winterman

I'm kind of digging the crusader case. I like my KR stuff but the idea of more multipurpose set of foam for a reasonable price has me interested. Looks like it might be just small enough to take as carry-on too.

Fleshhounds have scout and can be joined by not so derpy juggerlords. I can see a decent army built around that, maybe too 6ed for the current meta but I don't think it's a terrible army.

Twin linked Cognis lascannon/autocannon is not too shabby. Hit fliers 4 out of 9 times. The spider tank is rumored to have an icarus upgrade of some sort, so safe to assume something akin to the icarus fortifications if true. Doubt they will have fliers, at least not the wave this spring.

If this is for an event using LVO rules then you would have to choose between the defence line or Void Shield generator. You can only have 1 fortification no matter how many slots (and it sounds like you only have 1 slot anyway via the CAD). Closest you can get to that is taking Obstacles (rules and types of obstacles are in Stronghold assault). I do love the concept though and hope you follow through on it.

Back on topic... I don't think the detachment limit was every meant to combat spam in a meaningful way. At least Reece and others have been pretty vocal about them wanting to limit the kind of stuff that was seen at Adepticon last year. They are also not a fan of the CtA stuff. Allow CtA and open up detachment limits and its only going to escalate what is already perceived by many as a touch too much. Like say take an army like AbusePuppy's Eldar/Tau (not picking on ya AP but its a great example here). Already 2 strong AoC armies, summoning in a third. No detachment limits and its a not much of a stretch to add an inquistor to such an army. Or the spore mine formation from Shield of Baal. etc. Its that sort of cheap and easily added detachments ontop of CTA and similar that makes a case for keeping detachment limits. Also I think one of the original arguments for detachment limits not mentioned is that its mostly Imperial based armies that benefit from removing the 2 detachment limit -- since the have so many battle brothers and detachments to pick and choose from. At this point with every dex getting the 6ed/7ed treatment that argument doesn't hold much water. I think only Tau are the only non-imperial army that doesn't have a ton of BB detachments available. Chaos kinda gets the shaft also but I think that is changing if rumors are to be believed. Anyways, something worth mentioning and discussing I guess. Finally, Adepticon will be a test for the idea of opening up detachment limits, since its unlimited numbers of detachments, just no duplicates (so 8 flyrants is not possible, but 6 or so might be). I suspect based on last year that there will be a lot of Inquisition as predicted here earlier in the thread. Will be interesting to see.

D. Lord can still join wraiths. Since 6ed there is no more rule where units go as fast as slowest, they just have to stay in coherency. They do lose fleet but its not so bad. So how it works in practice -- D. Lord goes 6 in move phase but can still jetpack jump in assault phase (so start in front of unit move phase, he will lose ground but then make up for it in assault phase). The plague drone star works in a similar fashion (it has an even slower IC but still works out fine for them).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Auucp87Ggqf0dEhaNnYzS3VXM1p6MzVvNzdTZXVYWGc&gid=22 Link above is the ITC/Adepticon list of available FW units and their most up-to-date rules reference. So will tell you if IA8 is most recent or if it's somewhere else (like IA Apoc 2013). If playing in events you'll want to see the FW FAQ used by ITC/Adepticon https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-OU5HakJ2b3R4ZklpNTVQVk13RG1NMlF1NDlz/view Lots of stuff related to Ork FW stuff.

The obelisk had skyfire in the old escalation rules IIRC. Nightscythes aren't bad for anti-air though.

I'm personally not a fan of massacre style BPs either. But sometimes ranking every win equally is not adequate. Most commonly when there's not enough rounds to determine the clear winner (the reason you see it a lot in the UK -- they don't run 6-8 round events over there). There's also format reasons, like ETC format hinges on unequal win rankings and in fact it encourages skillfull play and matchups by NOT ranking victories equally. Also many people like BPs because they can claw their way back into contention after a loss -- which is the reason NoVa went with supporting both win/loss and battle points. LVO missions (I won't use ITC mission as naming because ITC events don't have to run them) out of the box are kinda poor battle point missions. Quite easy to win 3-2 and get less battlepoints then someone who lost 6-5. There's also the fact that tying a primary/secondary is 0 'battlepoints' in the format. It takes a bit of extra rules to make it work for battlepoints.

Community has issues with Escalation and allowing superheavies in regular games -- GW releases Imperial Knights, a codex of just super heavies. Community has issues allowing multiple detachments in games -- GW releases Necrons, an army designed around multiple detachments. It will be interesting to see if this shakes up the limits imposed by the big events. I know it's got me thinking about it more.

They are apples and oranges though. LVO is win/loss/draw event. ETC and the UK tend to run battle points for various reasons. And the LVO system without tweaks doesn't work so well in battle points. Also I believe the euros usually tweak relic (6 vp relic and/or multiple relic) and remove emperors will entirely. It's interesting format either way, not advocating or dissing either. I generally agree with this. Overall I don't have an issue with first blood if it can be drowned out by other VPs and/or isn't an easily drawn mission. So it is only really problematic in relic, emp will and to some degree the LVO format -- would rather something else be used to break ties then something that favors a particular playstyle and a dice roll. I do however like variety in secondaries and tend to mix in First blood with first strike and similar concepts. Agreed. Whenever I remove first blood from a mission I try to replace it with another zero-sum secondary. One example would be kill warlord but keep yours alive. Its not quite FB (because FB will almost always be scored by someone) but it has a similar affect. Couple other ways to do the same thing.

The European Team Challenge and most of the UK events this year have maelstrom as their secondary. Seems like it works pretty well. They do a couple of tweaks 1. They reduced the deck to 18 (6 objectives, and 12 of the others -- removing gimmies like cast a spell and such) 2. They changed the d3 VPs into 2 VPs 3. Added the fairly common houserule of auto-discard when opponent army doesn't have flyer, etc 4. Limiting the number of cards you can achieve per turn to 2. They also add together VPs for Eternal War mission + Maelstrom + Linebreaker/SlayWarlord/FirstStrike (kill unit in first turn obtainable by both players). Then win is based on comparison of VPs between players (so win by 1 VP, get 11 battlepoints, win by 19+ VPs get 20 battlepoints).

I usually use the term 'Best Appearance' at events I run. We use a rubric that takes it all into account, although its weighted more toward painting. Pretty standard at most of the big national events also. But still sometimes call it best painted conversationally. Its just one of those things. Granually awarding for paint vs conversion etc is cool and some events do that (NoVa Open did at one time for example) but its not that common. As much as I think a vote from peers is an ideal way to award a nice looking army, it is also easy to rig (preference or collusion amongst team/club/buddy), manipulate (placement of your army at the event has a huge effect, for example), etc. And I don't necessarily mean in a malicious way -- even subconsciously or unintentionally these happen. There is also the argument that someone who only saw a couple armies has equal weight to someone who looked at every single one. Or that unqualified people are not only involved in determining the award but have equal weight to someone who knows appearance well. Judged appearance can be done such that it doesn't have these issues, voted on appearance is impossible to mitigate these. At our events Favorite Army is a nice little in store credit award and a tie breaker for Best appearance, but is not used in actual scoring of overall, best in faction, etc. Still has all the problems I mention above, but doesn't have as much of an effect.

So you have no issue with Fav Army going to someone who didn't paint it, but Best Appearance is somehow different? Interesting. It's not an uncommon opinion, I have just never understood it.

From a TOs perspective -- having run multiple 30-40 attendee events across 4 editions and several tournament style paradigm shifts -- I would say its not worth the time, hassle and grief you get to try and award only the artist. We used to do so at the Storm/Harvester for both best appearance and favorite army award because in a prefect world that is what you'd want. We finally gave up on trying to do so. There's too many grey areas and frankly the guys that are serious about their craft tend to filter to the top over most studio work -- so it creates drama and headache for almost no gain. What grey areas you might ask? Well the ones brought up really. At what point do you say you aren't the artist? * If you bought a prebuilt army on ebay and stripped and painted it. Technically you did not build it, so you are not truly 100% the artist. * What if you bought or had someone make a cool conversion for your warlord. Technically you did not build it, so you are not truly 100% the artist. Even if it was your idea. * What if your teammates helped you finish an army before an event. Even something as simple as painting some bases. Technically you did not paint all the army, so you are not truly 100% the artist. * etc etc. What it comes down to is having to deal with those grey areas (and they occur all the time), having to deal with the folks who are upset about being excluded, having to penalize someone who is honest while not being able to do a damn thing about someone you don't know who was dishonest -- its all simply not worth it in the scheme of things. One or two serious painters will be happy, most won't care or will feel it is unfair or poorly managed. As a final point, over the years I have come to see owning an army you didn't paint to owning a restored car you didn't actually restore but paid someone to do so. Your car will still win awards at competitions and you are still the proud owner. Just hopefully you are the type that will give credit where its due when accepting the award.

