Rumours for WFB and 40k

Discussion of Games Workshop's systems and their universes

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 1:49 pm

Mmm. This came out of me thinking about how to adapt to the Jink thing really.

Obvious ways to mitigate the change are either to overload the opponent with targets, trusting the improved jink save to protect the targeted units while others keep the pressure on - ie take *loads* of squads - or to mean squads don't have to jink by protecting them in other ways, such as characters up front.

A marine captain with bike, artificer armour, storm shield and power weapon is 160pts or so. Same cost as another squad. (You can overload on chapter masters too, but that feels a bit wrong to me - there at least exist more captains.) But run dual force org and have three of these and Khan, and that's 3.5 squads protected to an extent from good-AP firepower by a tank up front. It also gives the army significant close combat power. At this point, the squads can either rush in close and go for the kill, or dart about tanking wounds with the characters while the shooting removes key threats, then take objectives.

(I'm tempted to try a Librarian for a bit, actually, but that's just to test the new psychic phase.)

In actuality, I suspect one of my harder lists - I'm going to try to write a spectrum - will feature very little on the board to start with, now the 50% restriction is gone. Command squad with Chapter Master, a Damocles, hide both behind terrain as best possible or use range to limit incoming fire, trust them to survive until the reserve bomb comes on.

That one doesn't need multiple force-org, where Troops bike spam (talking more than 6 units, though I don't have the models for that) or character spam do.

Then again I could also just write some combined-arms stuff, I think it'll still work even with the potential to mitigate the bikes' firepower. After all, they're still absorbing fire if they jink, and may well come out of it mostly intact and still a threat for future turns while the firebase does damage.

We'll see - just me thinking about what I can do really. Probably don't need the dual force-org, but in harder games I might try it out occasionally to see how good or otherwise it is.

Hmmm, half tempted to keep playing and see what bentness I can come up with. Six Raven Guard Razorbacks with twinlascannon, each with a 5man squad with plasma and combiplasma in, a command squad on bikes with gravs, 3 bike lv2 telepath librarians, a bike chapter master with all the toys, and a Sarosh Sicaran. Probably actually way too fragile to be a huge threat... And I'm never bringing it, for the record! Maybe I should make a 7thed lists threat in the Cheese Board.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 1:49 pm

Makes sense - that seems like a classic non-broken case of using multiple force orgs to me.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Comrade_Nikolai » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 2:08 pm

Rick wrote:
The Kremlin wrote:Is anyone planning to make use of multiple force-orgs, now that seems to be a more standard thing that you can do?


I was thinking of doing that with my nids. After they reduced the cost of everything I actually struggle to reach 2k points using a single force organisation chart without padding my army with about 500pts of crap. A second chart would allow me to field my tervigon as a 3rd HQ choice (since I can't field it as troops without using up all of termagants to actually make out of it).


I think for Nids its probably fine as you're not allowed allies, so you can kind of consider it to be your allied detachment. :)
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine."
Comrade_Nikolai
Treasurer
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 8:57 am

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 4:35 pm

RE: muslitple FOC. - I don't mind people using multiple FOC, allies, lords of war, unbound.

I suppose I sum it up thus:

I don't like "black" lists - battle forged, unbound or whatever. Black is still no fun to play :( I won't play them.

I don't like "fluff rapes" which are out of line with GW background or the current campaign (even if its rubbish!). I won't include them in the campaign.

So basically anything as long as its not "busted" (we know black lists) and not un-fluffy.
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Rommel » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 4:48 pm

FAQs up:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

Ghost helm not mentioned. Grey Knights now have the +2 strength rulebook hammerhand!?
A Murder of Ravens - A Raven Guard Blog

40K Armies: Corellian Storm Guard, Raven Guard, Grey Knights
FoW: .78 Sturmdivision, 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich"
User avatar
Rommel
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sunday 13th May, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Danger Zone

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Rommel » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 4:57 pm

Also grey knight vehicles are now lv 1 psykers and can cast banishment and sanctuary.
A Murder of Ravens - A Raven Guard Blog

40K Armies: Corellian Storm Guard, Raven Guard, Grey Knights
FoW: .78 Sturmdivision, 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich"
User avatar
Rommel
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sunday 13th May, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Danger Zone

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 5:00 pm

Some changes I spotted:

Helldrake's baleflamer is now hull-mounted and measures LOS from the barrel. No more 360, and only one vector strike hit, makes this a lot less flexible.

Missile Drones can now only be taken by a model in a Broadside Battlesuit (is that a change? Think so).

No mention of shadow in the warp, ghosthelms, spell familiars or the like, though the gloom prism has changed.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Sam » Tuesday 27th May, 2014 7:03 pm

The Kremlin wrote:Some changes I spotted:

Missile Drones can now only be taken by a model in a Broadside Battlesuit (is that a change? Think so).


This was in the errata quite soon after release of Tau Empire.

However, there are some much-needed clarifications for Farsight Enclaves.
"Unleashing a rancid potpouri of lunacy..."
Who writes this stuff?
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sunday 5th July, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby IronWithin » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 12:21 am

These FAQ's are a mess. They've taken out most of the FAQ's from previous versions!
“From Iron cometh strength. From strength cometh will. From will cometh faith. From faith cometh honour. From honour cometh iron. This is the Unbreakable Litany. And may it forever be so."
http://theunbreakablelitany.blogspot.co.uk/
User avatar
IronWithin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Saturday 18th February, 2012 10:08 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Sam » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 8:55 am

Rick wrote:
The Kremlin wrote:Is anyone planning to make use of multiple force-orgs, now that seems to be a more standard thing that you can do?


