[40K] 5th Edition Rumor roundup...
Myrmidon
Since no one else has posted it here yet, there's a nice chunk of 5th
Edition rumors as well as shots of the new rule book cover up on the
Bell of Lost Souls site.
http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/
Rumor has it that troops are now the only scoring units in the game, but
that troops count as scoring until they're entirely destroyed (i.e. no
models left). I can see pie-plate anti-personnel weapons becoming very
popular.
The one that I find suck-tacular in particular is the suggestion that
the pdf file floating around with the vehicle rules is in fact correct.
I see Land Raider sales sky-rocketing as their 'nigh invulnerability'
status sinks in with the cheedar-monkeys. (Now I'm almost ashamed to
admit that I own 3 of the old RT era versions just cause I liked that
model a lot back in the day.)
Myr
--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
-- Moramarth
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Blackheart
> Howdy,
>
> Since no one else has posted it here yet, there's a nice chunk of 5th
> Edition rumors as well as shots of the new rule book cover up on the
> Bell of Lost Souls site.
>
> http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/
>
> Rumor has it that troops are now the only scoring units in the game, but
> that troops count as scoring until they're entirely destroyed (i.e. no
> models left). I can see pie-plate anti-personnel weapons becoming very
> popular.
>
> The one that I find suck-tacular in particular is the suggestion that
> the pdf file floating around with the vehicle rules is in fact correct.
> I see Land Raider sales sky-rocketing as their 'nigh invulnerability'
> status sinks in with the cheedar-monkeys. (Now I'm almost ashamed to
> admit that I own 3 of the old RT era versions just cause I liked that
> model a lot back in the day.)
>
> Myr
Falcons VS Land Raiders.. the new black...
Richard Busby
>> The one that I find suck-tacular in particular is the suggestion that
>> the pdf file floating around with the vehicle rules is in fact correct.
>> I see Land Raider sales sky-rocketing as their 'nigh invulnerability'
>> status sinks in with the cheedar-monkeys. (Now I'm almost ashamed to
>> admit that I own 3 of the old RT era versions just cause I liked that
>> model a lot back in the day.)
>>
>> Myr
>
> Falcons VS Land Raiders.. the new black...
On the plus side, my Mega Armored Nobs in Battlewagons list just got a
lot better.
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On Apr 24, 10:43 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> the new rule book cover
Players complained the GW was sneaking FB game mechanics into the 40k
book.
They'd almost been shouted down before that pic surfaced . . .
> Rumor has it that troops are now the only scoring units in the game, but
> that troops count as scoring until they're entirely destroyed
Yep. Good to the last drop. If they're categorized as Infantry.
> I see Land Raider sales sky-rocketing as their 'nigh invulnerability'
Eh. Maybe they'll finally be worth 250 points. Maybe not. We'll see.
> I own 3 of the old RT era versions just cause I liked that model
I didn't, but it had very different rules back then. :- )
Speaking of different rules:
+++
BoLS Cover Saves text:
All cover is 4+. If you [are] shooting through more than 2" of cover,
then your target gets a cover save. If there is a dispute about the
majority being in or out of cover, thats when the cover save with the
-1 comes in.
+++
So, saying "everything is 4+" is like saying "everything Moves 6in".
IOW, brace yourselves for the many inevitable confusing exceptions.
The second part refers to the new 'No Argument' rule:
Your opponent says what they think their save is; if you disagree,
they only have to take -1 off their estimate.
Some consider this to be tantamount to a universal 5+ Invulnerable
Save.
+++
BoLS Line of Sight:
There are no height levels, all terrain is true LoS (even jungles and
woods). They will need to be modeled appropriately if they are to
block LoS.
+++
All physical terrain models would then be WYSIWYG. Okay, fine.
But, no height (Size) levels? So, no Area Terrain? Codswallop.
Look at all the CoD rules getting rolled-in according to the pdf.
Unless this refers to Unit Model height (Size) levels.
+++
BoLS Blast Weapons:
Blast weapons don't roll to hit, but always scatter D6" minus the BS
of the firer. All models under a blast template (including partials)
are automatically hit.
+++
IOW, Scatter is rolled, and a Hit, I presume, is still a Hit.
But misses still hit on a 4+ for MEqs. Whatta surprise!
On the flip side, the "Toes and Elbows" argument will be rife.
Here's hoping the Shooting rules are cleaned-up in the final release.
+++
BoLS Skimmers:
Skimmers only get cover saves if they move over 12".
