These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

4th
Jul 2017
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 00:19
@cartag lol @ the comment edit
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 04 2017 00:21
:+1:
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 00:21
I figure after a time or two he'll stop trolling other submissions
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 00:26
Banning just encourages people to make alts to do the same thing.
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 00:27
Editing is more fun, and then they realize it won't fly
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 00:27
@cartag Yep :+1:
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 00:33
hah
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 00:59

@alphalas there is, but it's a total ban out of every org repo. I don't believe he's done enough to support such a bold move.

@/all
As far as I understand it might feel bad and wear you down, such a behavior - but it's not really a big deal and shaking people off like that is not exactly inline with our Membership Guidelines. The very first sentence:

Be polite.


I honestly hope that we can keep with upholding these Guidelines. That chat room here should be vent enough; no reason to spill more direct criticism over into issues where it's more visible, archived and leaves an impression of our group as a whole.

cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 01:00
I am at fault. I will not do that again.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 04 2017 04:31
i feel like ive missed a bunch while working all weekend
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 04:32
People were dumb, I was a dick, the usual
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 04 2017 04:33
Seems like more than usual from then glances i caught :p
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 04 2017 05:19
deamon princes are 8 wounds now? say what?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jul 04 2017 05:34
Happy fuck you UK day!
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 06:03
yeah, CSM DP was 10, daemon was 8 I think
or the other way around, now both are 8
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 07:49
@Kohato good riddance to bad rubbish!
:kiss:
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 08:13
Daemons was 10 but had no Damage Table, CSM was 8
not having a Damage Table shows it was likely an error and they've changed it to 8 now
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Jul 04 2017 09:34
@Kohato Happy "We can totally do this ourselves and not fuck it up, honest!" Day to the USA ... .how's it going ? :D
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jul 04 2017 09:59
I dont think that after Brexit Brits have any say in that... :P
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 04 2017 10:09
:D
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Jul 04 2017 12:39
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 12:50
@amis92 something went squiffy with that last merge, looks like the CAT id changed
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 12:50
@ilaunchbury thanks for the bug rep, I need to get on with finishing this upload... I also want to make a profile for the Distort Fields since writing them as they are is awful for output
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 04 2017 12:51
no worries. There's nothing massive there.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 13:21
👍
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 13:32
@GenWilhelm yeah, right. I got double confused because the PR I merged #638 had a commit that changed the ID and I thought it was a new change, while it was an old change that got "included" for some reason in that PR O.o :dizzy_face: Good eyes, there! :D
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 13:37
yeah, not sure why that PR has so many commits that are already on master
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 13:49
btw, the Under Strength Units thing....
everyone realises the rules only allows 1 such unit in the army don't they?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 04 2017 13:49
Of that type
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 13:50
yeah, if you include an understrength unit you cant have any other unit of that type in your army
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 13:51
But you can have other understrength units of different types
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 13:52
bingo
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 13:53
Which causes the drama
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 13:54
and whats a "type" ?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 13:54
77pts for a battalion. what drama? 180pts for a brigade. i see no drama here.
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 13:55
firstly, clearly GW don't intended this to let people do the things people are suggesting and if it lets them... they will change it. But I'm not even convinced the rules let you do that anyway.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 13:57
a unit type is any unit that uses the same datasheet. so if you have an understrength tactical squad, you can only have 1 tactical squad in your army
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 13:57
eg i understreanth a guardsman squad (eg i take 1 guardsman), I cant then take another unit of guardsman... but i can take a unit of conscripts, and under strengthening that, say, 1 conscript, so for <10 points i have 2 troops choices
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:02
can you gimme a page ref for the rule that explains what a type is?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:04
i dont think they define the majority of the dictionary. what else would it mean?
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:04
well
The advanced rules refer to "types of units you can use in your detachments" in reference to battlefield riles
roles^
so i would argue that a type is a troop, elite etc
so you could have 1 understrength troops choice... and thats it
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:06
where does it say that, so i can get some context?
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 14:06
i think "troop" is its battlefield role
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:06
Aye, type is a very FOC-ish term but I'm also at a loss as to what to use instead
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:06
page 240 under Restrictions and 241 in the BATTLEFIELD ROLE box
in the end, clearly GW didn't think the rules allowed the abuse people think it does
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:09
the restrictions section is separate from the battlefield role, they already covered what a battlefield role is. and the battlefield role box on the next page refers to "types of duties", not types of units
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:10
the restrictions box says what types of units the detachment can have
detachments are only limtied by role
so type must mean role in this case
it can mean nothing else
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 04 2017 14:10
Unclearly :), what they intended is clearly to allow people who don't have a lot of models to play with what they have, but also restrict people from saying "I only have X of these,.... except for this other unit here."
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:10
Honestly, I have no idea why GW changed the UU rule for Matched Play to lose the min-size price requirement
That stemmed the abuse quite nicely
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 14:11
then they should leave it to narrative/open play
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:12
To think GW would be ok with people stacking CP's with multiple undersized units is slightly deluding ones self so logically you should all be reading the rules assuming the abuse is not intended
the only reference to what a Type could be I can find is in a box that could only be referring to battlefield role; so I can only assume that the limited is 1 undersized unit per role
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:12
ha, not intended, but still plausible
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 14:12
thing is, it makes perfect sence for PL, understrenth that 10 man unit by 1 man so i can fit a character in the transport, it just makes no sence in points
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 04 2017 14:13
Can anyone give an example of models that GW sell where you don't get a minimum size unit in the box?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:13
the restriction box refers to any restrictions other than battlefield role (eg. all units must have the same Faction)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:13
see, the UU box is where the reference is, it starts with "Each unit's Datasheet..."
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 14:13
also.. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:15
and yeah, I completely agree with @M4uler, the change in rules opened the floodgates to abuse
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:15
that is without doubt
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:15
I just pitty the fools (go mr-t) who buy a load of models to abuse this only for it to be re-clarified in a weeks time to remove it
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:16
Haha
Like those poor Tau players with like 5 Riptides
No sympathy
pats his single Riptide
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:16
well
that was just using a formation as intended
not really the same :)
also find me all the tournement results with Tau winners
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:17
I'd consider both using the rules in an unsporting way to get as much of an advantage as possible
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:17
they may have pissed plenty of people off in the local shop but they didnt actually do very well in competitive play
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:17
Mind you, as a 4th edition Tau player I considered the 7th edition codex to be horrendous and shelved my Tau
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 14:17
I guess the defense is that they are easy kill-points
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:17
I did get myself a Ghostkeel though; fantastic model, daft name
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:18
i just have 1 of each
but ive not played my tau since i got my chaos
had tau cos some friends pestered me to play 40k so i bought one of their small tau forces off em
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 04 2017 14:18
I liked the Ghostkeel name until someone pointed out it sounds like a baby saying "Ghost kill"
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:18
which i vastly increased :)
then i bought a friends necrons just to keep them in the group
then bought a friends chaos for the same reason
but ended up playing nothing but the chaos
must have 100k+ points of it now
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 04 2017 14:19
I'm with @M4uler on this - I like seeing tau back to the 4e levels
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:20
i think they look dull as fuck now tho
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 04 2017 14:20
4e is still my favorite tau book
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:20
the previous rules were at least interesting
but i guess the same could be said for most armies in 8th
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:20

