State of the Union (Heresy)

[ShadowCore67]

The one they posted in the Legion article looks way better, for me anyways (minus the bluetack? at his wrist that is ) and is definitely the scheme I think I'm going to aim for

 

This one looks a lot better but I don't get why they painted the shoulder pads the same way as the boltgun casing instead of like the rest of the armor Edited May 20, 2022 by ShadowCore67

[Corswain]

 

Lol. No, I've been around long enough to know better - thought they came from other, far more reputable sources and discussed here. I had a couple of people in mind but am hesitant to name someone in case I am wrong. I would hate to damage someones name/reputation with my poor memory.

 Sadly, the first place I remember them cropping up was Faiet/Natfka - past that, people just kept mentioning "the rumours" and treating them as if they'd come from a "reputable source", ala the big Warhammer 40,000 leak last year, the slew of Heresy stuff we had this year and so on. Wasn't great imo.

Well I am glad I didn't put words in people's mouths as I have clearly misremembered. Disappointing but thank you for the clarification.

Clearly the hype got the better of me.

[Asbestress]

I was just looking around for where the hell the Cogsmith went to from the GW site, then got this. Clicking on it leads to main GW page. All other primarchs are up like this. Preparations for June perhaps?

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

 

The one they posted in the Legion article looks way better, for me anyways (minus the bluetack? at his wrist that is ) and is definitely the scheme I think I'm going to aim for

 

This one looks a lot better but I don't get why they painted the shoulder pads the same way as the boltgun casing instead of like the rest of the armor

 

 

I think the shoulderpads and casing are supposed to both be a matte black unlike the blackened iron on the rest of the armour - all the FW art shows Iron Hands having black pauldrons so presumably that's where the choice of colour placement came from

[BitsHammer]

I think the thing I dislike the most with all these tutorials is the Black gun cases on eveyone. Sure it's practical, but if I wanted practical I'd go Flames of War. They really should have been using the gun cases to pop some color on these models, especially when painting black power armour. Edited May 20, 2022 by Fulkes

[Gorgoff]

I think the thing I dislike the most with all these tutorials is the Black gun cases on eveyone. Sure it's practical, but if I wanted practical I'd go Flames of War. They really should have been using the gun cases to pop some color on these models, especially when painting black power armour.

For me it is quite the opposite. I never liked colorful gun casings.

[Taliesin]

I believe the faeit rumours were SoH, IF, WE, BA, WS and EC. Also said they would be £9.50 iirc which would make sense for the size of the upgrade kits we saw yesterday. Even if it is pure luck that the rumours are kinda right here, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s those legions too as theme seems to be siege of terra.

 

It’s weird though - all the faeit rumours have been right-ish but not 100% right.

 

I think this is the post you mean:

 

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2021/11/rumors-massive-detailed-rumor-set-of.html

[Noserenda]

 

I believe the faeit rumours were SoH, IF, WE, BA, WS and EC. Also said they would be £9.50 iirc which would make sense for the size of the upgrade kits we saw yesterday. Even if it is pure luck that the rumours are kinda right here, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s those legions too as theme seems to be siege of terra.

 

It’s weird though - all the faeit rumours have been right-ish but not 100% right.

 

I think this is the post you mean:

 

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2021/11/rumors-massive-detailed-rumor-set-of.html

 

See reading that over its pretty much entirely wrong except the stuff which had already widely leaked. Its obviously someone just making educated guesses much as a bunch of us said at the time.

[wildweasel]

*shrugs* That’s how rumors work sometimes. If they were always accurate then they’d be news.

[Corswain]

Yeah, that looks like the rumours I was thinking of. It's a shame - I've decided to start some Blood Angels and I was hoping for helmets and shoulder pads at launch. Love the FW helmets, though and I think they'll look great on the MKVI so no real problem for me.