+++
Er, presumably if they're not already in WYSIWYG Cover.
Or maybe this is in regard to SMF?
If so, this means they can't Shoot while claiming an SMF Save.
(The pdf says this will be a 5+.)
+++
BoLS Missions:
Scoring units must be BOTH Troops and Infantry (it is unknown if jump
infantry count towards this). In any case it would appear that a pure
Ravenwing army might have a hard time unless they draw a VP mission.
Killpoints are apparently out, being replaced by the standard VPs in
certain missions.
+++
IE, Troop Transports aren't Scoring Units, but their Infantry squads
are.
I wonder how Units that take no slots (Daemons) are to be handled?
I'm not sure about the Ravenwing remark; Bikes are Infantry.
Even Mystery thought Killpoints was gay. Good riddance. Also:
Missions:
There are three different Deployments -
Deep Edge, Shallow Edge and Quarter.
And three different Objectives -
VP, Take and Hold and Loot.
IE, nine possible types of mission.
+++
BoLS Perils:
Perils now causes an automatic wound, but invulnerable saves are
allowed.
+++
Oh, *Invulnerable* Saves. Lovely, but no one uses Daemon Weapons now.
"Let's ensure we won't sell any figs modeled with them for five
years!"
+++
BoLS Monstrous Creatures:
Monstrous creatures now have the Move Through Cover USR instead of re-
rolling the difficult terrain dice. Monstrous creatures may only fire
one weapon per turn.
+++
Okay. The first one follows the "USRs are replacing Vet Skills"
pattern.
The second just looks wrong. Surely, this was meant to say "on the
move".
I guess time will tell.
Playa
Blackheart
> Hey,
>
> On Apr 24, 10:43 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > the new rule book cover
>
> Players complained the GW was sneaking FB game mechanics into the 40k
> book.
> They'd almost been shouted down before that pic surfaced . . .
>
Blocks of troops blazing away at each other from 5 paces has been a GW
staple since at least 1989...
> > Rumor has it that troops are now the only scoring units in the game, but
> > that troops count as scoring until they're entirely destroyed
>
> Yep. Good to the last drop. If they're categorized as Infantry.
>
unless they're Elite infantry? what about Fast Attack Infantry?
> > I see Land Raider sales sky-rocketing as their 'nigh invulnerability'
>
> Eh. Maybe they'll finally be worth 250 points. Maybe not. We'll see.
>
> > I own 3 of the old RT era versions just cause I liked that model
>
> I didn't, but it had very different rules back then. :- )
>
and was pretty much invulnerable to everything except the 6 Multi-
melta's that were obligatory around here.
> Speaking of different rules:
>
> +++
>
> BoLS Cover Saves text:
> All cover is 4+. If you [are] shooting through more than 2" of cover,
> then your target gets a cover save. If there is a dispute about the
> majority being in or out of cover, thats when the cover save with the
> -1 comes in.
>
> +++
>
> So, saying "everything is 4+" is like saying "everything Moves 6in".
> IOW, brace yourselves for the many inevitable confusing exceptions.
>
> The second part refers to the new 'No Argument' rule:
> Your opponent says what they think their save is; if you disagree,
> they only have to take -1 off their estimate.
>
> Some consider this to be tantamount to a universal 5+ Invulnerable
> Save.
>
no arguments.. except when there is an argument.
> +++
>
> BoLS Line of Sight:
> There are no height levels, all terrain is true LoS (even jungles and
> woods). They will need to be modeled appropriately if they are to
> block LoS.
>
> +++
>
> All physical terrain models would then be WYSIWYG. Okay, fine.
> But, no height (Size) levels? So, no Area Terrain? Codswallop.
> Look at all the CoD rules getting rolled-in according to the pdf.
>
> Unless this refers to Unit Model height (Size) levels.
>
I won't miss "Area Terrain Shenanigans" at all... part of the reason
that I stopped playing around here was that there was a "fluid"
definition to area terrain being used... and by "fluid" I mean "does
it benefit me this turn?"
> +++
>
> BoLS Blast Weapons:
> Blast weapons don't roll to hit, but always scatter D6" minus the BS
> of the firer. All models under a blast template (including partials)
> are automatically hit.
>
> +++
>
> IOW, Scatter is rolled, and a Hit, I presume, is still a Hit.
> But misses still hit on a 4+ for MEqs. Whatta surprise!
>
> On the flip side, the "Toes and Elbows" argument will be rife.
> Here's hoping the Shooting rules are cleaned-up in the final release.
>
does it touch the base? yes? it's a hit. No? then it's sh-t.
> +++
>
> BoLS Skimmers:
> Skimmers only get cover saves if they move over 12".
>
> +++
>
> Er, presumably if they're not already in WYSIWYG Cover.
> Or maybe this is in regard to SMF?
>
> If so, this means they can't Shoot while claiming an SMF Save.
> (The pdf says this will be a 5+.)
>
anything that punishes everyone that bought 3 falcons is fine with me.
meh.. they already ensured that no ones going to bother with Chaos for
5 years...
> +++
>
> BoLS Monstrous Creatures:
> Monstrous creatures now have the Move Through Cover USR instead of re-
> rolling the difficult terrain dice. Monstrous creatures may only fire
> one weapon per turn.
>
> +++
>
> Okay. The first one follows the "USRs are replacing Vet Skills"
> pattern.
> The second just looks wrong. Surely, this was meant to say "on the
> move".
> I guess time will tell.
sounds like a specific nerf to Dakkafex. which is just fine by me.
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On Apr 25, 7:04 pm, Blackheart <blackheart666_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> blazing away at each other from 5 paces has been a GW staple
The rumored Shooting Reaction change started it.
It's not in the pdf, and I haven't seen a thing, officially.
Developer retardation seems to have gained a resonance.
There's certainly a lot more Warhammer than 40k in that cover.
> what about Fast Attack Infantry?
Scorers have to be models categorized as Infantry.
The Infantry have to represent a Troops Unit in their Dex.
Thus, only Infantry Units from Troops slots are Scoring Units.
But, what of Daemons? Or Troops unlocked by HQ choices?
> when there is an argument
If this rumor proves true, I'll just routinely concede it.
4+? For that Unit skittering across the frozen lake?
Sure, whatever.
> there was a "fluid" definition
If it's a piece of felt with markers at the corners, it's AT.
How's that for a solid definition?
But, yeah. I know what you mean.
> does it touch the base? yes? it's a hit.
RB p21 says LoS "must be traced to the body" or torso of a model.
Banners, elbows, noses and other extremities don't count in Shooting.
It's as if they're not a part of enemy models during the Shooting
Phase.
"I can't remove him as a casualty for getting a lousy hotfoot!"
I'm hoping that the "body" clause will be cleared up in the 5th ed
book.
Magic cylinder works for me, but then we're back to Size (height).
> anything that punishes everyone that bought 3 falcons is fine with me
A curse upon their houses? A frosty social ostracism? Rusty clue bat?
> sounds like a specific nerf to Dakkafex
Nid players are getting spanked already with the Scoring Unit thing.
But, yeah. Bugzilla and Flying Circus lists have to be stopped.
Just not like 4 Vin + 9 Blit and Siren Prince were stopped!
Playa
Blackheart
> > what about Fast Attack Infantry?
>
> Scorers have to be models categorized as Infantry.
> The Infantry have to represent a Troops Unit in their Dex.
> Thus, only Infantry Units from Troops slots are Scoring Units.
>
then people need to get around to saying "troops" instead of hanging
on "Infantry"
> But, what of Daemons? Or Troops unlocked by HQ choices?
>
hardly anyone used Daemons with CSM anymore and since it becomes a
"Troops" after it's unlocked by your HQ, it fulfills the requirement.
> > when there is an argument
>
> If this rumor proves true, I'll just routinely concede it.
> 4+? For that Unit skittering across the frozen lake?
>
> Sure, whatever.
>
at least "no arguement" it for a 5+.
> > there was a "fluid" definition
>
> If it's a piece of felt with markers at the corners, it's AT.
> How's that for a solid definition?
>
too solid for the locals.
> But, yeah. I know what you mean.
>
> > does it touch the base? yes? it's a hit.
>
> RB p21 says LoS "must be traced to the body" or torso of a model.
> Banners, elbows, noses and other extremities don't count in Shooting.
> It's as if they're not a part of enemy models during the Shooting
> Phase.
>
Terminator bases for everyone then. Or I might start using my old
terminators again...
> "I can't remove him as a casualty for getting a lousy hotfoot!"
>
> I'm hoping that the "body" clause will be cleared up in the 5th ed
> book.
> Magic cylinder works for me, but then we're back to Size (height).
>
> > anything that punishes everyone that bought 3 falcons is fine with me
>
> A curse upon their houses? A frosty social ostracism? Rusty clue bat?
>
as a CSM player, invalidating their precious armies is much more
satisfying.
> > sounds like a specific nerf to Dakkafex
>
> Nid players are getting spanked already with the Scoring Unit thing.
> But, yeah. Bugzilla and Flying Circus lists have to be stopped.
> Just not like 4 Vin + 9 Blit and Siren Prince were stopped!
I respectfully disagree... especially since my army got clubbed like a
fucking baby harp seal and I never even fucking used Obliterators,
Vindicators OR Daemon Princes.
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On Apr 28, 10:42 am, Blackheart <blackheart666_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> get around to saying "troops" instead of hanging on "Infantry"
RB pg8 categorizes models into Troop Types. One type is Infantry.
Some dexes have Units other than Infantry among their Troop choices.
Rumor has it, Scoring Units have to fit, not either, but *both*
criteria.
Ex: Chosen and Havoks are Chaos Infantry, but are not Scoring Units -
Simply because they're not listed under the Troops section of their
dex.
Termis and Raptors are unhappy at the prospect, as well. :- (
> since it becomes a
> "Troops" after it's unlocked by your HQ, it fulfills the requirement
Not really - that's my point:
The Ork dex lets Heavy and Elite choies fill Troops slots.
Nobz, for instance, are Infantry, but are they to be excluded?
The Nobz entry is, after all, listed under Elites in their dex.
Also, some dexes have Jump Infantry in Troop slots.
Jump Infantry is a Troop Type separate from Infantry.
BA players will be miffed if Black Marines can't score!
And what of the "Troop Infantry Units" sporting Without Number?
GLD Infantry are Troops that don't occupy a Troops *slot*, etc.
The answers are to be found only in the final RAW.
> invalidating their precious armies is much more satisfying
Even more satisfying would be a policy curbing developer
overreaction.
I'm a Chaos player, and even I thought Mr. Haines' army overbuffed.
The Siren Prince was a straight-up ill-considered game mechanic.
They could have fixed IW/SP with a tenth the effort to ruin it all.
They didn't. And now they're turning this new paradigm on *every* 40k
army.
The potential for disaster in these economically uncertain times is
huge.
> my army got clubbed
Exactly - Codex creep, developer overreaction, the Pendulum Effect,
etc.
If they fumble this time around, it'll be pretty bad for 40k and The
Hobby.
But, further alienation could prove very bad indeed for The PLC . . .
Still, let's all look on the bright side -
We won't have Gav to kick around!
Playa
estarriol
<JohnPau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87684f72-8c27-4674...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
True, we'll be able to lament that it all got worse when Gav left...
Fin
> Howdy,
>
> Rumor has it that troops are now the only scoring units in the game, but
> that troops count as scoring until they're entirely destroyed (i.e. no
> models left). I can see pie-plate anti-personnel weapons becoming very
> popular.
>
>
Mu ha ha ha ha !
My plans to re-jig my IG army may have some benefit after all.
Popping 70 scoring figures down in a sub 1500point game should have
some advantage. Pity they are still T3 with craptastic armour. Still
for 6 points you get what you pay for.
Funny thing is from the current rumour, I'll be in a confusing
situation regarding command squads in my Infantry platoons. They are
in the HQ section but chosen from the Troop section as part of a Troop
choice. If they count too that brings me up to 85 scoring models. If
I can wangle turning my stormies into Troop choices that will get me
up to 105 ;) Maybe add a cheap inquisitor and have them as allied
Inquisitorial Stormies ;)
Mu hah ha ha
My other project, building a SM:DA company should be very viable too.
Just pull out the six tac squads and I'll have about 1500 points of
all troop goodness with similar AT shootyness.
fin
Blackheart
> Hey,
>
> On Apr 28, 10:42 am, Blackheart <blackheart666_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > get around to saying "troops" instead of hanging on "Infantry"
>
> RB pg8 categorizes models into Troop Types. One type is Infantry.
> Some dexes have Units other than Infantry among their Troop choices.
> Rumor has it, Scoring Units have to fit, not either, but *both*
> criteria.
>
> Ex: Chosen and Havoks are Chaos Infantry, but are not Scoring Units -
> Simply because they're not listed under the Troops section of their
> dex.
> Termis and Raptors are unhappy at the prospect, as well. :- (
>
> > since it becomes a
> > "Troops" after it's unlocked by your HQ, it fulfills the requirement
>
> Not really - that's my point:
>
cool.. then we can "No Arguement" it for a -1 to something...
whatever.
> The Ork dex lets Heavy and Elite choies fill Troops slots.
> Nobz, for instance, are Infantry, but are they to be excluded?
> The Nobz entry is, after all, listed under Elites in their dex.
>
> Also, some dexes have Jump Infantry in Troop slots.
> Jump Infantry is a Troop Type separate from Infantry.
> BA players will be miffed if Black Marines can't score!
>
> And what of the "Troop Infantry Units" sporting Without Number?
> GLD Infantry are Troops that don't occupy a Troops *slot*, etc.
> The answers are to be found only in the final RAW.
>
> > invalidating their precious armies is much more satisfying
>
> Even more satisfying would be a policy curbing developer
> overreaction.
> I'm a Chaos player, and even I thought Mr. Haines' army overbuffed.
> The Siren Prince was a straight-up ill-considered game mechanic.
> They could have fixed IW/SP with a tenth the effort to ruin it all.
>
> They didn't. And now they're turning this new paradigm on *every* 40k
> army.
> The potential for disaster in these economically uncertain times is
> huge.
>
and as far as I'm concerned.. that's probably a good thing. I don't
fucking care anymore if they wreck the whole goddamned thing and run
GW the rest of the way into the ground. Either the next company to
pick up the IP from the bankruptcy sell-off will fix it, or my stuff
in storage may get a collectors item boost in the secondary market.
Either way.. the fanboys will cry and I'll get to laugh at them alot.
> > my army got clubbed
>
> Exactly - Codex creep, developer overreaction, the Pendulum Effect,
> etc.
> If they fumble this time around, it'll be pretty bad for 40k and The
> Hobby.
> But, further alienation could prove very bad indeed for The PLC . . .
>
Once again... I don't care. Now that the last heads left to roll
include Jervis, Alessio and Kirby, it can only get better from my
point of view. They either fix it right or they're the last rats to
drown with the sinking ship.
> Still, let's all look on the bright side -
>
> We won't have Gav to kick around!
He was around for the development of 5th edition. So as far as I'm
concerned, we won't have a "Gav Free" 40K until 6th ed now.
The Cheshire Cat
and here i was contemplating picking up the game again.
glad i logged in to see this little gem!
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On Apr 29, 9:12 am, "The Cheshire Cat" <Rokn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> glad i logged in to see this little gem!
Not so fast, Bucko! Check out this little gem:
http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/extras/countdown.htm
The "teaser" tells us all we need to know about the effort going into
5th ed.
Playa
jockelinde
:-(
--
Joakim
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On May 1, 12:42 pm, jockelinde <nou...@notmydomain.se> wrote:
> Most (but not quite all) of the 5th edition rumours sound really bad
Latest BoLS scuttlebutt is that the Blast nerf uses 2d6 Scatter.
That extra d6 makes a huge difference in Mathhammer!
Rolling 2d6 for Scatter, subtracting BS means:
BS4 Units now have a 52% chance to hit instead of 67%,
BS3, a 44% chance instead of 50, and
BS2, a 39% chance instead of 33.
So, BS4 Units average 22% *fewer* Hits from Blast weapons.
Meanwhile, BS2s enjoy 18% *more* Mathhammer Hits.
If true, is this a bad game mechanic?
All players enduring yet more d6 rolling and math?
And even if you love rolling and math, isn't the *result* bad?
Most players would probably say,
"Very bad. What happened to Streamlining?"
(Though, Ork players might not share this view . . . )
Realistically, every GW publication is aimed at selling more models.
I just can't help feeling that *good* rules sell "more models".
Bad rules? [shrug] Time will tell.
Playa
Myrmidon
07cae4...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, JohnPau...@gmail.com
says...
the cover art looks like a cheesey tie in with the trailer for DoW 2?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FDjR2xYnHjw&feature=related
Myr
--
RGMW has always been brutally honest. It's probably why we're
considered the scum of the GW gaming community.
- Fog
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On May 1, 4:58 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> What, that they threw some flash animation at it this time?
No, that they didn't look-up the definition of 'teaser'.
> the trailer for DoW 2 ... youtube.com
Wow! That's nice. But, is it a teaser? (I don't play DoW.)
If DoW1 had MegaNobz and MC Hammer already, it's not.
A teaser makes you *anticipate* something new, imo.
The v5 "teaser" had Marines and "In the grim darkness ... ".
These days, that's a weak ad. But, definitely not a teaser.
(I get the impression GW mistakenly thinks it's "viral".)
Most players I know are uneasy about v5 due to the rumors.
Releasing the pre-press pdf may have been "viral" of GW.
But, it's not inspiring *anticipation* in anyone I know.
Dread, maybe . . .
Playa
Fin
> Hey,
>
> On May 1, 12:42 pm, jockelinde <nou...@notmydomain.se> wrote:
>
> Latest BoLS scuttlebutt is that the Blast nerf uses 2d6 Scatter.
> That extra d6 makes a huge difference in Mathhammer!
> Rolling 2d6 for Scatter, subtracting BS means:
>
> BS4 Units now have a 52% chance to hit instead of 67%,
> BS3, a 44% chance instead of 50, and
> BS2, a 39% chance instead of 33.
>
> So, BS4 Units average 22% *fewer* Hits from Blast weapons.
> Meanwhile, BS2s enjoy 18% *more* Mathhammer Hits.
>
>
Hey Playa,
that's not how I took this at all. Fire at the centre of a mob of
orks and scattering 1-3" is not neccessarily too bad a thing. Firing
frag missles for instance can probably still get a direct hit with a
1" scatter.
Unless I am going mad, under the current rules a missed blast weapon
has no battlefield effect. If you are trying to plow down swarm
armies this makes direct fire blast weapons much more effective for
everyone using them. For some armies droppping blast markers at
random in the opponent's deployment area would be an effective
startegy.
Dropping rolling for partials will also make them much more
effective. Currently for a guard firing on a SM squad you need over 5
marines fully covered by the small blast template to get a better kill
rate on average vs a single krak missle. Bloody hard if your opponent
spaces out your firing lines. Replacing the 50-50 roll to hit with
0-3 inch scatter with 50% being zero scatter and counting partials for
wounds will move the odds much more in favour of the frag missle.
Krak .5 hits X 5/6 wound X 1 (AP) = 0.4166 kills per turn
Frag .5 hits X .5 wound X .333 (save) = 0.083 kills per fully covered
model (half that for partials)
Something off with my math or is this good for the frag?
Fin
Fin
>
> On May 1, 12:42 pm, jockelinde <nou...@notmydomain.se> wrote:
>
>
> Latest BoLS scuttlebutt is that the Blast nerf uses 2d6 Scatter.
> That extra d6 makes a huge difference in Mathhammer!
> Rolling 2d6 for Scatter, subtracting BS means:
>
Hi Playa,
Ouch, sorry, re-read your post. 2d6 is a major increase to scatter.
You'd almost be better shooting at the squad next to the one you are
aiming at. Or is it like indirect and the highest of 2d6 is used? In
that case with -3 or -4 for most imperial forces my prior statement
still stand.
Fin
Blackheart
no... it's all smiles and baited breath on the fanboi forums...
especially with the "enforcement" of the diligent moderators.
JohnPau...@gmail.com
Hey,
On May 2, 9:20 am, Fin <f_mac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 May, 20:51, JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Latest BoLS scuttlebutt is that the Blast nerf uses 2d6 Scatter.
> You'd almost be better shooting at the squad next to the one you are
> aiming at
Well, not using BS helps ensure you'll always Hit *something*.
> is it like indirect and the highest of 2d6 is used?
The Pick the Higher rumor went around after the d6 Scatter rumor.
Both were quashed by eye-witness account of the final draft.
Read: It's definitely Scatter 2d6, then subtract BS. :- (
Playa
Erik Setzer
wrote:
>
>Hey,
>
>On May 1, 4:58 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
>> What, that they threw some flash animation at it this time?
>
>No, that they didn't look-up the definition of 'teaser'.
>
>> the trailer for DoW 2 ... youtube.com
>
>Wow! That's nice. But, is it a teaser? (I don't play DoW.)
>If DoW1 had MegaNobz and MC Hammer already, it's not.
>A teaser makes you *anticipate* something new, imo.
>
>The v5 "teaser" had Marines and "In the grim darkness ... ".
>These days, that's a weak ad. But, definitely not a teaser.
>(I get the impression GW mistakenly thinks it's "viral".)
About as viral as a venereal disease and almost as interesting...
--
Erik
Insert soulless sig file here.
Erik Setzer
wrote:
>
>Hey,
>
>On May 1, 12:42 pm, jockelinde <nou...@notmydomain.se> wrote:
>> Most (but not quite all) of the 5th edition rumours sound really bad
>
>Latest BoLS scuttlebutt is that the Blast nerf uses 2d6 Scatter.
>That extra d6 makes a huge difference in Mathhammer!
>Rolling 2d6 for Scatter, subtracting BS means:
>
>BS4 Units now have a 52% chance to hit instead of 67%,
>BS3, a 44% chance instead of 50, and
>BS2, a 39% chance instead of 33.
>
>So, BS4 Units average 22% *fewer* Hits from Blast weapons.
>Meanwhile, BS2s enjoy 18% *more* Mathhammer Hits.
>
>If true, is this a bad game mechanic?
>All players enduring yet more d6 rolling and math?
>And even if you love rolling and math, isn't the *result* bad?
>
>Most players would probably say,
>"Very bad. What happened to Streamlining?"
>(Though, Ork players might not share this view . . . )
Eh, it doesn't help my viewpoint that I like rolling dice and I've got
an army full of BS2 troops. Come on, I roll 100 dice at one time
because I can (seriously, I do... it freaks people out when you roll
them all at once). I can handle rolling an extra D6 per blast marker.
I'd take more blast weapons just to slowly drive my opponent insane.
Hey, it could be worse. Have you seen the rules for the
rocket-launching maniacs in the Warmachine Menoth armies?
Fin
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:20:38 -0700 (PDT), JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't most VD bacteria based rather than viral? Or is this some sort
of 'inside' joke for those who walk and pee carefully.
Remember kids, play safe.
fin
Fin
>
> Since no one else has posted it here yet, there's a nice chunk of 5th
> Edition rumors as well as shots of the new rule book cover up on the
> Bell of Lost Souls site.
>
> http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
> "I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
> and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
>
> -- Moramarth
>
> RGMW FAQ:http://www.rgmw.org
Hi Myr,
Checked the link. Have you seen the
http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/2008/04/rumors-5th-edition-content-details.html
content rumour for the starter boxes. Two armies for 30£ plus the new
rules. How could you not at that price? I can see some seriously
large Ork and SM armies kicking about after this. I can see people
buying more than one if they were starting an army from scratch.
Given the list includes:
Commander sprue
dreadnaught
3 death copters
squad marines
squad termies
Orks
Ork nobs
You'd have to see the normal prices being readjusted down for most of
the components. Unless they are going to dust off and punt out crappy
versions of the dread (maybe the RT one from one of the Space Marine
updates), the old plastic termies (from Spacehulk) and the crap snap
fit marines so not to directly compete.
Regards,
Fin
The Cheshire Cat
"Fin" <f_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e01edc77-b9cd-4cc0...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Apr, 03:43, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Since no one else has posted it here yet, there's a nice chunk of 5th
> Edition rumors as well as shots of the new rule book cover up on the
> Bell of Lost Souls site.
>
> http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Myr
>
> --
> "I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
> and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
>
> -- Moramarth
>
> RGMW FAQ:http://www.rgmw.org
Hi Myr,
Checked the link. Have you seen the
http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/2008/04/rumors-5th-edition-content-details.html
content rumour for the starter boxes. Two armies for 30Ł plus the new
rules. How could you not at that price? I can see some seriously
large Ork and SM armies kicking about after this. I can see people
buying more than one if they were starting an army from scratch.
Given the list includes:
Commander sprue
dreadnaught
3 death copters
squad marines
squad termies
Orks
Ork nobs
You'd have to see the normal prices being readjusted down for most of
the components. Unless they are going to dust off and punt out crappy
versions of the dread (maybe the RT one from one of the Space Marine
updates), the old plastic termies (from Spacehulk) and the crap snap
fit marines so not to directly compete.
i cant believe im saying this but its a good price...im tempted myself.
maybe gw is learning its lesson?
Erik Setzer
wrote:
Means they aren't very viral, are they?
Erik Setzer
wrote:
>On 25 Apr, 03:43, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
Well, BFSP had some pretty good single or two piece models, so it's
possible these could be pretty good as well. If the quality is on par
with BFM even, much less BFSP, I'll be good with it. I know my dad
and I will get two boxes anyway. We've both got Marines and are
trying to build up an Ork horde, at least a collective horde. But
beyond that, we try to each have a copy of the rulebook, extra
templates are always good, and I could use the dice (I'm only at
around 550 currently).
A Nobz mob and Deth Koptas sell me on the Orks. Extra Terminators and
a Dreadnought will help me with my Marine army, too. Those are models
which are either too expensive to get currently or, in the case of the
DKs, don't exist.
