Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Cheesegear]

Speaking of Commission Painting:

Anyone got a good recipe for strawberry blonde hair?

[Turalisj]

Speaking of Commission Painting:

Anyone got a good recipe for strawberry blonde hair?

Bright yellow base and then thin down blood angels contrast (or vallejo red ink, same difference) until it's more or less a glaze, apply lightly.

[Renegade Paladin]

GW has responded to the leaks; the full core rules are up for download on Warhammer Community.

[Artanis]

I may just be missing it, but I don't see anywhere in those core rules mentioning that points are a thing that exist, only power levels

[Renegade Paladin]

I may just be missing it, but I don't see anywhere in those core rules mentioning that points are a thing that exist, only power levels

You won't find points in the 8th edition battle primer either. They're publishing CA 2020 with another Munitorum Manual points index attached to it alongside the edition launch; they'll exist.

[Artanis]

You won't find points in the 8th edition battle primer either. They're publishing CA 2020 with another Munitorum Manual points index attached to it alongside the edition launch; they'll exist.

I know that they won't be publishing the points in it. I expected them to at least be mentioned somewhere though.

[LeSwordfish]

I don't believe they're mentioned in "Core" 8th ed either - remember that using points and matched play is almost an "add-on".

[Artanis]

I'm going to file it under "Yep, I missed something" then. Thank you for the clarification, guys

[Avaris]

Amusing thing from the core rules! Objective markers are now defined as being a 40mm base, which you then measure 3 inches from. So the area of control is slightly larger, but you can't stand directly on it.

Seems both sensible and annoying. Sensible in that it finally gives an idea of what an objective should be like. Annoying in that all my objectives are 30mm bases, and I have only just made some 6" across clear templates to use for working out which models are in range of the objective, which are now useless! Also amusing for having mm mentioned in an otherwise entirely imperial system, which is a necessity given how base sizes are sold: the only alternative would have been to convert the entire game to metric, which I don't expect anyone wants.

[Fable Wright]

So, I think the worst part of this is the fact that Progressive Objectives actively punish you for getting tabled. Malifaux made this work where secondaries could be the goal of the game, and you could win despite getting tabled, but it was tough.

But, like. Tyranids usually end each game tabled. This is how the army functions. We can't kill stuff, just be in the right place and then die. If actions were more than once per turn, we could at least eke out a lead during a pinning maneuver and then die while up on points.

Ultimately, I think the problem is the once-per-turn restriction on actions. Psychic ones actively suck the most, because you can fail, perils, or straight up be denied, unless you're doing this against AdMech, Knights, etc. (and they're still dubious, even then, because failure rate), and otherwise they'd be interactive mechanics.

Oh, and "wholly within" can die in a fire.

[Renegade Paladin]

So, storm shields now give a 4++ and modify the bearer's Save characteristic.

Modify the characteristic. Not add 1 to saving throws.

Hammernators now have a 1+ save.

You can't modify a die roll to less than 1.

Only unmodified rolls of 1 automatically fail.

Terminators with storm shields now always succeed on saves on 2+ regardless of AP.

[LansXero]

I know this forum is a bunch of coddled crybabies at times, but are you all insane?

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEE! How dare you give points to people for painting their army to even the most barebones standard. You're not my real dad GW!"

I dont feel like for matched play, a model being painted or not should be an objective consideration worth 10% of the available score. If the points weren't hard capped then sure, just play harder, but they are and the painted bonus is a sizable chunk of the realistic scores expected, all in one go, so its actually mandatory, not an encouragement.

People might have unpainted models for a variety of reasons (yes, including FoTM bandwagoning) and acting elitist about it is not a good addition to matched play, which is already seen (unfairly, imho) as a toxic environment.

Paint your damn models if those 10 points mean so much to you (seriously, rattlecan primer and contrast would let you have an entire army done in an afternoon if you weren't picky)

Rattlecan primer doesn't work in apartments or confined, poorly ventilated spaces, or around whiny roommates / other tennants who'll bitch about the smell. It is obviously not hard to do in an absolute term, but it should be a player's choice, not an assumption of the rules.

More importantly, as you exemplify yourself it actually goes backwards at it by encouraging 'ugh lets just get this crap over with' trash painting. Instead of slowly painting every guardian in a 10 man unit until Im happy how they look, I'll just do a crap ass half-job instead.

, or don't if you have some weird obsession with grey plastic, or just make a houserule to ignore it if you're in a group who for some bizarre reason hates the hobby but loves the game.

That is a very common sentiment though, otherwise comision painting wouldnt be a thing. But you are also not including people who just bought a new model (and you want people to keep buying new stuff), people who simply are slow at it (like me, due to being near-sighted), people who are finicky on color schemes (me, again), etc.

Most of the people here have had their armies for years, if not decades, don't you dare try and tell me you haven't had time to paint an army.