waitforthecodex

James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:20
yeh
then they release one and we all realised they've Age of Sigmar'd it and all the new codexes are for new releases only :)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:21
then we #ragequit
:tongue:
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:22
for a few days then just pay up and buy new shit probably lol
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:22
:+1:
you got it
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:22
tbh i find it hard to imagine them doing this with 40k
since its not a "new" game
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:22
uhuh
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:22
but i didnt think they would change the rules this much too
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:22
I'm so glad that 1) daft and vague Formations rules have gone the way of the dodo and 2) markerlights got nerfed back to reasonable levels
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:22
as i said
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:23
Same, @skonk
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:23
find me the tourny results where Tau dominated?
riptides and markerlights and whatever else they had... they didnt win many major tournaments
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:23
I'm not a tourney player so that's never really had any relevance to me
I just had a problem when markerlights went from a very reasonable "1 token removes 1 point of cover" to "2 tokens = no cover save whatsoever"
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:25
dark eldar player? :)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:26
@ddarz I think you should synchronize your fork, I may've introduced some weirdness. But also, don't work on fork's master, it's then easier to sync it back to our repo. See https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/wiki/Help%3A-Working-on-a-fork
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:26
The 6th edition book had a lot of decent stuff in it to balance that like single Riptide units to complement Crisis Suits (no, Tyranid in that case but I do field roughly 6 other forces), more weapon options for the slowest Fast Attack unit in the game (Pathfinders, lol), aircraft...
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:27
tbh Tau seem ok now but i dont like the FAQ thing about saviour protocol
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:27
But also rolling all three Kroot types into one unit was a rubbish act
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:27
not cos i think it makes the rule bad
but it has rendered shield drones utterly pointless
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:27
That is a very good point
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:27
as in it's rendered a physical model useless
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:27
I agree. Pretty much any player I know agrees with that
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:28
(But now Kroot have been unbundled again so yay! Not that I can get Kroot Hounds from anywhere without paying a fortune, FFS)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:28
Not just Tau. I mean, it completely strips us of any save rolls, without any sensible reason why.
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:28
i have a few krootox riders but no hounds
yeh
getting the drones save was strong
i'd played against it
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:29
Yeah, the Hounds would see the table like hundreds times more in my games, if only they got some plastic crack
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:29
but in a game with such easy access to turn 1 charges.....
i dont think getting the shield save was TOO strong
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:30
Yeah. Drones are still nothing to sneeze at, great in fact. Just no point to get Shield ones. :'(
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:31
so how would you fix it from here - let shield drones save against MW? make shield drones much cheaper?
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:31
id either.....
change the rule so you allocate the HIT to the drones
and then roll the saves with the drones
or i would keep it as it is now but give shield drones sort sort of aura
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:32
although, your commander battlesuit thing suffers a wound from a lascannon, could suffer D6 damage, with no chance to save, then you can choose to avoid the risk of suffering the damage and pop off a shield drone
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:32
-1 damage per wound or something
yeh the drone eating multiple damage wounds is good
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:32
@FarseerVeraenthis you can do that with Gun Drone which also has 4 shots
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:32
but u just woundnt take a shield drone for it now
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:32
and since you can still choose to assign wounds to the drones or not, that's what they're there for (imo)
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:32
shield drones projecting some sort of small aura would be neat tho
maybe only 3 inches tho
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:33
are they all the same cost?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:33
Markers are 10, Shield and Gun 8 I think.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:33
well, that needs an adjustment then
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:33
Correct
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:34
I still think it's the rule that needs re-adjustment. It's just stupid now. Even more than bodyguard rules
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:34
:+1: I'm on board with the change, I think it's fluffy to use the drones to choose to avoid multiple damage wounds, but the points need balancing
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:34
Shield Drones are still great at protecting their own unit, just not anything else now
@FarseerVeraenthis It's fluffy but the problem is that GW changed the normal wounds on the drone to mortals
So now you can use a shueld drone to take a lascannon hit instead of a suit, for example, but it's shield is about as much use as a 2nd winkle on a dog
(Not a lot)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:36
Yeah, it's kind of like a person who changed that simply took a Bodyguard rule and tweaked it to fit
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:36
but you assign the wounds in the first place
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:36
when you say a shield drone is good for protecting its own unit? that would be a unit of nothing but drones tho
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:36
If a DRONES unit is within 3" of a friendly T’AUEMPIRE INFANTRY or BATTLESUIT unit, you can choose to allocate any wounds to the
Drones instead of the target unit.
Indeed, Skonk
Bah, annoying copy n paste
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:38
so, you choose to assign the wounds to the normal dudes (or the drones in the first place) and everyone gets saves... if one of them fails you can then chose to re-assign that wound to a drone instead
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:38
Like if you've got 12 drones comprised of 2 shield, 2 gun & 8 markerlights as your main source or markerlight tokens then shield drones still make sense
James
@skonk
Jul 04 2017 14:38
i dont think marker drones are any good now tbh
without the drone network formation to make them hit on 4+
ud want pathfinders now i reckon for the 4+ instead of the drones 5+
they should have just left drones as being part of the unit
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:39
It's now: "If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.’"
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:39

so, you choose to assign the wounds to the normal dudes (or the drones in the first place) and everyone gets saves... if one of them fails you can then chose to re-assign that wound to a drone instead

Huh? Nothing about relocation in the rule.

Or are you proposing how the rule could be changed?
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:40
They should've left it alone TBH
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:40
Yup. Maybe just add that <SEPT> things.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:40
yeah, leave off the last line and its fine
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:41
sorry, I didn't realise drones become their own unit once setup on the battlefield
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:42
Yeah, it's an...interesting...change
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:42
It's just stupid that once you use that rule, you just loose any save roll.
Like, why.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 14:43
perhaps because you can use it to reduce the impact on a unit from a morale perspective
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:44
Mind you, going back to markerlight drones, they're 2pts more expensive than Pathfinders but are far more mobile and can get _1 to hit from any nearby drone controller
+1 to hit
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:45
Yeah they're good. Also 4+ Save and T4
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:45
Better save & toughness to
Sp00ky
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:45
:D
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 14:45
does the markerlight stop you firing other weapons?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 04 2017 14:45
Yes, unless you're VEHICLE
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 14:46
Shields are worth it then but I'd argue that protecting fellow drones is only half of their intended use :/
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 15:26
wrt saviour protocols, is a successful wound before or after a save?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 15:27
before
hit > wound > allocate > save
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 15:41
Now stuff like THIS makes me a sad, sad Mauler
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 15:48
mmm, ive seen them used to shield units from deep strike, but not as an actual damage-dealing unit
I'll do that Drone spam one day. Oh I will.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 16:02
time for a gretchin spam list, i guess
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 16:11
Haha
At least they can hit stuff at range
Chaps, question
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 16:12
Can we see a return of templates already, please
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 16:12
Tyranid Warriors
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 16:12
42
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 16:12
Looking at their wargear options when it comes to flesh hooks, adrenals & toxin all models have to be upgraded if you're wanting them, aye?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 16:13
yep
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 04 2017 16:13
Awesome, just checkin'!
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 17:15
that picture saddens me
what happened to building armies because you liked the models or painting them?
Jetdar are mid-tier at best but I'm having too much fun painting them and learning to up my airbrush game
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 04 2017 17:16
That's what I'm doing with my BA
It's my 30k army ported to 40k
I think I can actually port all my 30k armies to 40k now
My main 3 RoWs are DoR, FotA, and AB
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 17:21
I'd port my Raven Guard but they don't play well at all with all of my tools of choice getting massive point increases and effectiveness nerfs
Assault squads, VVs, speeders, drop pods all got shafted
I've tried to make them work but this is Mechanized Edition (tm) so unless I go dread-heavy it just doesn't work, and that isn't my army style
so I'm sticking to my GKs, Deathwatch and Eldar
and Deathwatch only because I have razorbacks for them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 17:39
Question: In the Battlescribe catalog ... is there a way to designate 'Who the general is'?
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 17:41
Could add a warlord checkbox, but you'd have to do it to literally everything since there's an option now to nominate any model as warlord, including fortifications
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 17:41
but only characters can have a warlord trait
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 17:41
Yeah ... saw that.
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 17:41
Exactly
but if you set something like the Aegis Defense Line as your warlord, it prevents your opponent from getting Slay the Warlord, it has no W
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 17:42
unless the choosing who your warlord is changes how the army is built, i dont see a benefit to it
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 17:43
exactly
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 17:44
In AoS (which isn't WH40K) choosing the general (aka warlord) in combination with a faction keyword changes battleline (troop) choices.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 04 2017 18:08
What is the Android GitHub and yeah recommended me?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 18:08
Any examples of a "only one of a specific upgrade choice in the roster" in the current 40k files?
cartag
@cartag
Jul 04 2017 18:09
Have the upgrade choice as a shared entry set max 1 to roster then link to others
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 04 2017 18:10
There are some already set up that way in AoS @OftKilted. Khorne demons, fyreslayers...
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:01
sorry, I've been away from gitter, to return to saviour protocols, it's still a powerful ability because it could allow you to avoid a morale check on the base unit by allocating the shot to a completely different unit (i.e. the drones)... I think that's why they made them mortal wounds. also, because a shield drone has a 4+ invuln that is actually really powerful... they could have made the shield drone just a 4+ modifiable, then they could all get their saves from svaiour protocol. But then you're back to "what's the point of shield drones over gun drones"... /rambling thought train
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 20:07
Any ideas what is it that triggers some Categories to show, but not others when looking at the HTML roster view?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 20:17
the only category i've been able to get to show are the categories that the force has
ie. the battlefield roles
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jul 04 2017 20:18
Is this particular aspect a 'known issue' bug?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 20:19
yeah
i believe jon's working on it
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 20:20