[Brofist]

I was saving this for when this rule was confirmed unchanged. Have we talked about this one yet:

 

 

RAW it creates some real interesting immunities, such as instant death. RAI is debatable, but that's the way its written...

[Balerion84]

Hm how does that create immunity to instant death? ID doesn't reduce a characteristic as far as I know?

[Brother Kraskor]

Is taking wounds not reducing the Wounds characteristic? Are they RAW unkillable...!

[Excessus]

That sounds like a stretch and something that would be FAQ:ed day 1 otherwise. Horus armour was already FAQ:ed in 1.0 to not work specifically on wounds ages ago.

[Cadmus Tyro]

I was saving this for when this rule was confirmed unchanged. Have we talked about this one yet:

RAW it creates some real interesting immunities, such as instant death. RAI is debatable, but that's the way its written...

Yes, that needs clarification....RAI would suggest wound characteristics can be removed as per the last paragraph. It does make me wonder who on earth has been play testing the rules, given that regular players are already picking holes in the rules writing?!

 

One thing I wondered about this, do the effects of augery scanners class as a reaction in the movement phase? Because that’s a significant disadvantage if so, especially given the need for augery scanners to protect against deep strike assault.

 

Cadmus

[Captain Idaho]

=][= I've just removed comments and posts that are totally off topic. If you want to discuss social media influencers, content creators etc and their effect on the hobby, then please go to Amicus area and start up a thread. =][=

[Arkhanist]

Is taking wounds not reducing the Wounds characteristic? Are they RAW unkillable...!

 

No. "Wounds (W) - This Characteristic represents how much damage a model can take before it dies."

 

Wounds from attacks are allocated from a Wound Pool, and a model can have allocated to it as many as it has Wounds characteristic before being removed as a casualty; the characteristic itself doesn't change when a model takes damage. If that was not the case, then any effects that restore Wounds, which usually are limited to restoring max up to the Wounds Characteristic, could never work as the Wounds characteristic would be lowered as damage is taken.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Arkhanist

[Arkhanist]

 

One thing I wondered about this, do the effects of augery scanners class as a reaction in the movement phase? Because that’s a significant disadvantage if so, especially given the need for augery scanners to protect against deep strike assault.

 

Cadmus

 

 

Yes, I think they do. Reserves come on at the start of the Controlling player's movement phase, before any other models are moved. The advanced reaction - interceptor can be triggered when an enemy unit enters play from reserves in LoS and range etc. Given this is happening in the opponents movement phase, I believe it would be blocked as a reaction if the Silver-Iron Will trait is taken. Similarly for using interceptor against deep strikers as it's a subtype of reserves, and similarly comes on at the start of the movement phase, and there can be a Interceptor Reaction against any one of the deep striking unit(s).

 

You don't need an augury scanner to perform an Interceptor reaction, but if you have one, it then doesn't expend a point from your Reaction Allotment for the movement phase. (though it still counts as that unit's reaction for the phase).

 

Augury Scanners would still block infiltration within 18" and ignore the 24" limit during Night Fighting though.

 

This is all assuming the leaked rules are not significantly altered, of course.

[Marshal Mittens]

Incase people didn't see News and Rumors post, gmg games has box review and rules review posted, good sprue shots in review.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Re wounds.

 

The wound characteristic is what gets modified when taking wounds.

 

First, we're told that when toughness, strength, or wounds characteristics get reduced to zero, models die.

 

Second, all the references to losing wounds are done without establishing a characteristic fascimile; so it must be talking about the pre-existing value that can reduced.

 

Third, Horus' armour needing to be FAQ'd due to a similar mechanic means that's how wounds are lost.

 

Fourth, the primarch subtype that also functions like Horus' old armour has a clear exception for wounds being the only characteristic not allowed to be modified.

 

Fifth, IWND triggers if you have less than your starting amount, not whatever way arkhanist implied.