Doctor Rock
"Erik Setzer" <kgavrin-at-gmail-dot-com> wrote in message
news:6r3424hu7iqirqr7s...@4ax.com...
herpes, genital warts, hepatitis and HIV are all viral. just so y'all know
who to blame.
Erik Setzer
Looks like GW's got hope yet. All they need is for their teaser to
turn into the Internet form of herpes.
Blackheart
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 22:34:28 +0100, "Doctor Rock"
>
>
>
>
>
> <mala...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Erik Setzer" <kgavrin-at-gmail-dot-com> wrote in message
> >news:6r3424hu7iqirqr7s...@4ax.com...
I'm not sure the internet can handle another Erik Setzer.
The Cheshire Cat
> >>>Isn't most VD bacteria based rather than viral? Or is this some sort
> >>>of 'inside' joke for those who walk and pee carefully.
>
> >>>Remember kids, play safe.
>
> >>>fin
>
> >> Means they aren't very viral, are they?
>
> >herpes, genital warts, hepatitis and HIV are all viral. just so y'all
> >know
> >who to blame.
>
> Looks like GW's got hope yet. All they need is for their teaser to
> turn into the Internet form of herpes.
>I'm not sure the internet can handle another Erik Setzer.
you owe me: new shirt, new monitor, new keyboard, and a new mouse pad. and a
soda.
Blackheart
through your nose?
estarriol
"The Cheshire Cat" <Rok...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kNednTK7mo5A1rvV...@comcast.com...
> <snip>
>> >>>Isn't most VD bacteria based rather than viral? Or is this some sort
>> >>>of 'inside' joke for those who walk and pee carefully.
>>
>> >>>Remember kids, play safe.
>>
>> >>>fin
>>
>> >> Means they aren't very viral, are they?
>>
>> >herpes, genital warts, hepatitis and HIV are all viral. just so y'all
>> >know
>> >who to blame.
>>
-----outake-------------------
>> Looks like GW's got hope yet. All they need is for their teaser to
>> turn into the Internet form of herpes.
>
>>I'm not sure the internet can handle another Erik Setzer.
>
-------------outake--------------------------
Blackheart
<estarr...@estarriol.jeansNTshirt.co.uk> wrote:
> "The Cheshire Cat" <Rokn...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:kNednTK7mo5A1rvV...@comcast.com...> <snip>
> >> >>>Isn't most VD bacteria based rather than viral? Or is this some sort
> >> >>>of 'inside' joke for those who walk and pee carefully.
>
> >> >>>Remember kids, play safe.
>
> >> >>>fin
>
> >> >> Means they aren't very viral, are they?
>
> >> >herpes, genital warts, hepatitis and HIV are all viral. just so y'all
> >> >know
> >> >who to blame.
>
> -----outake-------------------
>
> >> Looks like GW's got hope yet. All they need is for their teaser to
> >> turn into the Internet form of herpes.
>
> >>I'm not sure the internet can handle another Erik Setzer.
>
> -------------outake--------------------------
make sure the credit goes to the right person... I'm not sure what
business he has trying to nominate outtakes when he can't even quote
them properly.
The Cheshire Cat
"Blackheart" <blackhear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:19bcf86f-3ea6-4197...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>through your nose?
like a fucking shotgun blast
Blackheart
> "Blackheart" <blackheart666_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Did you bag a lawyer?
Erik Setzer
I don't know, I don't think you can have too much of a good thing,
such as me.
I realize now that I've said that that it sounds like I'm trying to
come on to you. I am deeply disturbed at the implications it might
suggest.
The Cheshire Cat
The Cheshire Cat
> > > >>>sort
> > > >>>of 'inside' joke for those who walk and pee carefully.
>
> > > >>>Remember kids, play safe.
>
> > > >>>fin
>
> > > >> Means they aren't very viral, are they?
>
> > > >herpes, genital warts, hepatitis and HIV are all viral. just so y'all
> > > >know
> > > >who to blame.
>
> > > Looks like GW's got hope yet. All they need is for their teaser to
> > > turn into the Internet form of herpes.
> > >I'm not sure the internet can handle another Erik Setzer.
>
> > you owe me: new shirt, new monitor, new keyboard, and a new mouse pad.
> > and
> > a
> > soda.-
> >through your nose?
>
> like a fucking shotgun blast
Did you bag a lawyer?
does a meter maid count?