And here is the disconnect. Those people should not be the focus of a new edition. New player acquisition is the lifeblood of the game. The reason why there is a general 'you've never had an edition change before, have you?' sentiment online is because yes, many people returned or started with 8th. Making the game easy, simple, accesible and fun should always priority number 1. They are, in my opinion, going about it the wrong way. As usual, I'll let sales numbers next year or the one after it speak; perhaps it'll turn out I was wrong.

[Forum Explorer]

So, storm shields now give a 4++ and modify the bearer's Save characteristic.

Modify the characteristic. Not add 1 to saving throws.

Hammernators now have a 1+ save.

You can't modify a die roll to less than 1.

Only unmodified rolls of 1 automatically fail.

Terminators with storm shields now always succeed on saves on 2+ regardless of AP.

What is the difference between modifying the characteristic and adding 1 to saving throws?

If I hit a Terminator with a plasma gun, why would they not be put to a saving throw of 4+/4++

I've seen this argument elsewhere, but it didn't make any sense to me then, either.

[JNAProductions]

What is the difference between modifying the characteristic and adding 1 to saving throws?

If I hit a Terminator with a plasma gun, why would they not be put to a saving throw of 4+/4++

I've seen this argument elsewhere, but it didn't make any sense to me then, either.

You cannot modify a number below 1-if it would be 0 or less, it is treated as a one instead.

So, if you had a 2+ with +1 to armor saves (Terminators in cover, for instance) you would need 2+ on 1d6+1, but 1s still fail.
If shot with plasma, you'd need 2+ on 1d6+1-3, or a 4+ on die.

But, with a 1+ as your actual save characteristic, you could have AP-84. You would roll 1d6-84, needing a 1+ or better, but anything 0 or lower just converts to a 1. Meaning you only fail on a nat 1.

[Grim Portent]

Just spotted that. Not sure why that's a thing.

So with positive modifiers you can roll 7, but can't roll 0 with negative modifiers. Why make 1 the floor but then not have a ceiling on your roll mechanic?

[Renegade Paladin]

What is the difference between modifying the characteristic and adding 1 to saving throws?

If I hit a Terminator with a plasma gun, why would they not be put to a saving throw of 4+/4++

I've seen this argument elsewhere, but it didn't make any sense to me then, either.

Because AP doesn't modify the save characteristic; it modifies the die roll. Since the die roll can't be modified to less than 1, any result other than an automatic failure (i.e. an unmodified 1) will be treated as 1, which satisfies Sv 1+.

This is gross and I expect a rapid FAQ. But it's how the rules are written for now. Though apparently there's a way with combat drugs to get Wyches to WS 1+ and they confirmed in the FAQ that only natural 1s fail there, so I don't know.

[LansXero]

I hope they just make AP affect the characteristic, which is the simpler way to handle it. Or they'll somehow break Jinx (have no basis for this whatsoever :p).

ION: get ready for all your modelling to be very advantageous:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull. You can measure distances whenever you wish.

Great edition. Much thought on rules.

Edit:

This is gross and I expect a rapid FAQ. But it's how the rules are written for now. Though apparently there's a way with combat drugs to get Wyches to WS 1+ and they confirmed in the FAQ that only natural 1s fail there, so I don't know.

This is how AoS Bastiladons work though, so it can be intentional, although it'd be very harmful I think to leave it like this.

[Forum Explorer]

Because AP doesn't modify the save characteristic; it modifies the die roll. Since the die roll can't be modified to less than 1, any result other than an automatic failure (i.e. an unmodified 1) will be treated as 1, which satisfies Sv 1+.

This is gross and I expect a rapid FAQ. But it's how the rules are written for now. Though apparently there's a way with combat drugs to get Wyches to WS 1+ and they confirmed in the FAQ that only natural 1s fail there, so I don't know.

I see. I don't now why they changed AP to modify the roll rather than modify the save characteristic. But whatever, they've already got a bunch of day 1 FAQ to do, here is one more for the pile.

[Blackhawk748]

Because AP doesn't modify the save characteristic; it modifies the die roll. Since the die roll can't be modified to less than 1, any result other than an automatic failure (i.e. an unmodified 1) will be treated as 1, which satisfies Sv 1+.

This is gross and I expect a rapid FAQ. But it's how the rules are written for now. Though apparently there's a way with combat drugs to get Wyches to WS 1+ and they confirmed in the FAQ that only natural 1s fail there, so I don't know.

Huh, so Hammernstors have a job now? That job being refusing to die. I mean... Yay for Terminators? Still doesn't sound like a great idea, but maybe they changed how AP works

Also, what does Wytches having a 1+ get them that's different than a 2+? Besides the Melee Cover doing nothing

[Renegade Paladin]

Huh, so Hammernstors have a job now? That job being refusing to die. I mean... Yay for Terminators? Still doesn't sound like a great idea, but maybe they changed how AP works

Also, what does Wytches having a 1+ get them that's different than a 2+? Besides the Melee Cover doing nothing

The same thing Terminators getting Sv 1+ does. Since a die roll can never be modified to less than 1, any modified melee attack result that does not stem from an unmodified 1 automatically satisfies WS 1+.