@FarseerVeraenthis I think it might have been more interesting to make the drone shield generator work like spirit stones but only for "non-mortal" wounds, so you would have to roll individually for every point of damage, putting more stress on the "save"
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:40
nah, spirit stones is "Roll a D6 each time a model with spirit stones suffers an unsaved wound or mortal wound: on a 6 the WOUND is ignored."
but yeah, it would be good if shield drones could save but other drones couldn't
i.e. is the shield drone save was allowed against mortals
THAT would make them worth taking
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 20:42
yeah, check the way those abilities are handled, you must roll for every point of damage
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:42
I think making them mortal wounds is ok, IF they buff the shield drone save to include against mortals
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 20:42
take a 6 from a lascannon? gotta roll 6d6
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:42
but it says explicitly wound...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 20:43
and GW uses words interchangeably when they shouldn't
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:43
wound -> save -> SS -> damage??
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 20:43
its the same problem with roll and result
they're used interchangeably when they shouldn't be, but the intention behind all such save after save mechanics is for it to work on damage, on that they have been consistent
if they worked as you suggest that would make them worth a whole fuckload more than 10points
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:45
yeah, just reading my rulebook, if you fail a save, you sufer damage, not wounds...
wounds are lost by damage being inflicted following a failed save
(I'm agreeing without, just laying out my logic :smile: )
therefore, the model doesn't suffer an unsaved wound until damage has been applied
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 20:47
still, worth the 10pts on anything that can take them
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:50
oh yeah, definitely
also, the Nightwing is a fighter aircraft right...? Why have FW made it a Fast Attack choice...?
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 20:52
but "flier" is just an arbitrary classification this edition, isn't it? I mean, there are other lots of non-flier units that fly
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:53
Flyer is a FOC type
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 20:53
that's what I meant
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:53
so, you can't have an air wing detachment (3-5 Flyers) made up of Nightwings, because they're not flyers
even though, in reality, they are aircraft
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 20:55
shrugs Nids have lots of units that fly, but none of them are flyers
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:55
yeah, my point is that the nightwing is a fighter aircraft...
so it should be a flyer, like a crimson hunter
or a hemlock wraithfighter
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 20:58
I get what you mean, but is there a set requirement for what is a FOC: Flyer ?
I agree it sounds like it should be a flyer, but what is the actual distinction?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 20:59
nope, they could go nuts and give a carnifex the flyer battlefield role
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 20:59
erm, not so much, but generally everything that was an aircraft in DftS (i.e. needed skyfire to hit it) should be a flyer in this edition...
I need to check DftS :wink:
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 21:01
its usually just stuff that has the supersonic rules - ie. minimum movement and restricted rotation
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 21:03
which the nightwing has
it was classified as an interceptor by FW in (old) DftS
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 21:04
idk, maybe FW didnt get the memo about the new FOC
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 21:05
I think this isn't really the edition to try and apply common sense to rules, best thing to do is just follow them as written until FAQed
I mean, it's an edition where flamers are good for anti-air
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 21:06
until 2 days ago that meant celetine wasnt unique ;)
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 21:06
If someone fielded an army of celestines against me I'd play it just for laughs
(knowing I'd lose)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 21:07
1 celestine is the limit of fuckery i'm willing to put up with
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 21:07
hahaha, and I hear ya, I was mostly musing
Gisle Jaran Granmo
@Szeras
Jul 04 2017 21:08
but at least GW is showing willingness to try and fix problems, and occasionally succeeding as well
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 21:08
yeah, hopefully FW will follow suit
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 21:10
:+1:
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 22:01
also I've personally seen a large uptick in people playing armies more for fun than "what works" because things are much closer in power
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 22:09
that can only be a good thing, right?
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Jul 04 2017 22:23
Have you guys seen the stats for the new Primaris HQs?
photo5972033703490201816.jpg
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 04 2017 22:26
they look the same but +1 W
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Jul 04 2017 22:26
+1A too
And different wargear for the Captain
I'm adding the Stalker to GST and both characters to BA cat
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 04 2017 22:32
sleepy time for me, 3 more FW units to add to the Aeldari CAT...
the light is shining at the end of the tunnel
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 22:42
cappy with a stalker bolt rifle might be a good add to basic intercessors depending on points
the fact he can take the power sword and the auto rifle is good shit
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Jul 04 2017 22:45
Captain is 87 base, stalker is 5
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 22:51
so 96 with psword and stalker
pretty good for that statline
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Jul 04 2017 23:05
Yeah it's not bad
Librarian seems pointless to me
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 23:32
the extra wound and attack make him viable for CC with a force sword
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Jul 04 2017 23:38
Hmm, sounds fair... I was a bit disappointed since I thought it would get more casts or denies, but I can understand the balance reasons why they did it this way
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 04 2017 23:39
its actually nice to have the option
you can have CC-brarian (primaris) Tough Nut-brarian (Terminator with stormshield) or "I just need powers"-brarian (regular)