PDA

View Full Version : A Few 6th Ed Questions Answered At The GW Design Studio Open Day...



Mauler
15-07-2012, 13:01
Some of this is copied from my thread over at Advanced Tau Tactica, some of it is not as it's more relavent here. Yesterday I was at the GW HQ for their design Studio open day and was fortunate enough to spend some time speaking to Jervis Johnson and two of the 6th rules/FAQs team (one of whom was Simon Grant, an assistant rules developer) who were good enough to clear up a few questions I had. They're mostly Tau & Eldar as I field both of those, but there's a few general things in there too.

These answers are directly from members of the game design team themselves, they did not always have time to fully justify their explanations and there is none of my opinions stated below unless otherwise written. Please do not bust my chops if you don't like the official line - it's not my fault or problem! :P


Tau:

Iridium Armour
Reduces our jet pack assault move from 2D6 to 1D6 which is then affected by external modifiers as appropriate.

Our Target Lock removal should be replaced with it providing the Split Fire rule.

The above should be FAQed imminently, apparently.

I was asked by a fellow ATT member to field the following Skyray Qs:

1. Does hitting flying Monstrous creatures with a markerlight cause a grounded test.
2. Can seekers be launched at flyers at BS5 in response to a marker hit (it's been hinted towards but would be nice to have it expressed for sure in the FAQ).
3. Do markerlights launched in overwatch have any affect? (can they be used to remove cover if they are networked or do they stay on the unit until the next tau shooting phase)
4. Is the skyray intended to have the skyfire rule?

The answers were not exactly what us Tau players were hoping for, but see my mention of codicies further down:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Can only lower cover save if applicable, has to be networked markerlight for firing unit to benefit.
4. No.


Eldar:

Karandras' Stealth rule is indeed the Stealth USR (grats, Mercury14!); the mention of Scorpions in brackets is just an example and the rule is indeed conferred to any unit he can join.

Howling Banshees cannot be armed with any power weapon as their codex entry specifically states they the unit type is armed with power swords despite the army list entry saying 'power weapons'. The only Banshee model without a sword is an old Exarch model which is actually armed with an old Executioner. Simon then went on to say that even if Banshees could be armed with power axes they would still strike at I1, rendering their Banshee masks useless, but as they can't be armed with axes the point is moot.


General Stuff:

Power weapons can only be chosen by the player if a unit's FAQ, codex entry and army list entry fail to specify a type. See the Banshee example above. (I assume that this is because previous editions of 40k didn't differenciate between types of power weapons, just allowed them to ignore armour so whatever weapon the model had was purely cosmetic and this is no longer the case.)

The Character trait for a troop type is only applicable if that model is leading a unit. I specifically asked about the SW's Wolf Guard rulebook entry at the back and the official line was that you cannot have a unit of characters, only the leading model is considered to have that trait. So in the case of Wolf Guard, they are only a character when used as a Pack Leader, but this restriction applies to any unit with the (Ch) suffix in the rulebook. (I have no idea why GK Paladins are listed as characters, I didn't think to ask at the time.)

No units have access to flakk missiles at present. The ammo type has been listed in the rulebook with the intention of being assigned via future codicies.

Simon Grant (with Jervis Johnson sat next to him) stated that while his team and other internal GW staff are extremely limited by corporate policy when it comes to updating existing GW units, Forgeworld are not so much when it comes to theirs. "...[Forgeworld] are allowed to bend the rules but we are not." were his exact words, which would explain the lack of AA/skyfire FAQ/rules for the Tau Skyray, for example, but Forgeworld's own units have updated FAQs (like the Eldar Firestorm). Simon then went on to say that his team have been giving a big push to codex development recently, to the point where a lot are almost ready to go ("We have books that we have read but you guys haven't seen yet" were his exact words) and should start to be released "very soon" with more releases every 2-3 months thereafter. So there's hope for us IVth edition codex players yet!

That's pretty much it, I think. As stated at the start the info listed above is direct from Jervis Johnson & Simon Grant (long-term strategy manager/game designer & assistant game developer respectively (There was also a woman on the panel, but I didn't get her name)) answering my questions, in person, directly. While I cannot prove that any of the above is codex - I can scan my event ticket & the pages of my rulebook signed by Jervis Johnson & John Blanche if you like - I expect most, if not all, of the above answers to either end up in minor FAQ changes and/or new codex entries. There's not much point in trying to argue or criticise any of the above, I am not in contact with either of the chaps above and I'm just the messenger sharing what I hope is useful info.

:)

yabbadabba
15-07-2012, 13:14
I remember when Simon was a keytimer in Eastbourne :D

Starchild
15-07-2012, 14:14
Cheers on characters referring to unit leaders or independent characters only! To argue the contrary is deceitful.

Sildani
15-07-2012, 14:17
Thanks for that, Mauler. The inability to choose your units' power weapons unless NOTHING indicates what the unit is armed with might be the first occasion where, in fact, background info = rules.

Gaargod
15-07-2012, 14:23
The answer about markerlight hits forcing a grounding test saddens me greatly. I was really hoping that was an error, and they meant wounds, not hits, to force grounding tests.

Mauler
15-07-2012, 16:31
Cheers on characters referring to unit leaders or independent characters only! To argue the contrary is deceitful.

Thanks! :D To me, a character has to be a stand-out model against the background of their unit. If you've got a unit of characters then, by comparison, none of them stand out and it becomes an oxymoron, IMO :) Some of my fellow Tau players aren't too happy with that as it could stop them issuing challenges with the drones attached to a character but that's kinda 50/50 with me.



Thanks for that, Mauler. The inability to choose your units' power weapons unless NOTHING indicates what the unit is armed with might be the first occasion where, in fact, background info = rules.

No probs. I think that it's a mix of common sense and fairness that people stick to the known fluff when using their lists with VIth rules. Defining power weapon types with older units (like Banshees) opens up a whole load of new conflicts that weren't possible with the old rulesets so going by the fluff provides some stability until updated codicies are released.



The answer about markerlight hits forcing a grounding test saddens me greatly. I was really hoping that was an error, and they meant wounds, not hits, to force grounding tests.

Well there's several ways of looking at why a simple markerlight hit (or hits) could ground a flyer; the pilot/creature could instinctively know that a marketlight is a warning of imminent pain and/or death and so gets on the deck to avoid the following incoming fire or they could have their sensors/eyes blinded by the lights (can actually happen with pilots and laser pointers, apparently!) and get lower to recover. I don't think it's a significant danger though, I mean markerlights still have to hit at BS1 and according to the Skyray answers any seekers fired from those markerlight hits are BS1 also!

Lord Inquisitor
15-07-2012, 16:38
Some interesting stuff there cheers. The "no units of characters" is unexpected but prevents some abuse. Although it is a bit odd for units like chaos terminators that really can buy multiple champions.

MajorWesJanson
15-07-2012, 16:50
Some interesting stuff there cheers. The "no units of characters" is unexpected but prevents some abuse. Although it is a bit odd for units like chaos terminators that really can buy multiple champions.

For another month, I expect. All the champion upgrade does is add one more attack, anyways.

taudau
15-07-2012, 16:52
Well, since this is just talk from anyone I don't expect any real changes. GW never changes faq's that quickly.

Shadowfane
15-07-2012, 16:53
For another month, I expect. All the champion upgrade does is add one more attack, anyways.

Yeah, the whole "unit of characters LOS and wound allocation" doesnt approach ludicrous levels until you have more than one wound on each model, to be fair - chaos terminator champions were never the biggest issues with that rule..

Sexiest_hero
15-07-2012, 17:10
No eldar/dakeldar clearup makes me sad :(.

Charistoph
15-07-2012, 17:12
That Seeker answer is BS. They will have to amend that section for me to take that officially.

Of course that applies to any of these answers. Hoepfully, they will have them in August's releases so they are official.


Well, since this is just talk from anyone I don't expect any real changes. GW never changes faq's that quickly.

Once a month isn't that bad, which is the schedule they followed for Fantasy 8th. Most MMORPG updates that change things beyond bugs and errors are usually any where from 6 weeks to a full quarter.

megatrons2nd
15-07-2012, 22:30
Boy, they are really pushing those imperial defense lines for people to actually be able to compete with fliers when they have none of their own. Still won't buy them as I personally think they are ugly. I also refuse to buy Imperial stuff as I think it is all ugly crap as well. Guess I'll lose most games I play for until my codex(s) are updated, and I get stuff to use against fliers.

Chem-Dog
15-07-2012, 23:59
I remember when Simon was a keytimer in Eastbourne :D

Yeah, I remember the Jedi Inquisitor Character he came up with :D

Quaade
16-07-2012, 00:00
Why don't you just make your own <race><name> fortification instead. The name might be imperial but the concept of fortifications should in some way be universal since noone enjoys getting their heads shot off.

I'm planning on making some count as defence lines in the form of force field barriers for my dark eldar.

megatrons2nd
16-07-2012, 06:11
That would be great if I had any ability to sculpt at all. I can barely paint. Aside from dropping down some of my childhood block(which actually block LoS) I won't be having much in the way of fortifications.

Leeman Russ
16-07-2012, 08:31
Not that I see many Skyrays where I game, but it's still a bit bizarre that it doesn't have Skyfire, despite being an AA platform. :confused:

Mauler
16-07-2012, 08:41
Not that I see many Skyrays where I game, but it's still a bit bizarre that it doesn't have Skyfire, despite being an AA platform. :confused:

Tell me about it! As a Tau player myself it's not exactly what I wanted to hear but if Si says that GW's corporate policy is to not give new stuff to existing units then there's not much he can do about it. The new Tau codex should very much sort that out, I expect!

Wishing
16-07-2012, 08:49
The only Banshee model without a sword is an old Exarch model which is actually armed with an old Executioner.

Pardon my ignorance, but if we are thinking about the same model, then that model clearly has a power axe... is Executioner just a fancy word for a power axe?

Sons of Lorgar
16-07-2012, 09:03
But apparently taking stuff away from existing units is fine (Vanquisher HE shell comes to mind)

IJW
16-07-2012, 09:05
Pardon my ignorance, but if we are thinking about the same model, then that model clearly has a power axe... is Executioner just a fancy word for a power axe?

Executioner is a fancy name for a two-handed power axe.

Wishing
16-07-2012, 09:18
Executioner is a fancy name for a two-handed power axe.

A special eldar version, I imagine. Thanks for that!

I'm still confused/peturbed since the weapon that the exarch is wielding is clearly a one-handed weapon, and the model was made at a time when a power axe was just a power axe, so saying that his weapon is an "executioner" rather than a power axe seems to me like embarrassing wishful retconning. But hey.

IJW
16-07-2012, 09:49
Models and equipment didn't always match too well back in Rogue Trader.

the_picto
16-07-2012, 09:53
They aren't allowed to add stuff to existing units? Why did they add fear to daemons, invasion ray to night scythes and an extra point of strength to frost axes?

Surely a banshee with an axe would roll off to see whether they get the I10 for the mask or the I1 for the axe?

Where does it say banshee's have power swords? I haven't read my eldar book in a long time. Is it in the equipment listed or is it mentioned in the page long fluff section? Unless the fluff says they exclusively use swords then you still have room to model them how you like.

Wishing
16-07-2012, 09:54
Models and equipment didn't always match too well back in Rogue Trader.

Do you mean that a banshee exarch couldn't actually be equipped with a power axe? Because I'll have to take your word for that, I don't remember myself...

Athlan na Dyr
16-07-2012, 10:27
Where does it say banshee's have power swords? I haven't read my eldar book in a long time. Is it in the equipment listed or is it mentioned in the page long fluff section? Unless the fluff says they exclusively use swords then you still have room to model them how you like.

Whilst it is mentioned in the fluff section that they use power swords, perhaps this is more of an indication that in a future Eldar dex the Banshees will be armed exclusively with swords and whomever was a part of the Q and A confused the future dex and the current. Or perhaps it was deliberately done to prevent people's conversions being invalidated by a new dex in the not to distant future.

I severly doubt it was because the codex entry said so :eyebrows: . Two reasons why, the first being it is fluff text and fluff text alone rather than a rule or equipment description. The second is that power swords are specified in codex: Space Marines and probably a few others, and the FAQ for C:SM did change the wording to 'power weapon' rather than 'power sword'.

Still, cheers Mauler for posting. Very nice to hear that codices will be released reasonably soon after the launch of sixth and multiple codices are almost ready to go.

EDIT: Just noticed. THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!

AndrewGPaul
16-07-2012, 10:43
From the original Craftworld Eldar army list;


Exarchs carry the same armament as Warriors of their Aspect. Alternatively any Exarch may surrender this equipment in favour of a single randomly generated weapon from the Ancient Weapons Chart given at the end of this list.
In practise, we usually let people choose the weapon which matched the model, rather than having to convert a new Exarch every game. :)

Said list included a power axe. In fact, entry 85-100 on the chart was "The Exarch is armed with the weapon most commonly associated with his Aspect:
Dire Avengers......... Powersword
Howling Banshees.... Power Axe :)
Striking Scorpions.... Biting Sword
Swooping Hawks..... Lasblaster
Fire Dragons........... Firepike
Dark Reapers.......... Power Blade" (Why this was the only one that didn't reflect the miniature, I don't know)

The Executioner was described as "shaped like a great scythe or heavy spear". The catalogue entry for the model calls it a Howling Banshee Exarch with Power Axe; I think Simon was mistaken. I'll take him at his word that reular Howling Banshee Aspect Warriors definitely have power swords, but to my mind, you can still give Exarchs axes if modelled appropriately.

mercury14
16-07-2012, 10:49
From the original Craftworld Eldar army list;


In practise, we usually let people choose the weapon which matched the model, rather than having to convert a new Exarch every game. :)

Said list included a power axe. The Executioner was described as "shaped like a great scythe or heavy spear". The catalogue entry for the model calls it a Howling Banshee Exarch with Power Axe; I think Simon was mistaken. I'll take him at his word that reular Howling Banshee Aspect Warriors definitely have power swords, but to my mind, you can still give Exarchs axes if modelled appropriately.

So the no units of characters thing... How would that impact a seer council?

AndrewGPaul
16-07-2012, 10:52
I think you quoted the wrong person there; I have no idea. :)

By "Seer Council", presumably you mean a Farseer an a unit of Warlocks? In that case it seems fairly obvious that the Farseer is a Character and the Warlocks in this case are not.

mercury14
16-07-2012, 11:04
I think you quoted the wrong person there; I have no idea. :)

By "Seer Council", presumably you mean a Farseer an a unit of Warlocks? In that case it seems fairly obvious that the Farseer is a Character and the Warlocks in this case are not.


For what purposes though? Just wound allocation? Or challenges as well?

AndrewGPaul
16-07-2012, 11:13
For all purposes. That's what the opening post states:


The Character trait for a troop type is only applicable if that model is leading a unit.
That seems fairly clear, and only Characters can make use of the Look Out, Sir! rule and take part in a Challenge. In the case of a Farseer with accompanying Warlocks, the Farseer is the one leading the unit, and is thus a Character while the Warlocks are not. Conversely, a Warlock in a Guardian squad is a Character because he's leading the unit.

Mauler
16-07-2012, 11:15
Pardon my ignorance, but if we are thinking about the same model, then that model clearly has a power axe... is Executioner just a fancy word for a power axe?

Nope, an Executioner is a 2h power glaive that adds +2 strength, no other special rules. Despite the old model, a glaive is more akin to a spear or polearm than an axe BUT as per BRB p61 (I think, am bookless at work) Unusual Power Weapons are AP3 with any special rules from their codex applied. The Executioner is then AP3 +2S and not behaving like a power axe at all :)




They aren't allowed to add stuff to existing units? Why did they add fear to daemons, invasion ray to night scythes and an extra point of strength to frost axes?

Surely a banshee with an axe would roll off to see whether they get the I10 for the mask or the I1 for the axe?

Where does it say banshee's have power swords? I haven't read my eldar book in a long time. Is it in the equipment listed or is it mentioned in the page long fluff section? Unless the fluff says they exclusively use swords then you still have room to model them how you like.

I have no idea mate, I don't field any of those units. Were those changes granted by general rules changes, FAQed in or are they listed that way in the VIth BRB appendix?

Nope, no rolling-off apparently. Power axes are I1 so I1 it is. I don't field Banshees myself but I'm not too keen on that, if they were allowed to take axes.

The last paragraph of their description states that Banshees are armed with swords, top of pg 31 in the Eldar codex.




Whilst it is mentioned in the fluff section that they use power swords, perhaps this is more of an indication that in a future Eldar dex the Banshees will be armed exclusively with swords and whomever was a part of the Q and A confused the future dex and the current. Or perhaps it was deliberately done to prevent people's conversions being invalidated by a new dex in the not to distant future.

I severly doubt it was because the codex entry said so :eyebrows: . Two reasons why, the first being it is fluff text and fluff text alone rather than a rule or equipment description. The second is that power swords are specified in codex: Space Marines and probably a few others, and the FAQ for C:SM did change the wording to 'power weapon' rather than 'power sword'.

Still, cheers Mauler for posting. Very nice to hear that codices will be released reasonably soon after the launch of sixth and multiple codices are almost ready to go.

EDIT: Just noticed. THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!

I don't think that any Banshee sprues have anything on them for a non-Exarch other than swords, do they? I think that's a fair indication lol ;)

Not a problem, mate :) I figured that trying to get clarification on some subjects is good for everyone - less arguing and more getting on with games (even if it's not exactly what we/I wanted to hear in some cases).

the_picto
16-07-2012, 12:21
I have no idea mate, I don't field any of those units. Were those changes granted by general rules changes, FAQed in or are they listed that way in the VIth BRB appendix?


They were all added in the new faq/errata. Invasion ray seems to be a way of them keeping the night scythe as a transport without giving it hover, the extra strength on frost axes was to differentiate them from a normal power axe. Fear on daemons was complete new and came out of no where. Just seems odd that he's saying they couldn't give the sky ray sky fire because they're not allowed to give units new rules when they just gave the entire daemon book the new fear rule.



Nope, no rolling-off apparently. Power axes are I1 so I1 it is. I don't field Banshees myself but I'm not too keen on that, if they were allowed to take axes.


But every other time it's been set value conflicting with set value we have been told to roll off. Set value seems to trump +/- modifier, but the banshee mask is just I10 conflicting with the axes I1.



The last paragraph of their description states that Banshees are armed with swords, top of pg 31 in the Eldar codex.


I'll have to dig out my eldar codex and read that paragraph, unless someone wants to quote it.

Cthell
16-07-2012, 12:31
But every other time it's been set value conflicting with set value we have been told to roll off. Set value seems to trump +/- modifier, but the banshee mask is just I10 conflicting with the axes I1.

Not quite; the banshee mask confers I10 on the banshees. However, the "unwieldy" rule makes the user strike at I1 regardless of actual initiative.

Therefore, the sequence is

Banshee starts at I5
Banshee mask confers I10
Power Axe is unwieldy, therefore strikes at I1

Of course, if you can't give a banshee a power axe, this is rather academic. Although, you could give an Autarch a banshee mask and a power axe I suppose...

Mauler
16-07-2012, 12:42
They were all added in the new faq/errata. Invasion ray seems to be a way of them keeping the night scythe as a transport without giving it hover, the extra strength on frost axes was to differentiate them from a normal power axe. Fear on daemons was complete new and came out of no where. Just seems odd that he's saying they couldn't give the sky ray sky fire because they're not allowed to give units new rules when they just gave the entire daemon book the new fear rule.



But every other time it's been set value conflicting with set value we have been told to roll off. Set value seems to trump +/- modifier, but the banshee mask is just I10 conflicting with the axes I1.



I'll have to dig out my eldar codex and read that paragraph, unless someone wants to quote it.

Odd!! That's pretty inconsistent with regards to adding new attributes. I can't really shed any light there, I can only repeat that I was told.

The Banshee thing isn't really one to worry about now seeing as they can't have axes ;)

"In battle, what these fierce warrior women lack in brute strength they make up for in precision and efficiency, their shimmering power swords slicing through armour, flesh and bone with equal ease."

Sheena Easton
16-07-2012, 13:54
Pardon my ignorance, but if we are thinking about the same model, then that model clearly has a power axe... is Executioner just a fancy word for a power axe?

They are referring to this 3rd Ed Banshee Exarch (http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Eldar_Howling_Banshee_Exarch.gif) not the original RT / 2nd Ed Banshee Exarch with Power Axe (http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2094eldaraspects-h.htm) - so either it has been forgotten about, or it is being ignored. It wouldn't be the first time they have ignored old models when making new rules / editions.

Though if Banshees specifically cannot have Power Axes then I assume those with the original model should count it as being armed with an Executioner or a Power Sword depending on their own preference.

the_picto
16-07-2012, 14:03
They are referring to this 3rd Ed Banshee Exarch (http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Eldar_Howling_Banshee_Exarch.gif) not the original RT / 2nd Ed Banshee Exarch with Power Axe (http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2094eldaraspects-h.htm) - so either it has been forgotten about, or it is being ignored. It wouldn't be the first time they have ignored old models when making new rules / editions.

Though if Banshees specifically cannot have Power Axes then I assume those with the original model should count it as being armed with an Executioner or a Power Sword depending on their own preference.

To be fair, that model is also equipped with a laspistol.

unknown_lifeform
16-07-2012, 14:23
Just seems odd that he's saying they couldn't give the sky ray sky fire because they're not allowed to give units new rules when they just gave the entire daemon book the new fear rule.


From the Imperial Guard FAQ: "Add the skyfire special rule to the hydra autocannon's type". Because the only thing better than a completely arbitrary non-sensible position is an inconsistent arbitrary non-sensible position.

Still, even with skyfire the skyray would still suck.

Ultraloth
16-07-2012, 14:33
Not quite; the banshee mask confers I10 on the banshees. However, the "unwieldy" rule makes the user strike at I1 regardless of actual initiative.

Therefore, the sequence is

Banshee starts at I5
Banshee mask confers I10
Power Axe is unwieldy, therefore strikes at I1

Of course, if you can't give a banshee a power axe, this is rather academic. Although, you could give an Autarch a banshee mask and a power axe I suppose...

I think your inventing your own distinction there.

On the other hand this issue just brings to light how stupid it is that the banshee mask gives its weare an I 10, instead of lowering the I of their opponents like it used to.

Veteran Sergeant
16-07-2012, 15:06
They are referring to this 3rd Ed Banshee Exarch (http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Eldar_Howling_Banshee_Exarch.gif) not the original RT / 2nd Ed Banshee Exarch with Power Axe (http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2094eldaraspects-h.htm) - so either it has been forgotten about, or it is being ignored. It wouldn't be the first time they have ignored old models when making new rules / editions.

Well, that model is twenty years old, lol. I mean, they can't make the current edition of the rules to be compliant with every single model they might have ever made at one point or another.

Cthell
16-07-2012, 15:08
I think your inventing your own distinction there.

On the other hand this issue just brings to light how stupid it is that the banshee mask gives its weare an I 10, instead of lowering the I of their opponents like it used to.

I was using the long-standing precedent of Power Fists, which always strike at I1 (before the introduction of the trial assault rules halfway through 3rd Ed. "always strike last") regardless of the users initiative.

As to why the Banshee mask granting I10; it dates back to the assault rules when the codex was written (4th Ed.) where models in cover struck at I10; that's why the banshee mask specifically "negates any initiative bonus caused by cover or grenades"

Carlosophy
16-07-2012, 16:31
Boy, they are really pushing those imperial defense lines for people to actually be able to compete with fliers when they have none of their own. Still won't buy them as I personally think they are ugly. I also refuse to buy Imperial stuff as I think it is all ugly crap as well. Guess I'll lose most games I play for until my codex(s) are updated, and I get stuff to use against fliers.

Just build your own alien defence lines for some counts-as shenanigans. (You're not one of those 'I shouldn't have to DIY' guys are you?)

The news of impending codices is very good. I somehow see DA and Chaos getting pushed out before the 6E boxset otherwise where are the addon sales?

IcedCrow
16-07-2012, 17:35
Tubez rumour is that we shall see chaos release stuff in time for Games Day in a couple weeks...

Austinitor
16-07-2012, 18:43
Another inconsistency: they gave the IG Hydra Skyfire in the FAQ. Clearly that "bent the rules".

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2012, 18:53
Another inconsistency: they gave the IG Hydra Skyfire in the FAQ. Clearly that "bent the rules".

A friend was telling me this the other day that none of the existing units had skyfire. I had to check about hydra, or my little head would have exploded. If the Hydra didn't have Skyfire there'd be something severely wrong.

Charistoph
16-07-2012, 18:56
A friend was telling me this the other day that none of the existing units had skyfire. I had to check about hydra, or my little head would have exploded. If the Hydra didn't have Skyfire there'd be something severely wrong.

It was the closest unit to have it currently in game, with the Sky Ray being the second due to FW legacy.

Ultraloth
16-07-2012, 19:03
I was using the long-standing precedent of Power Fists, which always strike at I1 (before the introduction of the trial assault rules halfway through 3rd Ed. "always strike last") regardless of the users initiative.

No, you weren't. You were arguing why the two modifiers setting the initiative at a set number were to be resolved in a certain order, which doesn't follow the basic principle in the 6th edition ruleset that two modifiers each trying to set the iniative at a certain number are resolved by a roll-off.

sturguard
16-07-2012, 19:17
While I certainly believe you spoke with the fellows from GW, evidently they still haven't completely thought out how the Character and units works. So from what you are saying, a unit of 10 WG, no one can challenge since none of them are Characters? That is ridiculous, so any marine chapter out there can take a unit of terminators with a sergeant but SW terminators can't have a sergeant in fact? When the FAQ comes out and explains it, I will believe it, but if that is their intent, they have better also insert some sort of rule that if you take a unit of WG or Nob Bikers you allocate one individual before the game to be the model leading the unit. Of course that is the problem with many of GW's rules, they don't make sense nor do they seem to think things through- ie Wound Allocation. I didn't think it was possible to make a bigger mess of WA than 5th, but letting a 2+ save Necron Destroyer lord lead a unit of wraiths, or Draigo leading a unit of Paladins is ridiculous not to mention Vect in a unit of Harlies with a Farseer casting fortune.

Mauler
16-07-2012, 19:26
No, you weren't. You were arguing why the two modifiers setting the initiative at a set number were to be resolved in a certain order, which doesn't follow the basic principle in the 6th edition ruleset that two modifiers each trying to set the iniative at a certain number are resolved by a roll-off.

To be fair, I can't see that anywhere under the General Principles on p4 or 5 ;)

Mauler
16-07-2012, 19:27
While I certainly believe you spoke with the fellows from GW, evidently they still haven't completely thought out how the Character and units works. So from what you are saying, a unit of 10 WG, no one can challenge since none of them are Characters? That is ridiculous, so any marine chapter out there can take a unit of terminators with a sergeant but SW terminators can't have a sergeant in fact? When the FAQ comes out and explains it, I will believe it, but if that is their intent, they have better also insert some sort of rule that if you take a unit of WG or Nob Bikers you allocate one individual before the game to be the model leading the unit. Of course that is the problem with many of GW's rules, they don't make sense nor do they seem to think things through- ie Wound Allocation. I didn't think it was possible to make a bigger mess of WA than 5th, but letting a 2+ save Necron Destroyer lord lead a unit of wraiths, or Draigo leading a unit of Paladins is ridiculous not to mention Vect in a unit of Harlies with a Farseer casting fortune.

You know, I was looking through the BRB today and under the Look Out, Sir! box it specifically mentions all-character units. :S

sturguard
16-07-2012, 20:14
Mauler,

You jusr said "The Character trait for a troop type is only applicable if that model is leading a unit." in which case they wouldn't be an all-character unit correct?

Mauler
16-07-2012, 20:17
Mauler,

You jusr said "The Character trait for a troop type is only applicable if that model is leading a unit." in which case they wouldn't be an all-character unit correct?

That is what I was told, yes.

sturguard
16-07-2012, 20:22
So again, it makes no sense as WG and Nobz would not be able to challenge or Look Out Sir- not very well thought out, personally I will keep playing it as the rulebook states until GW FAQ's it.

Cthell
16-07-2012, 20:28
No, you weren't. You were arguing why the two modifiers setting the initiative at a set number were to be resolved in a certain order, which doesn't follow the basic principle in the 6th edition ruleset that two modifiers each trying to set the iniative at a certain number are resolved by a roll-off.

You're missing the linguistic nuances. I'm saying that there is a clear heirarchy involved, which means that there is no need to roll off.

The banshee mask gives the wearer I10 on the first turn of an assault. In other words, their Initiative characteristic is changed to 10 for the first turn of an assault

Power Axes are "Unwieldy". Unwieldy weapons make the bearer attack at initiative 1, regardless of their actual initiative.

Therefore, the mask makes the wearer I10 on the first turn of an assault, but they can only attack with the axe at the I1 initiative step.

If the mask stated that the wearer attacked at initiative 10/first, then there would be grounds for a roll-off, but it doesn't

HoBoAnarki
16-07-2012, 20:37
Simon then went on to say that his team have been giving a big push to codex development recently, to the point where a lot are almost ready to go ("We have books that we have read but you guys haven't seen yet" were his exact words) and should start to be released "very soon" with more releases every 2-3 months thereafter. So there's hope for us IVth edition codex players yet!


Nice to get a bit more confirmation about ramping up the release schedule.

Marked_by_chaos
16-07-2012, 20:44
I too was at the open day and would add a bit of explanation provided regarding the intention of the Look out sir and wound allocation mechanics. It all stems from their desire for associative rules mechanics (as opposed to abstract and disassociated rules)

Effectively they were trying to move away from situations where a unit effectively became ablative wounds for a hidden powerfist sergeant or alternatively where a devastator sergeant was always the first model removed from the squad as the owning player had too much unrealistic control over model removal.

They liked the idea of the models pressing forward being the first to get gunned down, particularly in assaults where the combination of variable charges and overwatch might result in a failed charge as the leading models are killed.

However, they did not want to remove all protection for characters and make them too easy to snipe and kill. Therefore in addition to the potential narrative aspects of troops being able to dive on grenades, take rounds etc to save their beloved (crafty or feared) leaders, look out sir was introduced to give characters some element of protection in a new era of wound allocation.

What was clearly not envisaged was the kind of ability in certain circumstances to create an artificial spreading around of wounds in units where all models had infantry (character) on their profile in the appendix to the rulebook, and where in models that might in other units be squad leaders became the rank and file. Having said that the summary is somewhat simplified and whoever wrote the profiles may not have considered all such eventualities (which would normally be addressed in codicies).

When i spoke to the games designers they had not apparently considered the potential exploitation during playtesting and may have tested the rules from the perspective that they intended the rules, rather than how they could be exploited.

As Mauler has stated the real intention behind look out sir is to protect characters leading a unit. It may however be that some upgrades such as apothecaries and painboys are left with the character designation even when not leading a unit to afford them a bit more protection from the rank and file models.

You still could have units of character in future, as expressed in the rulebook. However, it will be in situations where several HQ units join together to form a combined unit such as Marneus Calgar and Tigarius

unknown_lifeform
16-07-2012, 21:16
When i spoke to the games designers they had not apparently considered the potential exploitation during playtesting and may have tested the rules from the perspective that they intended the rules, rather than how they could be exploited.


This has ever been GWs weakest point in playtesting. You should never test your own creations - you end up testing what you think you wrote rather than what you actually did. They need to get some rules lawyering power monkeys, hand them their latest beloved creations and say "break this". They might decide to turn a blind eye to some of what they find as not worth cluttering up the rules to deal with, but it would allow them to weed out the most obvious exploits, cheese combos and abuses.

As to the inconsistency between the hydra getting skyfire and the skyray not, the only logical reason I can think of is that tau are due to be getting a new codex early next year (allegedly) whereas guard are set for quite some time, so maybe they didn't want to start changing units that are going to be cycled out in a relatively brief period.

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2012, 21:29
When i spoke to the games designers they had not apparently considered the potential exploitation during playtesting and may have tested the rules from the perspective that they intended the rules, rather than how they could be exploited.
Surely not!? :rolleyes:

This seems to be a major problem for GW. You'd think the first thing you'd do is give your new rules to a dedicated group of competitive gamers and see how they break the system. I mean, computer game testers aren't going to be playing the game "as intended" - if they always went along the obviously-intended paths they wouldn't find the bugs at the edges of the game. They stress-test the game to the limits, checking for compatibility between the features, even the spelling or vocabulary used. GW do seem to playtest but their testers rarely seem to really stress-test the game. I can usually find half a dozen real rules issues and questions on a first read-though of a rulebook or codex as can any other serious or competitive player worth their salt. Sometimes there are little things that come out later and I would never have noticed until pointed out to me but others are completely obvious. Multiple-character units sharing wounds seemed pretty obvious to me on a read-through. It didn't even look like a glitch.

Even if GW don't intend their games to be competitive it's still worth trying to produce a less buggy game. WFB has 11 pages of errata and corrections and FAQs and many of those really shouldn't have gone to print. Alessio was the only designer that came from a competitive background and his work was notably less buggy than that of other designers (see how many FAQs there are for Codex Daemons).

yabbadabba
16-07-2012, 21:38
Alessio was the only designer that came from a competitive background Not quite. Pete Foley has a few titles under his belt, and Adam Troke and Simon Grant are, or were, both tournament regulars. I am sure there are more of them.

I've seen Foley play - very deceptive.

Caitsidhe
16-07-2012, 21:38
I've always said, "don't hate the playa... hate the game." It is the responsibility of Games Workshop to put some effort into creating a system which is sound, i.e. minimizing problems and exploits. If their attitude is that they can play a few games and know what the rules are as "they" intend, then they have NOT play tested the system. They are, in effect, selling us a lemon.

Caitsidhe
16-07-2012, 21:47
I've always said, "don't hate the playa... hate the game." It is the responsibility of Games Workshop to put some effort into creating a system which is sound, i.e. minimizing problems and exploits. If their attitude is that they can play a few games and know what the rules are as "they" intend, then they have NOT play tested the system. They are, in effect, selling us a lemon.

Scribe of Khorne
16-07-2012, 22:19
I too was at the open day and would add a bit of explanation provided regarding the intention of the Look out sir and wound allocation mechanics. It all stems from their desire for associative rules mechanics (as opposed to abstract and disassociated rules)

Effectively they were trying to move away from situations where a unit effectively became ablative wounds for a hidden powerfist sergeant or alternatively where a devastator sergeant was always the first model removed from the squad as the owning player had too much unrealistic control over model removal.

They liked the idea of the models pressing forward being the first to get gunned down, particularly in assaults where the combination of variable charges and overwatch might result in a failed charge as the leading models are killed.

However, they did not want to remove all protection for characters and make them too easy to snipe and kill. Therefore in addition to the potential narrative aspects of troops being able to dive on grenades, take rounds etc to save their beloved (crafty or feared) leaders, look out sir was introduced to give characters some element of protection in a new era of wound allocation.

What was clearly not envisaged was the kind of ability in certain circumstances to create an artificial spreading around of wounds in units where all models had infantry (character) on their profile in the appendix to the rulebook, and where in models that might in other units be squad leaders became the rank and file. Having said that the summary is somewhat simplified and whoever wrote the profiles may not have considered all such eventualities (which would normally be addressed in codicies).

When i spoke to the games designers they had not apparently considered the potential exploitation during playtesting and may have tested the rules from the perspective that they intended the rules, rather than how they could be exploited.

As Mauler has stated the real intention behind look out sir is to protect characters leading a unit. It may however be that some upgrades such as apothecaries and painboys are left with the character designation even when not leading a unit to afford them a bit more protection from the rank and file models.

You still could have units of character in future, as expressed in the rulebook. However, it will be in situations where several HQ units join together to form a combined unit such as Marneus Calgar and Tigarius

I would like to say this shocks me, since it makes sense to me to play a unit as it was played before (Paladins/Nobz) with shifting wounds around. I mean Paladins, Nobz, Wraiths, Crushers, they all used this type of functionality in 5th, I just dont get how after presumably months of playtesting nobody said 'hey why are nobz and paladins characters, and what happens when they are in a full unit'.

Really sloppy, really shocking. Really.

Wishing
16-07-2012, 23:36
Well, that model is twenty years old, lol. I mean, they can't make the current edition of the rules to be compliant with every single model they might have ever made at one point or another.

True dat, as pointed out above, the Eldar army used to be full of las weaponry too which is now all gone or renamed. It was just confusing to me that they stated "there was one banshee exarch that didn't have a power sword..." and then it wasn't actually the original one with the power axe that they were talking about!

Starchild
17-07-2012, 02:05
I find it rather amusing that Fire Dragons were a vital unit in 5th edition, and now they are even more vital in 6th edition. I certainly won't be leaving the Craftworld without them!

My take on the Banshee executioner is +2 S, AP 3. It will be tricky dealing with armies having lots of Terminators or Meganobz but it will be fun finding out the best way to deal with them... maybe a Fire Dragon strike with Harlequins nearby to mop up any survivors, maybe supported by Fire Prisms from afar.

The rulebook FAQ can't be released quickly enough...

Natura
17-07-2012, 02:31
Tell me about it! As a Tau player myself it's not exactly what I wanted to hear but if Si says that GW's corporate policy is to not give new stuff to existing units then there's not much he can do about it. The new Tau codex should very much sort that out, I expect!

As an Ork player, one thing I'd note is that the most recent FAQ for Orks went straight against said policy of "not giving new stuff to existing units", since Flash Gitz now ignore cover saves.

Kynth
17-07-2012, 13:47
This has ever been GWs weakest point in playtesting. You should never test your own creations - you end up testing what you think you wrote rather than what you actually did. They need to get some rules lawyering power monkeys, hand them their latest beloved creations and say "break this". They might decide to turn a blind eye to some of what they find as not worth cluttering up the rules to deal with, but it would allow them to weed out the most obvious exploits, cheese combos and abuses.

As to the inconsistency between the hydra getting skyfire and the skyray not, the only logical reason I can think of is that tau are due to be getting a new codex early next year (allegedly) whereas guard are set for quite some time, so maybe they didn't want to start changing units that are going to be cycled out in a relatively brief period.


Surely not!? :rolleyes:

This seems to be a major problem for GW. You'd think the first thing you'd do is give your new rules to a dedicated group of competitive gamers and see how they break the system. I mean, computer game testers aren't going to be playing the game "as intended" - if they always went along the obviously-intended paths they wouldn't find the bugs at the edges of the game. They stress-test the game to the limits, checking for compatibility between the features, even the spelling or vocabulary used. GW do seem to playtest but their testers rarely seem to really stress-test the game. I can usually find half a dozen real rules issues and questions on a first read-though of a rulebook or codex as can any other serious or competitive player worth their salt. Sometimes there are little things that come out later and I would never have noticed until pointed out to me but others are completely obvious. Multiple-character units sharing wounds seemed pretty obvious to me on a read-through. It didn't even look like a glitch.

Even if GW don't intend their games to be competitive it's still worth trying to produce a less buggy game. WFB has 11 pages of errata and corrections and FAQs and many of those really shouldn't have gone to print. Alessio was the only designer that came from a competitive background and his work was notably less buggy than that of other designers (see how many FAQs there are for Codex Daemons).


I've always said, "don't hate the playa... hate the game." It is the responsibility of Games Workshop to put some effort into creating a system which is sound, i.e. minimizing problems and exploits. If their attitude is that they can play a few games and know what the rules are as "they" intend, then they have NOT play tested the system. They are, in effect, selling us a lemon.
The technique that should be employed is known as "Red Teaming".

Mauler
17-07-2012, 14:15
It would be nice for GW to have NDAed external playtesters for their rulesets, but lol, this is a company who won't even tell their own staff what they're releasing in a month's time due to it being leaked ahead of time, never mind a whole ruleset in development...

yabbadabba
17-07-2012, 15:31
It would be nice for GW to have NDAed external playtesters for their rulesets, They used to have them, it didn't work.

Major_Manny
17-07-2012, 15:51
So are Sgt's from imperial guard infantry squads counted as characters?

cheers

Austinitor
17-07-2012, 16:12
They used to have them, it didn't work.
I think they "why" of this is really interesting. Do you have enough information to say why it didn't?

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2012, 16:14
I think he means the "nondisclosure" part didn't work, not the "playtesting" part, which did.

IJW
17-07-2012, 16:21
The NDA part never worked well, if you listen to Rick Priestley the external playtesting part didn't work very well either. :(

yabbadabba
17-07-2012, 16:23
I think they "why" of this is really interesting. Do you have enough information to say why it didn't?Essentially a variety of reasons, but they were not universal. Some playtesters were as good as you can get. Some of the reasons were:

1) Punctuality - the biggest problem. GW has always had someone on the design team who was tournament savvy, and had plenty in the HO rank 'n' file who were, but it could never jusitfy employing people whose primary purpose was playtesting. Hence the use of the community and all the problems that come with using volunteers.
2) Confidentiality even with NDAs. GWs own staff have issues with leaks.
3) Conflicts of interest
4) Lack of proof for reasons
5) Disagreements and failures to stick to design ethos

All in all the overarching feeling was that the external playtesters were not giving GW value for money. Personally I am beginning to feel that, while a bit cumbersome, the current approach is superior in creating a more broader community contribution sense of feeling over the FAQs. What GW don't do very well, and they never have really, is the why. For some reason that has always been closely protected for no real reason as far as I can see.

O'Mont'au
17-07-2012, 16:45
Frankly, I'd be happy if they just had an internal rules editor who's job was to ensure the wording of the rules gave the intended meaning.

Cthell
17-07-2012, 16:47
Frankly, I'd be happy if they just had an internal rules editor who's job was to ensure the wording of the rules gave the intended meaning.

The important thing would be to make sure the rules editor never talks to the rule-writing or playtesting teams

Kynth
17-07-2012, 17:08
Frankly, I'd be happy if they just had an internal rules editor who's job was to ensure the wording of the rules gave the intended meaning.


The important thing would be to make sure the rules editor never talks to the rule-writing or playtesting teams
The person performing the role would need to be rotated periodically to avoid going into the next round of revisions with preconceptions.

yabbadabba
17-07-2012, 17:13
I used to have a member of staff who was amazing at spotting these things. amazing to the point of annoying the hell out of me the morning after he would get the pre-release staff copy of any rules. I tried to get him working with the studio as his attention to detail in printed matter was incredible (and he wanted to do it fo free, with no accreditation), but it was a no go.

We used to spot all the beneficial loopholes he could abuse for his next instore staff tournament. Managers cheating in staff tournaments is a great learning tool :evilgrin:

Aluinn
17-07-2012, 17:43
How on earth are Paladins characters if characters are intended only to be models that lead units? Paladins can't lead units. There are probably other examples of this out there but this one sticks out to me, possibly since I'm working on a (weird) GK army and have been trying to decide between 10 Troops GKT and 5 Pallies as the only actual GK in it, but ... yeah. If this was GW's intent, they not only didn't clearly communicate it, but failed to mention anything about it in their actual rules at all. They just gave rules for characters and then told you what was a character and what wasn't. And then you have this, a unit that isn't composed of unit leaders that can "break off" to join other squads, but are clearly listed as characters, so, yeah.

And the "no units of characters" comment doesn't make sense in the even broader context that, as far as I can tell, ICs can still join each other and make a character unit in that way if they want to. Are they suddenly not characters if they do this? It's rare to see it happen but nothing prohibits it.

I have to call BS or at least a major "WT-?" on that remark.

red_zebra_ve
17-07-2012, 21:24
Remember when in an informal discussion with the rules creator the Ork Truk was denied ramming because they where too "flimsy" (or similar word), only to have those words reverted by an official FAQ??

FallenAfh
17-07-2012, 22:10
Essentially a variety of reasons, but they were not universal. Some playtesters were as good as you can get. Some of the reasons were:

1) Punctuality - the biggest problem. GW has always had someone on the design team who was tournament savvy, and had plenty in the HO rank 'n' file who were, but it could never jusitfy employing people whose primary purpose was playtesting. Hence the use of the community and all the problems that come with using volunteers.
2) Confidentiality even with NDAs. GWs own staff have issues with leaks.
3) Conflicts of interest
4) Lack of proof for reasons
5) Disagreements and failures to stick to design ethos

All in all the overarching feeling was that the external playtesters were not giving GW value for money. Personally I am beginning to feel that, while a bit cumbersome, the current approach is superior in creating a more broader community contribution sense of feeling over the FAQs. What GW don't do very well, and they never have really, is the why. For some reason that has always been closely protected for no real reason as far as I can see.

This. For every sane voice in the community I guarantee there are 10 others who have no idea what they are doing, I've seen my fair share of gaming (tabletop/videogame) forums to come to that conclusion. 'Whineseer' is bad but still better then most ;)

Of course there's also the problem with having an issue that the GW policy like many other business entities is profit based. I'm pretty sure if they based their policy on fan opinion they'll probably end up running themselves into the ground. :p

koran
17-07-2012, 22:38
I believe that in the case of Paladins they are not a unit of characters (though you can create a unit of characters from independant characters.

The reason Paladins have the character trait is that they do not have a different name for their unit "champion". Unlike a space marine squad which is made up of space marines (not characters, led by a veteran sergeant (character) a unit of Paladins are all the same. So at the beginning of the game you are allowed to choose one to become the unit champion making it a character. So you have a group of Paladins (not characters) led by a Paladin (character). This is why they have the character trait in their profile.

At least this is how the comments from guys at GW and the FAQ's seem to read out to me.


How on earth are Paladins characters if characters are intended only to be models that lead units? Paladins can't lead units. There are probably other examples of this out there but this one sticks out to me, possibly since I'm working on a (weird) GK army and have been trying to decide between 10 Troops GKT and 5 Pallies as the only actual GK in it, but ... yeah. If this was GW's intent, they not only didn't clearly communicate it, but failed to mention anything about it in their actual rules at all. They just gave rules for characters and then told you what was a character and what wasn't. And then you have this, a unit that isn't composed of unit leaders that can "break off" to join other squads, but are clearly listed as characters, so, yeah.

And the "no units of characters" comment doesn't make sense in the even broader context that, as far as I can tell, ICs can still join each other and make a character unit in that way if they want to. Are they suddenly not characters if they do this? It's rare to see it happen but nothing prohibits it.

I have to call BS or at least a major "WT-?" on that remark.

Marked_by_chaos
17-07-2012, 22:43
I've always said, "don't hate the playa... hate the game." It is the responsibility of Games Workshop to put some effort into creating a system which is sound, i.e. minimizing problems and exploits. If their attitude is that they can play a few games and know what the rules are as "they" intend, then they have NOT play tested the system. They are, in effect, selling us a lemon.

I think the issue for GW is that while more competitive types are pretty vocal on sites like this GW is aware that they are actually a pretty small proportion of hobbyists, even if they moan a disproportionate amount.

Although a bit more testing and better drafting wouldn't hurt, the reality is that for most gamers over the age of about 12, they can take a sensible purposive view regarding the rules when daft situations arise. In that environment GW apparenty prefers to create more flexible (but potentially more abusable) rules and codexes rather than reduce everything to an abstract and balanced set of rules.

Marked_by_chaos
17-07-2012, 22:46
Are Paladins 1+ in unit size? If so that explains the character note as they could then be taken as a single model which would logically benefit from the same rules when it joined a different unit etc.

Scribe of Khorne
17-07-2012, 23:25
Well regardless, I like how it took the community all of an hour to see (ch) by all the various unit types in the back of the book, and go 'hey characters get to LOS!', and its only dawning now on GW that this wasnt intended.

Give.me.a.break.

Scribe of Khorne
17-07-2012, 23:48
Look at the Necron court.

Lets say I take 2 named characters, a Lord (buffed for CC) and another Cryptek. Throw them in a unit of Immortals. Do I have 4 'characters' now in that unit? Or do Lords and Crypteks from a Court lose their 'character' status if they are in a unit together as this rumour would seem to indicate? Does it have to be ALL court members to lose their character status? Cant wait to see the FAQ for that...

It simple is sloppy.

Are you a (ch) unit type? Then you should keep your LOS! if you meet the rules of LOS! In a unit, within 6in, blah blah...

neko
17-07-2012, 23:55
Personally, I don't even see the problem with the occassional all-character unit. The impression I get of such units is that they're units formed from individuals so good that they would normally be leading lesser troops into combat. Is it really so bad that such elite warriors are willing to take hits for each other depending on who is most important for a given mission?
(The only exception I can see for this are Tau drones, which are no doubt being controlled by such skilled characters to gain a similar effect.)

Ultraloth
18-07-2012, 01:25
You're missing the linguistic nuances. I'm saying that there is a clear heirarchy involved, which means that there is no need to roll off.

The banshee mask gives the wearer I10 on the first turn of an assault. In other words, their Initiative characteristic is changed to 10 for the first turn of an assault

Power Axes are "Unwieldy". Unwieldy weapons make the bearer attack at initiative 1, regardless of their actual initiative.

Therefore, the mask makes the wearer I10 on the first turn of an assault, but they can only attack with the axe at the I1 initiative step.

If the mask stated that the wearer attacked at initiative 10/first, then there would be grounds for a roll-off, but it doesn't

I should have been clearer in my response: I was trying to say that in games like Magic and Warmachine the timing of effects is very well defined and can be recognized by the usage of certain well defined keywords. In Warhammer such a thing has never existed. The designers don't pick their words that carefully and there is no well defined hierarchy or sequence of timing effects. The only thing that is (now) clearly stated in the rules is that adding and substracting modifiers resolve before multiplying en setting modifiers. You are arguing that there is an intended way to resolve these specific modifiers to be distilled from te phrasing of the rules. I'm saying that I highly doubt that to be the case. Like I said: I think your inventing this yourself. (And in the hypothetical scenario that the designers had intended for this kind of situation to work like this, they would have done a very poor job of making that clear to players.)

Sithlord
18-07-2012, 03:18
Simon Grant (with Jervis Johnson sat next to him) stated that while his team and other internal GW staff are extremely limited by corporate policy when it comes to updating existing GW units, Forgeworld are not so much when it comes to theirs. "...[Forgeworld] are allowed to bend the rules but we are not." were his exact words, which would explain the lack of AA/skyfire FAQ/rules for the Tau Skyray, for example, but Forgeworld's own units have updated FAQs (like the Eldar Firestorm). Simon then went on to say that his team have been giving a big push to codex development recently, to the point where a lot are almost ready to go ("We have books that we have read but you guys haven't seen yet" were his exact words) and should start to be released "very soon" with more releases every 2-3 months thereafter. So there's hope for us IVth edition codex players yet!

Can't believe this... I mean, what Games workshop has to lose when they make 'quick fix' for their old codex to match the current meta of 6th edition? They are selling models right? not the rules (at most it will be models they sell) . Kinda stupid if I said on it :(

Austinitor
18-07-2012, 03:45
Given all the contradictions, it does smack a bit more of lame excuses than a professionally executed corporate policy.

yabbadabba
18-07-2012, 08:58
Why wait? Seems like a waste of time to me. House rule, then adapt when GW makes its mind up.

Cthell
18-07-2012, 10:01
I should have been clearer in my response: I was trying to say that in games like Magic and Warmachine the timing of effects is very well defined and can be recognized by the usage of certain well defined keywords. In Warhammer such a thing has never existed. The designers don't pick their words that carefully and there is no well defined hierarchy or sequence of timing effects. The only thing that is (now) clearly stated in the rules is that adding and substracting modifiers resolve before multiplying en setting modifiers. You are arguing that there is an intended way to resolve these specific modifiers to be distilled from te phrasing of the rules. I'm saying that I highly doubt that to be the case. Like I said: I think your inventing this yourself. (And in the hypothetical scenario that the designers had intended for this kind of situation to work like this, they would have done a very poor job of making that clear to players.)

I'm sorry, but you don't appear to be reading the rules closely enough; the rule for "Unwieldy" is clearly written. See this (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?346902-Unwieldy-vs-Quickening) Rules Topic, on the interaction of Unwieldy and Quickening

Killgore
18-07-2012, 10:08
Why wait? Seems like a waste of time to me. House rule, then adapt when GW makes its mind up.

But what about all those gamers who have to be right? You can't leave them in limbo without an answer or they won't be able to sleep at night, its all us warseer posters who have to suffer in the meantime

Mauler
18-07-2012, 10:19
Don't forget, chaps, that apparently we have an accelerated Codex release schedule coming up that will, hopefully, resolve a chunk of issues. Depending on GW's corporate structure and the nature of their writers, the FAQ person/team may not have direct or even frequent access to the guys writing the new VI codicies. Don't make the assumption that the right hand knows what the left is doing (and that the higher functions care).

Ultraloth
18-07-2012, 10:24
I'm sorry, but you don't appear to be reading the rules closely enough; the rule for "Unwieldy" is clearly written. See this (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?346902-Unwieldy-vs-Quickening) Rules Topic, on the interaction of Unwieldy and Quickening

You keep implying that I don't understand your argument. I've understood perfectly clearly what you're saying from the beginning. I'm pointing out that the Warhammer 40K ruleset lacks a clearly defined way to resolve how conflicting modifiers are to be worked out. (Unlike games like Magic and Warmachine where the ruleset gives players all the tools to work out exactly how different rules interact with each other.) The GW answer has always been: In case of confusion roll-of, or wait from an arbitrary ruling in our inconsistent faqs. The rules discussion you're linking to proves that the 40K rules by themselves don't provide a clear answer. Your interpretation of these rules could be what the writers intended (if they even considered this specific interaction), I'm just not convinced by your argument that the answer can be gleaned by the way the rules are phrased, because like i said, the phrasing of special rules in 40K isn't generally thought out to such a degree.

Feel free to disagree, but stop implying that I can't read.

PatrikW
18-07-2012, 10:41
Surely not!? :rolleyes:

This seems to be a major problem for GW. You'd think the first thing you'd do is give your new rules to a dedicated group of competitive gamers and see how they break the system. I mean, computer game testers aren't going to be playing the game "as intended" - if they always went along the obviously-intended paths they wouldn't find the bugs at the edges of the game. They stress-test the game to the limits, checking for compatibility between the features, even the spelling or vocabulary used. GW do seem to playtest but their testers rarely seem to really stress-test the game.

Im not sure that computer company's are that much better, take blizzard and diablo 3. They expected based on their testers that the games hardest mode wouldn't be beaten for a couple of months, it took about 4 days for the first people to get it done using some pretty obvious skill synergy's that had slipped throw.

The main problem for GW compared with computer company's is that GWs medium is printed and hard to "patch" so they have to be extra careful and triple check every thing before its good to go. Something they often seem to miss :(

yabbadabba
18-07-2012, 10:48
But what about all those gamers who have to be right? You can't leave them in limbo without an answer or they won't be able to sleep at night, its all us warseer posters who have to suffer in the meantime Fair point, I suppose we all have our burdens to share

the_picto
18-07-2012, 11:10
Look at the Necron court.

Lets say I take 2 named characters, a Lord (buffed for CC) and another Cryptek. Throw them in a unit of Immortals. Do I have 4 'characters' now in that unit? Or do Lords and Crypteks from a Court lose their 'character' status if they are in a unit together as this rumour would seem to indicate? Does it have to be ALL court members to lose their character status? Cant wait to see the FAQ for that...

It simple is sloppy.

Are you a (ch) unit type? Then you should keep your LOS! if you meet the rules of LOS! In a unit, within 6in, blah blah...

Could they not add a rule stating that characters cannot have look out sir wounds allocated to them? That way the paladins etc keep their precision strikes and ability to challenge but can't jump in the way of bullets for each other.

Cthell
18-07-2012, 11:56
You keep implying that I don't understand your argument. I've understood perfectly clearly what you're saying from the beginning. I'm pointing out that the Warhammer 40K ruleset lacks a clearly defined way to resolve how conflicting modifiers are to be worked out. (Unlike games like Magic and Warmachine where the ruleset gives players all the tools to work out exactly how different rules interact with each other.) The GW answer has always been: In case of confusion roll-of, or wait from an arbitrary ruling in our inconsistent faqs. The rules discussion you're linking to proves that the 40K rules by themselves don't provide a clear answer. Your interpretation of these rules could be what the writers intended (if they even considered this specific interaction), I'm just not convinced by your argument that the answer can be gleaned by the way the rules are phrased, because like i said, the phrasing of special rules in 40K isn't generally thought out to such a degree.

Feel free to disagree, but stop implying that I can't read.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you couldn't read; it's just that you've chosen a bad case study for your argument. Unwieldy is one of the best-written rules in the book, with no loopholes.

Caitsidhe
18-07-2012, 15:38
I think the issue for GW is that while more competitive types are pretty vocal on sites like this GW is aware that they are actually a pretty small proportion of hobbyists, even if they moan a disproportionate amount.

Time will tell. I think they are basing their assumptions of their player base primarily on their UK market. The psychology and requirements of their American market is (at least in my opinion) very different. The only question is how much hobby versus competitive play drives sales in the United States.