I was thinking of doing that with my nids. After they reduced the cost of everything I actually struggle to reach 2k points using a single force organisation chart without padding my army with about 500pts of crap. A second chart would allow me to field my tervigon as a 3rd HQ choice (since I can't field it as troops without using up all of termagants to actually make out of it).


Pouring over the rulebook last night (looking for broken combos, obviously ;) ) I was also looking at Force Organisation.

For a Battle Forged list an Allied Detachment "must be of a different Faction to the Primary Detachment" (from memory, not quoting exactly word-for-word).
Which makes any doubled-up Force Org. armies, i.e. two lots of Tyranids, an Unbound army...?

Perhaps people already saw this and I'm just slow. Either way, this would seem to offset the advantages of taking a doubled-up army. Perhaps undesirably so?
Last edited by Sam on Wednesday 28th May, 2014 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Unleashing a rancid potpouri of lunacy..."
Who writes this stuff?
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sunday 5th July, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 9:11 am

I had gotten the impression that applied to allied detachments, but that there was a separate rule saying when you picked a combined-armed detachment you could pick any number of such from the same faction. I've not actually read the book though, so someone else would have to confirm that.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Sam » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 10:20 am

The Kremlin wrote:I had gotten the impression that applied to allied detachments, but that there was a separate rule saying when you picked a combined-armed detachment you could pick any number of such from the same faction. I've not actually read the book though, so someone else would have to confirm that.


I shall have another looks tonight, as that would make make sense. I thought it looked counter-intuitive i.e. the version I've quoted would seem a bit a of pointless exercise, wouldn't you just go Unbound anyway at that stage and save yourself the bother of FOC?
"Unleashing a rancid potpouri of lunacy..."
Who writes this stuff?
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sunday 5th July, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 10:48 am

But in an army you can take as many detachments as you like? So a battle forged list with 3 FoC is still battleforged? Thats how I understood it... Otherwise you will reach a maximimum points of a battle forged army, which would seem dumb.

Wait I have the rules on my phone! Yes this is confirmed. Battle forged armies are made up of detachments. As many as you like.

In other news if your warlord dies, all of his traits are IMMEDIATELY lost... so if a warlord allows you to outflank and then dies turn one, your unit in outflank comes on as normal reserves.
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Morph » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 11:08 am

I've noticed an important change...

All the example diagrams for combat, moving etc. are the exact same pictures as in the previous edition, except they've weirdly greyed the terrain and sometimes rotated them to make them look different.

On reflection this might not affect your games.
"Sometimes I worry my brilliance is a curse! But then I remember that actually no, it's super great!"
User avatar
Morph
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Monday 29th June, 2009 11:05 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Sam » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 12:46 pm

noodle wrote:But in an army you can take as many detachments as you like? So a battle forged list with 3 FoC is still battleforged? Thats how I understood it... Otherwise you will reach a maximimum points of a battle forged army...Yes this is confirmed. Battle forged armies are made up of detachments. As many as you like.


I understood that bit with regards number of FOC, my query was more directed at the wording concerning Factions in so far as "allying with yourself". As i read it:

Example 1: an Eldar Primary detachment, with Dark Eldar Allied detachment - both observe the respective FOC restrictions = Battle Forged army list

Example 2: an Eldar Primary detachment, with Eldar Allied detachment - even though both observe the respective FOC restrictions = Unbound, because the two detachments are chosen from the same faction, rather than different factions.

But as Kremlin points out, there is probably something written on the next page excusing matching factions/multiple FOC (i.e. this doesn't count as taking Allies, but forms part of the Primary) and allowing them to remain Battle Forged. I'll do more homework on this tonight!
"Unleashing a rancid potpouri of lunacy..."
Who writes this stuff?
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sunday 5th July, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 12:53 pm

My reading of it, having had a look at the book:

Eldar Primary, Dark Eldar Allied = legal, Battleforged

Eldar Primary, Eldar Allied = illegal and meaningless, effectively an Unbound army but those don't even have detachments

Eldar Primary, Eldar Combined Arms (essentially a full FOC) = totally legal Battleforged.

Eldar Primary, Dark Eldar Combined Arms = also legal Battleforged, use the Allies rule to work out how the armies work together.

IE: you can now take full detachments of your friends if you like, you aren't restricted to the smaller Allied detachments, though you can use those if you wish and if they aren't the same Faction as your Primary.
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Sam » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 1:07 pm

The Kremlin wrote:Eldar Primary, Eldar Combined Arms (essentially a full FOC) = totally legal Battleforged.


This being the bit that i missed in the read through last night.
"Unleashing a rancid potpouri of lunacy..."
Who writes this stuff?
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sunday 5th July, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby noodle » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 1:22 pm

This is my understanding of it too. not sure why it works like that. Basically allies are now more flexible than your own force as you can have 1HQ 1troops in allies and not in a second non-ally FoC!
http://alephsector.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector blog
http://alephsectorfiction.blogspot.com/ <---- Aleph sector fiction
http://ww2campaign.blogspot.co.uk/ <---- WW2 campaign
http://palurin.blogspot.com/ <---- Warhammer campaign
noodle
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tuesday 30th June, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby The Kremlin » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 1:25 pm

Yeah, it also struck me as a bit odd. Does seem to be how the rules are though.

Even with just two normal force-orgs, there's probably some serious bent you can pull off. But nobody in this club is going to do any of that. Right?
The Kremlin
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wednesday 14th October, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Rumours for WFB and 40k

Postby Sam » Wednesday 28th May, 2014 1:26 pm

The Kremlin wrote: ...there's probably some serious bent you can pull off. But nobody in this club is going to do any of that. Right?


:twisted:
"Unleashing a rancid potpouri of lunacy..."
Who writes this stuff?
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sunday 5th July, 2009 7:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Dark Nightmare of the Grim Dark Nightmarish Future

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest