winterman

Why didn't they just keep allowing deathwing some sort of a turn 1 DS? What harm does that do? No skin off my back, just seems odd.

1. Flying MCs and inability to assault the turn they switch modes. 2. GCs getting cover like MCs. I disagree though that MCs should get cover like vehicles. It should represent an MCs ability to manuver and shift on the fly which a vehicle doesn't have. 3. GCs and super heavies -- blessings/maledictions should cost more to affect them 4. Swooping MCs getting cover like infantry. 5. Sky shield landing pad rules. They suck for so many reasons. Ditch the inv and make them a building instead of an indestructible block of stupid.

Gah GW must have made him pull the pics down. Dakka thread with a decent breakdown of the relevant rules. Definitely a mess of rules which leaves things a bit ambiguous. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652155.page

Check here , second paragraph, second sentence. http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/p73.png So unfortunately they tweaked the base Chapter Tactics rules a bit and dropped the specific caveat Iron Hands had for their IWND rule. Which leads to a contentious RAW argument that only IH vehicles that have chapter tactics have IWND (so dreadnaughts). Its contentious though due to the use of the word vehicle in IH rules and the lack of such a term in the base chapter tactics rules. I'd probably lean towards all their vehicles getting it at this point but who knows what the ITC FAQ council will do with it.

Too bad Iron Hands vehicles no longer get IWND, that would be brutal with this sort of list.

Twin linked auto cannon.

May make up for losing the MotF ability to take heavy dreads (assume that is coming anyways, might be an option still).

5 attacks on an Iron Clad I assume, that is where it might be enough. Ar13 and that many attacks has me interested anyways. EDIT and one with hit and run from white scars...man that is kinda silly but I like.

Also the full company is two of the same detachment, so is a no go at any ITC formatted events :(

An interesting question. The symbol on the formation itself denotes it as a Cult Mechanicus formation. So despite the mix of factions in the formation I think you'd use Cult Mech cards if that formation is the primary. This would also have implications for primary faction for event awards and such too I guess. eg If warlord is from the war congregation then technically the primary faction is Cult Mechanicus even if you selected a skitarii character from the battle maniple. Bit of a corner case situation though.

I'm Dan. Bob is Exarch :) And wish we could have made it too.

Damn sorry meant to say detachments. The formations I guess do say Imperial Knights of any type.

Gerantius is not listed as a Lord of War on his dataslate. All the new formations have Lord of War slots. Kind of an issue RaW.

Glad you guys are filling up. Bummed my schedule is such that I can't commit until much closer to the memorial. Good luck though with the event!

Yeah swap the heads and add some mechanicum wires and such and the robots will work just fine. Which is prolly for the best, want to flex my conversion skills a bit more with this army anyways. That datasmith is sweet though, so cool. Those rules look fun. Can't wait to reflect back D weapons onto some Wraithknights.

Love the skitarii so was really stoked for Admech cult...now not so much. The cult stuff doesn't really seem like an army. I mean skitarii was light on kits but the ranger/van can easily be the backbone of the force with a smattering of the other stuff. The admech stuff shown here? Can't see how the tracked guys, monks and out of place diver bot form an army without allying skitarii. Even then just seems off. Mostly that bot is just not fitting in with the rest of the range. Some fleur de lis, wires/mechanica exposed machinery, something to tie it in in with onager/ballisteri. As it stands it looks more like a polish resin knock off then a GW kit. Though I am one of the few people who doesn't dig the 30k mechanicum stuff so maybe it's just me.

It is clear that you resolve each D result by model. That is no different then resolving a wound in a wound allocation step or a hit in a vehicle squadron allocation step. We do this all the time with cover saves and the like. Also units (and by extension models) are hit by weapons and nothing in the Destroyer weapon rules changes this. Of course and nothing in what I am saying invalidates that...I am not advocating what wildcat mentions by rolling the d3 wounds or d6+6 wounds and then allocating. I am advocating applying the Seriously wounded or deathblow result by model as if it were a wound or hit against a vehcile (because it essentially is) and then rolling to see how many wounds/hull points the model suffer (so no carry over). Stated another way, if you allocate based on result like I am advocating you are still satisfying rules you've referenced that talk about hits. You are still taking saves against hits with result 2-5 and there's still no carry over of wounds from a hit. What I am advocating is sticking with the established rules of allocation of wounds/pens while also sticking to the rule of no carry over. Less changes to rules to deal with an ambiguous rule. WHich is what you should do when dealing with poorly written rules (imo) but I wouldn't go so far to say I have the stronger argument, just a different take. However end of day, as a player on the table I would play it either of these ways and would not bother arguing if that is how someone wanted to play it. It's just a bit more cumbersome and takes some control away from the shooter.

Ok I see your argument but the statement that regarding saves versus hits does not necessarily mean you change the order of operations. The rules right above your quote state clearly roll to hit, then roll D chart. The use of the term hit obfuscates things a bit, but keep in mind the destoryer rule is meant to cover wound and pen determination and so they may have used the term 'hit' so as not to start the whole wounds and vehicles arguement. Stated another way, my proposed way does not invalidate the quoted rule and still keeps with the existing rules for wound allocation.

Ok let me be clear cause maybe people are assuming I mean you roll up crap tons of wounds and allocate those. Say 10 Wraithguard shoot at a unit. Six Hit Roll 6 times on the D Chart and you get 1 result 1, 4 results 2-5 and 1 result 6. What I am saying is that those results are then allocated as a wound pool. So shooter decides which is allocated first (4 seriously wounded vs 1 deathblow). Then go through saves and d3 wound determinations etc.

Nothing in the rules or that table states you allocate and roll armors saves before rolling on the D table. So one way you make up rules, another way you use existing rules.

You sure that is how it works? Destroyer Weapon: "If the attack hits, roll on the table above instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration." Wound Allocation "Sometimes an attack will gain a bonus or special rule depending on the results rolled To Hit or To Wound (for example, due to the Rending special rule). If you caused any such Wounds, split them into separate Wound pools" Why not treat results 2-5 and 6 as separate wound pools and allocate as normal? Much easier, no rewrite on rules.

Nice overview. On a related note...(sorry if this derails but ties in with other posts)...what is everyones thoughts on using ranger heads on vanguard. Everything else is WYSIWYG. Just not feeling the Vanguard heads much. Seems reasonable, people head swap all the time, and would look to further differentiate the two units in other ways beyond gear as well.

In interviews both the dev team guys and Jes have stated the models and what will and won't be in the kit comes first from the sculptors and sprue engineers, then the dev team comes up with rules. So if Jes says, "Hey ole chap, I think bikes look bees knees with a scatter laser so I am including one for each bike in the kit." then the dev guys go "Well I say kind sir, that sounds swell, we will let every bike have a scatter laser or a shuriken cannon. We will cost it at 10 points cause that is a good round number. Tally ho!"

Why is the space they take up a problem? Fixed terrain (as in part of the board it is on). We have some really nice tables with fixed terrain. Work able with a single fort, not so much with an armies worth of forts. Need space to put unused terrain. We let people pull terrain so they can place a single fort. Imagine if they needed to pull half the terrain off the table. The logistics for dealing with moving terrain (time, space, etc) is significant in a timed event. Hell its significant simply for the beating the terrain is likely to take. Then a TO has to weigh the cost to them to allow them. The constant stream of crap from the people who see them as abusive. The ruling issues they didn't see coming. Etc. All this when more then likly maybe one guy will show up with a network to begin with, and its probably the void shield generator one...

I wouldn't bother summoning personally. Getting army wide +1 Attack and Feel No pain is much more appealing. There's a requirement for having the rule Blood for the Blood God to actually generate the tokens for killing or being killed. Early rumors missed that requirement. So allies could killsteal and their deaths do nothing for your tally.