Dusldorf

47 minutes ago, fluger said:

Lorin, stop being obtuse.  😛

Its the same emotional difference between saving a 6+ Ork save in melee as failing a 2+ termie save.  Yes, they are statistically identical, but each carries a different emotion.  

The weapons that can reliably tackle a guardian are more numerous than those that can reliably tackle a sister or IW.  Ergo, the emotion is greater.

Someone should write a list-building program that maximizes the frequency of events that make people feel warm and fuzzy inside during games. Apparently there'd be a sizeable demand for it 😛

Yes, and it's a difference that has nothing to do with the 6+ FNP. The FNP just means that you save 16% of the wounds you would have otherwise taken. That number is smaller for sisters, but it's still 16% of the total. The performance of the FNP is exactly the same in both cases.

I mean, it's exactly the same in both cases...you just ignore 16% of wounds. If your army has more wounds, then the absolute number of ignored wounds is higher, true, but the rate at which this occurs isn't really anything to write home about.

It's the exact same effect for both factions. If you're enamored with 3+ armor, that's completely separate and, yes, really good.

1 hour ago, Ish said:

I dunno, I think 6+ FNP on Battle Sisters has the potential to make for some seriously tough units, although that’s going to depend a lot on how much they cost per model. 

Having played with this in my ulthwe army for a long time, I can assure you it's pretty underwhelming/unnoticeable. It's exciting when it happens, but nothing to write home about.

oops my bad

hysteria and intrigue over leaks and rumors is part of the release cycle drama, it's part of the fun. this is a wargames forum, not fake news about political events or something serious. just enjoy the ride.

1 minute ago, pretre said:

Sure. There’s also no guarantee that this isn’t a time traveler bringing models back from the future. That being said, I think Ish has the right idea.

so do i, but i'm glad we're agreeing that we can't draw definitive conclusions here 🙂

it's more likely a home hobbyist, but my point is just that there's no guarantee.

Just now, Ish said:

I would actually be quite surprised if GW did not make use of 3D printing for prototyping and other pre-production type stuff. It’s no secret that they’ve moved to digital sculpting and CAD-based design.

(I’m not saying the above Battle Sister is an in-house 3D print.)

moreover, there's no guarantee that the person on reddit claiming to have printed it himself isn't a GW employee, or someone just taking credit for someone else's image.

congrats lol

i'm not saying it's true, i'm just sharing a pic of what looks like a legit sculpt of a battle sister.

4chan. looks like a legit sculpt, although 3d printed. people are claiming that GW uses 3d printing for proofs of concept.

word is that the warlord edition of chapter approved comes with "soft cover" and "hard cover" tokens (!)

7 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

What about a cap on CP spent per turn/phase/deployment? (Abilities that negate CP expendature don't negate CP counted for this cap.)

For example, each player can use stratagems with cost not exceeding 5 per game round, 5 in deployment, and no more than 5 pre-game. So with 6 game rounds, a max of 40 CP could be spent by one player. But if the game ends turn 3, only 25 CP could have been spent.

Still a lot to work with, but makes excessive CP get weighed against game length. If you plan to win by turn 2, you'd really only be able to benefit from 20 CP. 

I hate the spending cap solutions. Some armies need to spend all their points in one turn to be effective. Better to make high-value strats cost more CP than restrict how many you can spend per phase.

46 minutes ago, Ish said:

Just spitballing here, but what if the Imperial Guard was returned to having an Infantry Platoon (infantry squads, special weapon squads, heavy weapon squads, etc.) all fit into the force org chart as a single Troops choice?

This would make it harder to “fill” a Battalion FOC with a minimum amount of Imperial Guard.

Plus, narratively it would make more sense that the amount of Imperial Guard grunts that we’ve been calling a platoon since the early Nineties isn’t now a Battalion! 

I love this idea.

20 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Completely true. But if you aren't fixing the problem, why tweak it?

That's like saying it's impossible to make a balanced game, so why make games at all?

They're pushing the story forward. They're giving people more (though not necessarily more balanced) options. They're creating products for their business. Hopefully they won't introduce too much imbalance, but that's how 40k works.

4 hours ago, StygianArcanum said:

Interesting. What's your take on this? Like rather than your Battalion giving you 5 CP, your Totally-Not-A-Decurion would give you -3 CP?

It's going to create yet another incentive for people to take guard brigades/battalions instead of mono-armies.

