Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm probably going to pick one up, just to have an instant board's worth of terrain for my small home table. That's basically exactly the product I wanted GW to put out, and lo and behold, they have catered to my unspoken desires. GET OUT OF MY HEAD, GW!

Also, I salute you, sir. That was the most staggeringly impressive feat of alliteration I've ever seen. Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yeah. I just hate it when people voluntarily agree to exchange their wealth for the goods or services voluntarily being offered by others. 🙄

I predict that the new edition will fix a lot of the imbalances of the current, the first half dozen new codices will be nicely balanced, and although the Internet hive-mind will figure out a couple q

As I've been saying for years, every time GW introduces a new product -- be it as major as a new edition or as minor as a redesigned paint brush cup -- the reactions are eerily predictable:  33%

Posted Images

I like the idea of them, but I’d want to see one “in the wild” before I bought one myself. GW’s terrain is on the pricey side, compared to MDF or 3D printed options... and, of course, good old fashioned styrofoam.

But, if the price is reasonable and the rules decent, I could see this being a very good option for the occasional home game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp.

The guys over at Goonhammer got an early copy of the new Chapter Approved: Tactical Deployment Mission Pack and have posted a review. For the most part, it sounds pretty damn good... except for the glaring problem that it doesn’t have any datasheets for any terrain in it and it looks like GW will only be releasing datasheets for new terrain kits that are built in specific configurations to match the instructions.

Ugh.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ish said:

Welp.

The guys over at Goonhammer got an early copy of the new Chapter Approved: Tactical Deployment Mission Pack and have posted a review. For the most part, it sounds pretty damn good... except for the glaring problem that it doesn’t have any datasheets for any terrain in it and it looks like GW will only be releasing datasheets for new terrain kits that are built in specific configurations to match the instructions.

Ugh.

 

That is a glaring issue and IF the community blows up on GW again then we could see this change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Reanimation Protocols rules seem unnecessarily complicated and rather harsh on multi-wound models. Destroyers of all types get kind of hosed by it. It would have been so much better to just say "after every attack, roll 1d6 for each model slain; on a 5+ that model comes back, otherwise, it's gone for good." This "adding dice to a pool" crap doesn't work well in this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt. Rock said:

The new Reanimation Protocols rules seem unnecessarily complicated and rather harsh on multi-wound models. Destroyers of all types get kind of hosed by it. It would have been so much better to just say "after every attack, roll 1d6 for each model slain; on a 5+ that model comes back, otherwise, it's gone for good." This "adding dice to a pool" crap doesn't work well in this situation.

I'll disagree, respectfully. I think multi-wound models coming back on a 5+ (or a 4+ potentially) is too powerful.

EDIT: Maybe if the unit "healed" wounds for passing RP? Bringing back multi-wound models with only partial wounds seems like a better middle ground.

I'll agree that the new rule seems wordy at first glance, but seems like it will be pretty straight-forward in practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Andrewgeddon said:

I'll disagree, respectfully. I think multi-wound models coming back on a 5+ (or a 4+ potentially) is too powerful.

EDIT: Maybe if the unit "healed" wounds for passing RP? Bringing back multi-wound models with only partial wounds seems like a better middle ground.

I'll agree that the new rule seems wordy at first glance, but seems like it will be pretty straight-forward in practice.

I was just tossing out an example, but I think you're right, if it healed a wound on a successful test it would be better. I just think it's a needlessly complicated rule that could be accomplished in a much fluffier manner much more simply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, if it were up to me, I’d leave the whole reanimating thing as a bit of background “fluff” and just make the basic Necron Warrior tougher... But still have them die like every other model.

There’s too many steps in the game’s combat sequence already. Roll to hit, maybe a re-roll to hit, roll to wound, maybe a re-roll to wound, roll to save, maybe a re-roll to save, maybe a feel no pain roll, maybe a reanimation roll, maybe a morale roll... Ugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Inquisitor66 said:

Why? it seems like this makes big blobs tougher than before since you have to score a knockout in one go rather than over the course of the phase.

YAY Necrons can play Silver Tide! In an edition where Blast is a thing. That has NO way of not being bad... None.. or the stricter Coherency rules for large units... NO way that is bad...

Wait whats that... our brand new Destroyers are 3 Wounds? Well, I guess they will never reanimate while being plinked to death. That seems nice. Its a great thing GW made them look so cool. They will be great shelf models since we are being relegated to mobs it seems. 

OH! What is this? You can whittle units down? Oh that squad of intercessors kill 4 warriors and 1 got back up, welp the other 3 are gone forever. Oh another squad of intercessors did the same? Ouch, hope we can maintain our nice little blobs that I hope are not paying a premium tax for the ability to MAYBE get back up...

 

11 hours ago, Ish said:

Because whenever GW does anything at least 1/3 of their fanbase will react negatively. 

Currently, its 7/8ths of the community who is not happy with this. 

 

Yes this is dripping with sarcasm. I get your intent that it isnt so bad but if Necrons are paying for the ability to maybe get up with a 2/3rd's chance of failing (on a SINGLE WOUND MODEL) and then not getting the chance to get back up again, they better be near Ork Boyz level of points. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ish said:

Just chill, the codex will be in hand soon and you know there’s going to be all sorts of things in there that will modify the reanimation rules: re-rolls, bonuses, out-of-sequence activations, et cetera.

We know a few things. Currently a Strat would be useless so there is that unless it allows something like half the wounds to be automatic successes. 

Rites of Reanimation are about the only thing I can think of that will be the saving grace. 

 

Overall the Silent King looks interesting and I am rather annoyed at how Necron's get Custom Dynasties. 

Necron's get to pick 1 each of 2 separate categories which SOUNDS great! However Space Marines get 2 of any with no restrictions. You would THINK that means the Space Marine ones are weaker but nope. They are strong if not more so. Lovely. Thanks GW

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they should have just made it a fnp only found on infantry and fixed the flying dinghy destroyers keyword instead of this hot garbage. It’s far too complicated a rule for something which is mathematically worse than a fnp and circumstantially even worse than its previous iteration. Why reinvent the wheel other than for sales hype?

It could be saved by strats or the ghost arks retaining their ability to roll a second time on all the previous losses in a squad, but still - not worth this convoluted rewrite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...