 

 

So ya, silver iron will is broken on release. The unit might not get to intercept, but it is functionally immortal, as you choose where wound allocation starts (and id choose my character that can't lose wounds lol). Doesn't make me feel positive about the state of multiple shooting reactions in one turn though.

[Excessus]

He's never affected by a *special rule* that lowers wounds. The ID rule is in the basic rule section of the new book it seems.

[Arkhanist]

Re wounds.

 

The wound characteristic is what gets modified when taking wounds.

 

First, we're told that when toughness, strength, or wounds characteristics get reduced to zero, models die.

 

Second, all the references to losing wounds are done without establishing a characteristic fascimile; so it must be talking about the pre-existing value that can reduced.

 

Third, Horus' armour needing to be FAQ'd due to a similar mechanic means that's how wounds are lost.

 

Fourth, the primarch subtype that also functions like Horus' old armour has a clear exception for wounds being the only characteristic not allowed to be modified.

 

Fifth, IWND triggers if you have less than your starting amount, not whatever way arkhanist implied.

 

 

So ya, silver iron will is broken on release. The unit might not get to intercept, but it is functionally immortal, as you choose where wound allocation starts (and id choose my character that can't lose wounds lol). Doesn't make me feel positive about the state of multiple shooting reactions in one turn though.

 

By that logic you're arguing that when a character in 9th edition who has a 10 wounds characteristic takes any damage, Look Out Sir now starts working for him and he can hide next to a unit because his Wounds characteristic has been dropped to 9. You're saying Wounds taken and the Wounds Characteristic are the same thing. They are not defined that way, and doing so breaks a whole TON of rules.

 

That they FAQ'd something that people misinterpret does not mean the rule works as misinterpreted - it's correcting the misconception, not altering the rule, and there's a whole bunch of FAQs that work that way.

 

Obviously we're going to have to agree to differ here, but if you're someone who thinks that rule as written means the warlord and the unit he joins are immune to all damage, that's a clear indicator that we shouldn't bother trying to play a game together.

[SkimaskMohawk]

He's never affected by a *special rule* that lowers wounds. The ID rule is in the basic rule section of the new book it seems.

It's not. And if it were, where's the rule for assault results modifying leadership? In the same section of rules that tell you to take wounds off for failing saves.

 

By that logic you're arguing that when a character in 9th edition who has a 10 wounds characteristic takes any damage, Look Out Sir now starts working for him and he can hide next to a unit because his Wounds characteristic has been dropped to 9. You're saying Wounds taken and the Wounds Characteristic are the same thing. They are not defined that way, and doing so breaks a whole TON of rules.

 

 

 

That they FAQ'd something that people misinterpret does not mean the rule works as misinterpreted - it's correcting the misconception, not altering the rule, and there's a whole bunch of FAQs that work that way.

 

 

 

Obviously we're going to have to agree to differ here, but if you're someone who thinks that rule as written means the warlord and the unit he joins are immune to all damage, that's a clear indicator that we shouldn't bother trying to play a game together.

You're saying that I'd use an argument crafted from specific heresy rules examples and apply it without knowledge to 9th?

 

That's an incredibly dumb thing to try, and a terrible analogy to make to undermine my argument.

 

You think the faq for Horus was just to tell people they didn't understand what it said. But again, the new primarch subtype excludes wounds as characteristic that can't be modified, while locking in the rest. It seems like modifying the characteristic is something they want to allow, maybe because it's how models die. As per the rules.

Edited May 21, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[Arkhanist]

 

He's never affected by a *special rule* that lowers wounds. The ID rule is in the basic rule section of the new book it seems.

It's not. And if it were, where's the rule for assault results modifying leadership? In the same section of rules that tell you to take wounds off for failing saves.

 

By that logic you're arguing that when a character in 9th edition who has a 10 wounds characteristic takes any damage, Look Out Sir now starts working for him and he can hide next to a unit because his Wounds characteristic has been dropped to 9. You're saying Wounds taken and the Wounds Characteristic are the same thing. They are not defined that way, and doing so breaks a whole TON of rules.

