jollyork

Great find! I forgot that many times rules are found in the reference and not in the rules... lol.

There are no speed bands for Walkers, thus my question. Walkers walk 6" just like Infantry. SH Walkers walk 12", with no additional notes/rules about effects. (at least, that's how I interpret movement for Walkers) So it would appear by RAW, passengers are unaffected by a Walker's movement and fire as if stationary. ROI is... anyone's guess?

Faaaaarrrrrrrrrgo! I have to cancel on you - client shindig just got served on my plate. Really, really sorry about this. I owe you a beer. And I even spent all last night gluing like a madman to get that Stompa ready - with magnets and everything!!

I remember that show, and even weirder, I remember posting on OF trying to figure out what that show was. And weirdest of all, someone knew the answer. In other words, OF = creepier than Google.

Yeah, send me a list. I have very little Marine or IG stuff and am interested in fleshing both of those out.

In the BRB, the rules only talk about passengers shooting from a vehicle moving at Combat or Cruising Speeds. But now we have Super-heavy walkers with Transport Capacity and Firepoints. Additionally, they move 12" normally and have Relentless. So, what happens to a model shooting from a moving SH Walker?

Stomp-stomp-stomp-stomp-stomp!

Suh-weet! It's on like Donkey Kong. For the record, you don't need a LOW to fight against an LOW. If you don't bring one, you'll get bonus VPs for blowing up my Stompa. But for Forging a Narrative, I definitely want to throw down with your Transcendant Star Pansy.

*sigh* Forget it, I'll just wait till next week and look for someone else who likes Escalation.

Coolio. I'm bringing Orks, and a Stompa if I can get it glued up tonight. So bring your D-weapons!

I decided top add my Tau to the list as well, and would certainly consider a combo trade.

Anyone else want to play 40K tomorrow night? Otherwise I'll show up for boardgames and trash-talking before the big Planetary Empires WAAAGH! that will be unleashed next week.

Those aren't pillows.

I think my point was more about different and compelling victory conditions than any commentary of Riptides.

It would be pretty cool OFCC swag to have a set of 6 (or even 12) Objective cards. Each round you can select 3 or 4 (or whatever) of them to use in your game. Keep them facedown for X VPs, or reveal them to double the VPs.

Yeah, it was the scenario. They list all the army lists (1 Tyr and 2 Tau) and nothing is taken as a Troops choice.

I'm really bummed I'm not going because my company is sending two other guys who will not enjoy it nearly as much as I would have. I'd be interested in hearing about everything Samsung has on display. They always impress. Also interested in any company's body tech (like smart watches, Glass, etc.).

As I posted in the Tyranid thread, I've really been impressed with the evolution of White Dwarf Battle Reports such that GW is really walking the walk when it comes to Forging a Narrative. The report scenarios area always unique and usually custom to armies and table setup, unless they are deliberately showing off a book scenario. (minor spoilers if you haven't read this month's report) In this month's report the two armies not only have no Troops selections, but also have completely different Victory Conditions. The Tau have to kill the 3 Hive Tyrants, while the Tyranids have to destroy 3 "Generators" that are terrain markers the Tau army has. This created a really compelling game as the Tau needed to be offensive against the HTs, but also protective of the Generators. Meanwhile, the bugs needed to go after the Generators, while protecting their HTs. The Tau could sacrifice everything to get their job done, while the bugs had to protect 3 of their most killy units (including the Swarmlord). Also, the bugs got a free random reinforcement each time they destroyed a Generator, so the Tau couldn't just protect one and sacrifice the others. Okay, with all the description out of the way, it seems to me this sort of scenario is much better way to create a fun and level-set tournament experience than using Comp restrictions. Imagine a scenario where you simply couldn't field any Elite choices (or whatever)? And imagine having all the scenarios to study before the tournament, but not knowing which Victory Condition you will need to accomplish until the game setup for that round? Another interesting scenario setup I've been reading recently is the way Malifaux 2.0 works. Each side gets a unique overall objective, which you can keep secret or tell your opponent during setup to receive more VPs at the end for accomplishing it. Each player can also select a number of "schemes" that are essentially like 40K's Secondary Objectives, that can also be kept secret or announced for more VPs. Imagine if before each game you could choose to take First Blood, Slay the Warlord, or whatever. More fun, of course, would be ditching those standard options and having a selection to choose from that was army specific. For example, the tournament could publish a set of 6 Secondary Objectives for each army (Tau, SMs, Eldar, etc.) and before each game, a player can choose a number of them, say 3. This way the player could choose ones that mitigate army list weaknesses for the particular scenario (like not being able to use his Elites!). Perhaps a player could even volunteer to sideboard a unit to gain an additional Objective. He could put an HQ out of the game and gain an Objective worth +2 VPs, or something like that. I believe that creating scenarios and VCs like this benefits all types of players. Competitive players can enjoy the challenge of crafting a list to master all those variables, while other players can simply enjoy Forging a Narrative. TL; DR: There are a lot of exciting options for scenarios and objectives that could help balance "comp" much better and more interestingly than blanket restrictions.

Read the WD Battle Report this morning. Very interesting as over this past year I've seen a real evolution of the reports such that they are much more about Forging Narratives than worrying about rules. Sure they use home-brew scenarios, but they also often ignore deployment rules and even having equal points. They are really walking the walk when they say the rules are for fun games, not super-competitive affairs. In this Report... The scenario had some interesting victory conditions, which I'm going to post about in a new thread.

Pax, I don't recall in what thread you asked about this, but in the FW Dred Mob update, the special character can be upgraded to a Lord of War (Stompa). The rule goes on to say that doing so uses up an army's LOW slot and no more can be taken. This only helps to infer GW's intent, but seems a pretty good example to cite.

Yeah, that's a great description, VonVilkee.

That credits scene of Thor 2 with Benicio as The Collector was straight out of '67 Star Trek. This could be painfully campy (like that scene). And what about Zoe Saldana going from Uhura to a green-skinned alien? Will Kirk be in this?

I don't think the argument has ever been whether it passes to the unit or not, as clearly it does. The sticking point is the order of operations during game setup, but you already know that.

LOVE IT.

I'm sure some people here (pretre, AP, etc.) have read them already, but there are several (at least 4) battle reports floating around the intertubes now featuring Revenants. In the four I've read, the Revenants are barely scratched, but the Eldar player loses badly in each game. Seems the 900 points does indeed cripple the ability to field anything complementary that can stand up to a "more balanced" army selection. I was also intrigued that in Natfka's report his Void Shields pretty much nullified the Revenant and its Tau shooty allies. Sure, some lucky rolls (and unlucky rolls) were made, but the Shields did their job as described. Anyway, I've found all the reports compelling and I am very excited to try out all these glorious new choices. Especially for my poor, outdated orkses!