Makes it pretty clear that GW is being honest when they say they don't "get" soup yet.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but I found it here on reddit:

• City fight is a thing. It has special detachments, special rules and stratagems in the new campaign book.
• There's a new army mechanic for picking detachments.
• There are new "mega stratagems". They effect a whole load of units in a detachment. For example they can give every unit in a detachment a keyword.
• GSC are in it, they get special detachments too.
• The Orks have a stratagem to make a Stompa their warlord. There is even a Stompa warlord trait table.
• These rules will be used in matched play.
• You pay CP for specialist detachments - rather than in 7e, where formations were free.
• They are more specialised benefits, so are quote-unquote "easier to balance".
• An example of a stratagem/benefit is "indomitus veterans", which upgrades all intercessors in a detachment to veterans.
• They said they were aware that armies with a load of CP (e.g. guard) have more CP than more elite armies.
• The benefits only affect specific models (e.g. all manticores in a detachment).
• Urban Combat is a box. There's a plastic wallet inside with cards to make a map (for building your own hive city). The overall map is "A1 A2 ish". You slot the cards together to make the city. There are apparently reusable stickers you can peel on and off to show control of a given area. The box also contains more content, which wasn't touched upon further.
• The specialist detachments are more "characterful" rather than "powerful". These detachments won't be for every army or model out there - they'll just be for the armies and models that make the most sense.
• These detachments are not intended to be a "replacement" of the 7e detachments.
• Vigilus will be around for a while.
• No Necrons and Tau on Vigilus. They may appear in later settings if they suit it. They don't want to make an unrealistic setting where every faction is present.
• The setting isn't just one environment (e.g. everything being a frozen tundra). There are different biomes and a load of variety. Paul Denton is the artist who does the environmental pictures for it.
• Water is super precious on vigilus if you didn't know this already, admech use a space elevator to fetch water.
• Some guard detachments include one for Russes, a Tempestus Scion one, a Leman Russ one, a Sentinel one.
• The factions present on Vigilus are going to be getting these rules.
• Notably rather than "AdMech" being listed as a faction, they were instead listed as "Kastellan Robots". Eldar were also listed as "Windrider Host". All other factions were their general name (e.g. "Orks", "Genestealer Cults", "Space Wolves").
• Some armies won't be appearing in campaign books (if they don't fit with any of the planned campaigns).

• Normal space marines can be made into primaris now with surgery (or something).
• Again, mini-marines aren't going anywhere.
• GREY KNIGHTS ARE NOT GETTING THE PRIMARIS TREATMENT.

• As to whether they'll have a load of Astra Miliatarum datasheets printed in the GSC book? No.
• However, anything you've been able to ally in previously to GSC using the index is possible now. They used manticores as an example. Don't want to make previous purchases wasted.
• They have tried to make them stronger as a standalone army - said that many GSC lists were just a tiny amount of GSC, and then a load of Tyranids and/or IG.
• Strongly suggested they'd be getting subfactions.
• The codex adds a load of options to the army, it's almost a complete replacement (said in relation to subfaction keywords especially).
• The codex has exciting new mechanics, stratagems especially.
• The releases shown today aren't the full set of releases - there is more to come.
• Cult Ambush is getting something turn 1 - not the full deep strike like it was pre-FAQ, but "something more" than just a 9" pre-game movement (a la Alpha Legion/Stygies/Raven Guard).

• Renegade guard codex isn't "in the works" right now.
• There is more than one campaign book in the style of vigilus coming.
• Each setting has its own theme.
• Imperium will be in each campaign setting.
• The next campaign setting is very fleshed out already - similar in structure to what we see with Vigilus and City fight.
• Campaign books like city fight won't be limited (i.e. there won't be a 6 month window in which you can buy them).
• There are more codexes coming out next year.
• There are currently no plans to release an "agents of the imperium" codex. The designers felt that the units don't translate to the battlefield well. An inquisitor etc. feel more appropriate for rogue trader/kill team. Specifically gave example of a character with a simple rapier and a laspistol doesn't feel "right". They actually used Eisenhorn as a very specific example too.
• For boxed games they usually work about a year in advance.
• The person giving the seminar was working three years ahead on some stuff. Miniatures team plan significantly further than 1 year.
• More rogue trader explorations (or at least this style of release) will come in the future.

• Beta codexes are a sort of thing we'll be seeing in the future, but not in the same way as the Sisters of Battle beta. The beta rules will be put in white dwarf (e.g. a datasheet, a few stratagems), if they're well liked they'll find their way into matched play 40k (maybe with tweaks depending on feedback).
• Sisters of Battle should be good standalone.