 

 

 

That they FAQ'd something that people misinterpret does not mean the rule works as misinterpreted - it's correcting the misconception, not altering the rule, and there's a whole bunch of FAQs that work that way.

 

 

 

Obviously we're going to have to agree to differ here, but if you're someone who thinks that rule as written means the warlord and the unit he joins are immune to all damage, that's a clear indicator that we shouldn't bother trying to play a game together.

You're saying that I'd use an argument crafted from specific heresy rules examples and apply it without knowledge to 9th?

 

That's an incredibly dumb thing to try, and a terrible analogy to make to undermine my argument.

 

You think the faq for Horus was just to tell people they didn't understand what it said. But again, the new primarch subtype excludes wounds as characteristic that can't be modified, while locking in the rest. It seems like modifying the characteristic is something they want to allow, maybe because it's how models die. As per the rules.

 

 

You're the one citing a FAQ from a different rules edition to make an argument about a preview of a rule for a ruleset that hasn't even been released yet. And if you're going to resort to personal insults over a simple disagreement, I'm done.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

 

He's never affected by a *special rule* that lowers wounds. The ID rule is in the basic rule section of the new book it seems.

It's not. And if it were, where's the rule for assault results modifying leadership? In the same section of rules that tell you to take wounds off for failing saves.

 

By that logic you're arguing that when a character in 9th edition who has a 10 wounds characteristic takes any damage, Look Out Sir now starts working for him and he can hide next to a unit because his Wounds characteristic has been dropped to 9. You're saying Wounds taken and the Wounds Characteristic are the same thing. They are not defined that way, and doing so breaks a whole TON of rules.

 

 

 

That they FAQ'd something that people misinterpret does not mean the rule works as misinterpreted - it's correcting the misconception, not altering the rule, and there's a whole bunch of FAQs that work that way.

 

 

 

Obviously we're going to have to agree to differ here, but if you're someone who thinks that rule as written means the warlord and the unit he joins are immune to all damage, that's a clear indicator that we shouldn't bother trying to play a game together.

You're saying that I'd use an argument crafted from specific heresy rules examples and apply it without knowledge to 9th?

 

That's an incredibly dumb thing to try, and a terrible analogy to make to undermine my argument.

 

You think the faq for Horus was just to tell people they didn't understand what it said. But again, the new primarch subtype excludes wounds as characteristic that can't be modified, while locking in the rest. It seems like modifying the characteristic is something they want to allow, maybe because it's how models die. As per the rules.

You're the one citing a FAQ from a different rules edition to make an argument about a preview of a rule for a ruleset that hasn't even been released yet. And if you're going to resort to personal insults over a simple disagreement, I'm done.

I'm citing a faq for a rules set that's actually comparable to the game we're talking about. As in, 1st edition heresy and 2nd edition heresy share the same skeleton, while 9th doesn't, at all.

 

My citing of the Serpents Scales is to draw historical attention to characteristics and wounds, but I then supported it with how the new primarch subtype rule is written to reflect that landmark faq. I'm using an old rule as an analogy, and then I'm drawing a parallel to a new rule from 2nd edition.

 

The rules might not be released yet, but the leaks have been out forever and are vastly unchanged to their previewed stuff. It's safe to base discussions on the leaked rules.

 

Oh and guess what, I used the handy search function for 9th's rules to find this line:

 

Full rules remaining

 

A model has its full rules remaining if it has the same number of wounds remaining as it's wounds characteristic

9th does have an actual wound count that's separate from the characteristic. Hence, suffering wounds not interacting with look out sir.

 

So ya, I was right when I said it's dumb to try and take the deductive reasoning and apply it to another game system, without knowledge of that game systems mechanics. Because it's asking to be proven wrong.

 

Kind of like the it will not die argument you tried to make.