Of note: A unit that performed a Heroic Intervention counts as a charge target now, so no more of those shenanigans (which makes me sad; guess the power fist Commissar goes back in the case).

[Blackhawk748]

The same thing Terminators getting Sv 1+ does. Since a die roll can never be modified to less than 1, any modified melee attack result that does not stem from an unmodified 1 automatically satisfies WS 1+.

Yes, but wouldn't a 2+ do much the same thing? Cuz I don't recall there being a whole lot of things that mod WS in the first place, so they would still be hitting all the freaking time.

Or is this just stupid obvious and Im missing something

[LeSwordfish]

I see. I don't now why they changed AP to modify the roll rather than modify the save characteristic. But whatever, they've already got a bunch of day 1 FAQ to do, here is one more for the pile.

Wierdly and horribly, the Bastiladon in AOS has the same issue, and they ruled that it was correct.

[Blackhawk748]

Wierdly and horribly, the Bastiladon in AOS has the same issue, and they ruled that it was correct.

So if we use that as precedent (and they've nicked enough from AoS that I think that's not unreasonable) then we could be seeing SS Termis with a 1+ as an actually intended goal. I mean, at least it's just Hammernators and not something actually threatening.

Wait... do Custodes use Storm Shields?

[Renegade Paladin]

Yes, but wouldn't a 2+ do much the same thing? Cuz I don't recall there being a whole lot of things that mod WS in the first place, so they would still be hitting all the freaking time.

Or is this just stupid obvious and Im missing something

No, because a die result modified to 1 does not satisfy Sv 2+ (or WS 2+). The reason modifiers stop mattering for a 1+ characteristic is because a die result can be modified to 1, but not below 1, so no amount of modification can cause the die result to not satisfy the characteristic's requirements. You can shoot a 1+ save model with a volcano cannon and it wouldn't matter; he rolls a 2, subtracts 5, resulting in -3, but a die result can't be modified below 1, so that's adjusted back up to 1, which is equal to or greater than the characteristic. On a 2+ it would be modified to 1 and fail because it's not greater than or equal to 2.

[Forum Explorer]

Wierdly and horribly, the Bastiladon in AOS has the same issue, and they ruled that it was correct.

Interesting. Honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with Assault Terminators getting that, they kinda need something to be relevant and have a 2+ that is basically unmodifiable could be it. The bigger problem would be Terminator captains, cause I'm pretty sure they can have Storm Shields, and that would just be nasty to deal with.

Yes, but wouldn't a 2+ do much the same thing? Cuz I don't recall there being a whole lot of things that mod WS in the first place, so they would still be hitting all the freaking time.

Or is this just stupid obvious and Im missing something

There are a couple things, so giving a -1 to hit with a 2+ would actually happen and be relevant.

[Blackhawk748]

No, because a die result modified to 1 does not satisfy Sv 2+ (or WS 2+). The reason modifiers stop mattering for a 1+ characteristic is because a die result can be modified to 1, but not below 1, so no amount of modification can cause the die result to not satisfy the characteristic's requirements. You can shoot a 1+ save model with a volcano cannon and it wouldn't matter; he rolls a 2, subtracts 5, resulting in -3, but a die result can't be modified below 1, so that's adjusted back up to 1, which is equal to or greater than the characteristic. On a 2+ it would be modified to 1 and fail because it's not greater than or equal to 2.

Ah, now I'm getting you. Basically you get to ignore all penalties, which is rather nuts.

[Destro_Yersul]

So I was discussing the 'points for painted armies' rule with some friends, and something beautifully cynical came up. You know how Cheese is fond of saying rules sell models?

Seems GW found a way to make rules sell paint.

[LansXero]

So I was discussing the 'points for painted armies' rule with some friends, and something beautifully cynical came up. You know how Cheese is fond of saying rules sell models?

Seems GW found a way to make rules sell paint.

Citadel, while nice, isnt exactly proprietary. It might even be a majority of the market for some regions, but its still widly outside of GW's control that this new rule actually moves any more paint. If anything, the new Vallejo answer to contrast is looking like a better options. Or for countries who cant get GW sprays, TAP primer + wash dip = done.

Nice try, but not really

[Destro_Yersul]

Maybe. But GW's got their own stores, and this is a tool for them to push their own paint. They're certainly not going to be stocking anybody else's.

[LansXero]

Eh, Im not saying it might not be their plan, its just a very weak, bad plan. If someone wasnt going to paint before, having to do it just for a tournament might actually just make them quit. Or get 1 pot of contrast instead of 3-4 pots of other stuff. In the long run though, repeat customers are better than "I gave in and pressure bought this then quit when I couldnt keep up".