Although a bit more testing and better drafting wouldn't hurt, the reality is that for most gamers over the age of about 12, they can take a sensible purposive view regarding the rules when daft situations arise. In that environment GW apparenty prefers to create more flexible (but potentially more abusable) rules and codexes rather than reduce everything to an abstract and balanced set of rules.

It not only wouldn't hurt, it should be the minimum we expect. Let's put all our cards on the table. Games Workshop isn't the only game in town anymore and they charge a serious premium for their product. If we are going to lay out this kind of scratch for a game, we should expect it to be top notch on ALL FRONTS. If I'm going to play luxury prices, I expect a luxury automobile with all the bells and whistles. I expect the rules to be as good as the models. The product breaks down into nothing more than toys and rules to use said toys. In theory, the money I pay is covering both. I sure as hell know that rulebook wasn't cheap. It is not unreasonable to expect a return on that investment. Watching them phone it in on rules while charging as if they put a man on the moon is somewhat annoying.

Austinitor
18-07-2012, 15:53
Time will tell. I think they are basing their assumptions of their player base primarily on their UK market. The psychology and requirements of their American market is (at least in my opinion) very different. The only question is how much hobby versus competitive play drives sales in the United States.
It does seem that the departure of Ed Gilespie (sp?) and the cancellation of the 2012 tourney track was a bit of a nose-thumbed at the American market. Granted, there have been more Hobby Centers opening (my city got one a the beginning of this year), but they tend to be one-man operations with short hours (closing at 8pm) and just three tables (with one or two reserved for demo games) and a very small modicum of space.
I don't know how indicative this is of things around the country, but in my area, 40k nights/days tend to draw somewhere in the range of 0-12 people, but the tournaments pull in twice to five times as many (though people tend to travel farther for the tournaments, and they are less frequent than weekly gaming nights).

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2012, 16:04
Could they not add a rule stating that characters cannot have look out sir wounds allocated to them? That way the paladins etc keep their precision strikes and ability to challenge but can't jump in the way of bullets for each other.

They could do a lot of things, but when you consider the plan to have the rules make sense (i forget the terms jervis was using) Do you think it makes sense for Characters to not have the option of getting in the way to protect someone important?

We went whole editions with wound allocation, it was fine. They have now given it a check (4+ or 2+) and this is fine. They just need to leave it be.

Chapters Unwritten
18-07-2012, 18:20
I would like to say this shocks me, since it makes sense to me to play a unit as it was played before (Paladins/Nobz) with shifting wounds around. I mean Paladins, Nobz, Wraiths, Crushers, they all used this type of functionality in 5th, I just dont get how after presumably months of playtesting nobody said 'hey why are nobz and paladins characters, and what happens when they are in a full unit'.

Really sloppy, really shocking. Really.My guess is that as a unit of characters they can all accept challenges. Look Out Sir can probably be FAQed to say only non characters can take hits. Problem solved, once sentence, community overreaction quelled. :)

Lord Inquisitor
18-07-2012, 18:29
My guess is that as a unit of characters they can all accept challenges. Look Out Sir can probably be FAQed to say only non characters can take hits. Problem solved, once sentence, community overreaction quelled. :)

Except for the part where it explicitly states a character can perform a Look out Sir for another character?

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2012, 20:18
Except for the part where it explicitly states a character can perform a Look out Sir for another character?

Exactly. Fact is, there is no way for them to make this 'make sense', if they cut out the ability for Characters to Look Out Sir! like Nobz/Paladins.

In a 'cinematic' or thematic way, it makes perfect sense for a unit composed of hero's or leaders to do this kind of thing.
From a RAW way, it makes perfect sense, its clear as can be and as mentioned is explicitly allowed!

The only issue, if you want to call it that, is that it allows for Wound Allocation to persist as it did in 5th. I argue that by everything so far written and FAQ'ed that that was the actual intent all along, and they are just trying to cave now to the vocal community.

Cthell
18-07-2012, 20:37
Well, the LOS! rule is a significant nerf to wound allocation shenanigans, since you can now only do it on a 4+, on a few select units (admittedly they are the units that were the worst users of the wound allocation shenanigans in the first place)

AndrewGPaul
18-07-2012, 20:48
If the comments in the first post are anything to go by, no you can't. :) The only one that still seems unclear is the case of Grey Knight Paladins, and there koran's suggestion seems to make sense - pick one to lead, the rest aren't characters.

The other odd case would be when multiple characters join a unit - say something like Marneus Calgar joining a Space Marine squad which already has a sergeant. In that case (or something similar), then both the sergeant and the additional character could benefit from the Look Out, Sir! rule.

Also, until I looked it up, I hadn't realised most Space Wolf sqauds didn't have leaders - Long Fangs seem to be an exception.

Sithlord
19-07-2012, 03:12
Don't forget, chaps, that apparently we have an accelerated Codex release schedule coming up that will, hopefully, resolve a chunk of issues. Depending on GW's corporate structure and the nature of their writers, the FAQ person/team may not have direct or even frequent access to the guys writing the new VI codicies. Don't make the assumption that the right hand knows what the left is doing (and that the higher functions care).

The FAQ dudes don't have to consult with the dudes who are working with the next codex update man. I just want that the FAQ dude make some quick fix for current codices to match with 6th edition while waiting for the next codex update. And that higher dudes are still STUPID for not letting FAQ dude to make adjustment just because it is a 'good' business models for games workshop and even if I view it, IT STILL STUPID for higher dudes for not allowing FAQ dude doing the same thing as what forgeworld FAQ dudes do to repair their current FW books (SALUTE TO FORGEWORLD!) . And why I called higher dude = stupid, games workshop sells more models/miniatures not the rules itself... business wise/policy of games workshop generally view by at least me = stupid...

BTW.
even if they accelerated the new codex, I don't think they can update the whole armies of 40k within a year. Not to mention the new models that need to release for them... I knew that would be a nightmare both from financial and manpower to do just that :(

mercury14
19-07-2012, 10:29
My guess is that as a unit of characters they can all accept challenges. Look Out Sir can probably be FAQed to say only non characters can take hits. Problem solved, once sentence, community overreaction quelled. :)


This would ruin Eldar Seer Councils. If the Farseer/Eldrad can't LOS wounds onto Warlocks (ch) then the unit becomes quite lame.

borithan
19-07-2012, 10:39
It does seem that the departure of Ed Gilespie (sp?) and the cancellation of the 2012 tourney track was a bit of a nose-thumbed at the American market. Granted, there have been more Hobby Centers opening (my city got one a the beginning of this year), but they tend to be one-man operations with short hours (closing at 8pm) and just three tables (with one or two reserved for demo games) and a very small modicum of space.
Short hours? Most British GWs I have seen close at 6pm, and that is kind of the norm for non-food shops here. OK, they do have a couple of game nights a week (at least if my local one is anything to go by), when they have games going on till about 11-ish, but the shop is closed for business.

mercury14
19-07-2012, 10:53
Short hours? Most British GWs I have seen close at 6pm, and that is kind of the norm for non-food shops here. OK, they do have a couple of game nights a week (at least if my local one is anything to go by), when they have games going on till about 11-ish, but the shop is closed for business.

GW just opened up a small store in my city in Pennsylvania. Half the time I go by there the store is closed even though it's clearly business hours. And the store closes down for an hour in the middle of the day when the owner goes to lunch... at 4:30 (?). The store is clean and good-looking but it's very small.

Austinitor
19-07-2012, 14:37
By comparison, the local independent retailers are open until 9 or 10. Frankly, I might prefer it if they had some "open late" game nights.
Regarding being closed, I think that the store here in Indy is closed Mondays and Tuesdays (a bit odd, but I can totally understand why a one-man operation has to give its employee a day off), but have likewise seen it closed for a late lunch (which is reasonable, given that it is open 1-8 or something).

Charistoph
19-07-2012, 15:26
Heck, my non-GW LGS stays open till midnight all but 1-2 nights a week. And there is almost always someone there till that late playing Warhammer(s), WarmaHordes, Malifaux, Magic, Pathfinder, etc.

Of course, that may be why they are staying open that late, because of the multi-interest aspect of the store.

Mauler
11-09-2012, 09:14
Looks like the new Rulebook v1a FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf) cleared up the Character/Character Look Out, Sir confusion. Most of those Infantry(Ch) types just got bumped down unless leading a squad.

Starchild
11-09-2012, 16:10
We've been tracking this in the thread under News & Rumours but it's good to see that the dev. team did what they told you they would do.