• They don't want to punish soup. They'd rather reward builds than penalise them. No comment on whether they'd try to reward monofaction armies.
• They are aware that they don't quite "get" soup yet.
• Points are worked out using a formula, some of which depend on points themselves.
• Open play rules are mainly to "scratch a certain itch", and gives an opportunity to add more "creative and crazy" rules into the game without breaking play.
• They know the fly FAQ change was an issue. They wanted to solve a simple problem which lead to oversights. They want to create simple fixes rather than add a load of complication to the game.

• They don't want to be changing the rules constantly and frequently. They say that most players aren't in the tournament circuit. Instead missions included in Chapter Approved etc. are meant to put a new spin on the rules.
• They don't like the idea of having too many required books either (e.g. having one page from a campaign book, two from white dwarf etc) - they say that it will be possible to build an army without needing hundreds of different sources.
• They say their goal is to have it be possible to make a good army with fewer sources. They used GSC as a specific example.
• Index options are here to stay for a while. They're just not in the codex because it's bad to have a codex with selections you can't buy.

• Kill team has more coming.

• The miniatures team make the concepts for models, and when it's fleshed out and the model is designed they send it to the rules team to make rules for.
• Miniatures team always comes first, design team doesn't really present to miniatures team USUALLY. So no "orks need a flying thing, make a model for that".
• Since the rules designers work maybe a year or so in advance, they sometimes get confused on rules (because they're not going to be implemented for a few months/a year).
• Robin Cruddace will have a column in future White Dwarfs to explain ways you can play etc.
• The codex design team is lead by Robin Cruddace and the seminar person (can't remember name). Also on the team are James Gallagher, and "a few new guys".

• They won't design primarch like models for each army (e.g. nids, tau, orks). They'll just keep making cool models, if it happens to be Lord of War size then sure, they'll get a lord of war.
• Primarchs will be done rarely, to keep the feel that they're "special".
• "We should totally do Angron soon!" was a direct quote by the seminar person.
• Another direct quote is "Sanguinius looks pretty dead to me."
• Whichever primarch mini they want to make next is whichever one they want to make (coolness).

• Robin Cruddace did a PhD in Physics and apparently really loved maths. (This actually seems funny given the internet memes of him being the guy who said "maths is just an opinion" etc.).
• GW do keep an "ear to the ground" on online forums (indirectly and directly). They just don't really post. It's hard to take suggestions from online because of how many good and bad ones there are. The Ork dakkadakkadakka rule was actually thought up by the design team before it was also suggested online.

2 minutes ago, Ish said:

The Repressor (if GW continues to support the OOP model) has a Storm Bolter and a pintle-mounted Flamer... Put a squad of Meltagun Dominions in the rear and go proselytizing! 

won't work since the repressor's firing port rules make clear that the unit inside is the one firing. to activate holy trinity the vehicle would have to count as firing the meltas.

also just noticed that a vehicle will never be able to use the strat anyway since it says "one model...one *other* model...and one *other* model..."

1 minute ago, Frowbakk said:

It seems Combi-Flamers will be very common in units, especially the 4-Melta Dominions.

Since it's just RANGE that matters for this Stratagem, and not actually having to have the Holy Trinity hat-trick hitting AND wounding AND opponents failing saves, it has some greater utility.

Stick a Multi-Melta at the back of a blob squad and a Flamer at the front and Ye Olde Humble Bolter... ee is wounding Marines on 3+, and Knights on a 5+ at double-tap range.

 If there's a Relic that is like a 7th Edition Torrent Flamer or a Special Character with that ability, or an 18" range Flamer Lance or some-such it'll be an auto-include.

Overall, even a +1 to Wound is OK, but the drawbacks of having to be in close range once again clash with the fragility of Sister to return fire. Not sure if it will be worth it. building an army around this Stratagem during list construction.

Silly Thought: Since it just says this works on an "Adepta Sororitas unit", that would include vehicles. If (and it's a BIIIIG if) a vehicle could upgrade a Storm Bolter to a Combi-Melta then the Immolator could make use of it with all the same range. Wounding Marines on 2+ and Knights on a 4+ at 12".

Holy Promethium, Batman!

agreed about vehicles, but i don't think there will be any way to get all three weapon types on one.

holy trinity stratagem seems most likely to be useful in a seraphim squad (1 pair hand flamers 1 pair melta pistols), but if i was trying to set up for it with a regular sisters/celestians squad i think i'd do combi-flamer on the superior and a multi-melta on a regular sister.

ok so i guess the debate is about whether the word "sequence" refers to the execution of a single attack or not. nevermind then, i'd feel comfortable arguing that. there is hope after all, but please gw send faq fast.