Given that the main rulebook has specific rules for necron chariots I'd be surprised to see the CCB go away completely. Nerfage though is a given. I suspect off the bat that 2+ armor will not be a standard upgrade for overlords (based on many other 6ed and 7ed books), among many other things.

The only restriction is around non-battle brother allies, which cannot benefit from the warlord traits. Given that restriction it's pretty clear that warlord traits can affect other battle brother detachments

Mildly annoyed that BA tacticals will have heavy flamer as an option. Been wanting that for Salamanders for years. The Black Library books feature tacticals toting heavy flamers. Not sure how canonical it is for BA and dunno if any BA players will appreciate it like a Salamander player would. Not a huge deal mind you, just like the idea of going with a heavy weapon that isn't a multi-melta from time to time.

Yeah in 6ed hills were clearly 4+ as they were part of the battlefield debris section. 7ed removed hills from that section, so they now default to 5+. They also removed the generic idea of 'area terrain', which is part of the problem with rules like ruins that say you get saves for being 'in', without defining what that actually means. As per usual though, I talk about terrain because everyone has their quirks on how they prefer to play it.

Harvester is a wrap! Thanks to all the Ordo community members that made the trip over! Always great to have you guys and nice to see some new faces. We had 32 players show up for two days of gaming (and for many of us -- drinking at the bar across the parking lot). After the dust and dice settled here is how things shook out: Brian Haler (Necrons) -- Overall Harvester Champion! Andy Arganbright (Orks) -- Best Sportsmanship [was also technically Best Appearance as well] Sean Morgan (Tau Cadre/Necron) -- Best General Jeremy Veyssiere. (Space Marines) -- Best Appearance [2nd Overall by 1 point] Bryan Butler (Tau/Tau Cadre) -- Players Choice Pictures: https://www.facebook.com/TheHarvester40kGT/photos_stream Despite a few hiccups at the start and the end and a surprising amount of drops the week of, I think it was a very successful event. It helped that we had two additional volunteers this time. Look for the Storm GT in April/May 2015 and the Harvester again in October/November 2015!

He is using the GK detachment, so his troops are not objective secured. So there's not much point to taking more troops than required unless using the combined arms detachment from the main rulebook. Some points to consider: One of the main reasons to take paladins is they get 2 psycannons per 5, as opposed to 1 per 5 of the terminators. So yes definitely take advantage of that. Might consider taking 5 paladins and replacing the 5 strikes with 5 terminators. Frees up points. Purifier's should take a rhino imo. Yes their power can be used from the rhino as its a witchfire. I'd consider a second incinerator also. You can then cast their nova power and then follow up with double incinerator. For the dreadknights, hammer is not a bad option to be honest. For the points I think its better than the sword. Also I think two weapons is a bit too pricey on them. Should be able to squeeze in a storm raven if you strip down the list.

I like the look of the maleceptor more with the side view, but the rules for both beasts are as terrible as rumored. Would have been much happier with updated plastic kits for our finecast then yet another set of MCs in an already crowded Heavy and Elite section.

At the rate of codex updates I imagine we will see a lot more of such releases. Was expecting such a release to coincide with a supplement though. Like say Saim Hann supplement when the old as dirt eldar jetbikes get replaced.

I am sure the folks that like the haruspex model will love these guys but I'm not feeling em. Rumored rules sound meh as well. Which is good cause I already have a ton of tyranids to paint for my 7ed lists.

Beautiful.