This is a pretty reserved approach as well.

 

But as usual the insane backslash is ridiculous and silly.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Lemondish