AP, we take it from Factor de Penetración.
AP, we take it from Factor de Penetración.
Any word on special rules for chainswords?
"Perfect. It's everything a girl could hope for: Expensive, explosive and phallic."
-- Critical Maas
My Slaaneshi warriors, in PURPLE!
Armoured Might! The Temurian CXII project log
Sometimes I actually do stuff and occasionally even take pictures of the result.
apparently a maximum of HALF your force may be held in reserve......combined with allies, LONG LIVE LEAFBLOWER?
I found this on chainswords.Originally Posted by Pendragon
CHAINSWORD AP
chanswords have an AP of - and use your own strength
heavy chanswords s+2, ap5, two handed
eviscerator sx2 ap2, two handed, armourbane, unweildly
I hope that first part is not true. I like my WWP list off the table to start.
Kind of disappointing for Nid null deployment lists.
It is better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.
...how exactly would that work for Air Cav lists, since flyers have to start in reserve?
Draigo's Razor: When presented with multiple explanations for a new piece of 40K content, the most likely answer is the one intentionally designed to make you, personally, angry.
/////
Tales of the Seferim Sector: an ongoing series of narrative battle reports.
Kommanda Shinbash's Misfits - 1500 pt Orks
2d6 drift with no ballistic modifier. Valks are off table turn 1. Easier to pop their apcs. Nothing of they have can shoot air well unless valks get skyfire.
Still a hard list, yes? The be all, end all? I'm not so sure.
I would imagine they count towards half. I don't think it will be easy to make more than half your army air units. Have to wait for the book though.
Note to mention Drop pod lists or my own DOA.....**** YOU GAMES WORKSHOP
Not to mention Daemon armies...
Though in this case, being a specific rule in a codex would obviously override the general rule of the rulebook.
It's an interesting change, for sure. GW obviously wants whole armies to start on the table, and in some cases I can understand why. The only problem is that it seems to limit army builds a little too much, IMHO.
Last edited by Cheexsta; 28-06-2012 at 02:21.
not just limit army builds it again reinforces the strength of shooting in this edition. more and more this game sounds like a pile of ****.
Either daemon armies will get to start some units on the table or the will get to ignore that rule. They will have to make a decision one way or the other in the FAQ.
It is better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.
I wouldn't go that far; it really just means that you can no longer rely on a "one trick pony" army, and that you'll need to shift your focus back to a more balanced army list.
IMHO, 6th will see fewer armies built around one specific mechanic (e.g. assault armies, shooty armies, mechanised armies, DOA armies, etc.) and more armies with a mix of everything, though there seems to be a bit more of a lean towards shooting ability (which makes my World Eaters sad).
We'll see.
I'm sorry I never realised that I've been playing the game WRONG for the last 15 years, I didn't realise that my own knowledgeable choice to focus on a single build type was such a detriment to the hobby. This mechanic is *********** ridiculous and I'll call it how it is.
Note: the above isn't personal its merely and impassioned response.
However, before we get too upset about this, have any of the fellows in this thread that we know to actually have the rules confirmed this half-or-less restriction?
V
Why not wait a couple of more days, read the rules and then come to a conclusion. No point in having a nerd rage induced heart attack from rules gossip.
"Excuses are the refuge of the weak"
its the bloke with the book in BoLS that gave us this info.
Seems like every exciting rumor I hear about my armies is balanced out by a sobering nerfs...
It is better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.
Maybe taking it a little far there. Even I, as skeptical as the come when it comes to GW, haven't gotten to that point. I do see benefits in having the majority of your army on the table as it forces you to make some tactical decisions with setting up.
However, with all reserves coming in on 3+ starting turn 2, this seems a bit silly. I especially look at my nid lists (surprise attack nids with ymgarl genestealers, doom, flyrant, outflanking genestealers, and trygons and can't help but feel a little sad in that having a SURPRISE! OMNOMNOM was a lot of fun. While not overly competitive, it was a ton of fun.
Again, I think these sort of things should be allowed to be policed by the players. Perhaps this is my hockey loving upbringing talking, but I've learned that if someone plays a really cheese list or purposely bends rules to win, no one wants to play them. I don't think GW should have to write something like that in the rulebook to be honest. Let the players decide.
Posting Permissions
