tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918834225580166117.post7550090514592014706..comments2024-03-28T05:09:51.407-05:00Comments on Chappell's Wolfden: Long ramble about the current balance and the local 40K scene...Paul Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04800315555473550635noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918834225580166117.post-54978838235648278602013-11-17T12:14:32.099-06:002013-11-17T12:14:32.099-06:00Sorry, just realized you mentioned WK... Yes, jus...Sorry, just realized you mentioned WK... Yes, just for the 4++ and to be something of a RDF to keep fast moving things off of the Serpents on the shield... Cover could be amusing, but not really needed...Paul Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04800315555473550635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918834225580166117.post-53237117842858712852013-11-17T11:58:29.200-06:002013-11-17T11:58:29.200-06:00That one I would argue with... The rules specify ...That one I would argue with... The rules specify cover as modeled, and the Skyshield in the "furled" position has really nice cover possibilities. I'd say they are just like the battlements on a Bastion or the Aegis Defense Line... And as it is a Fortification that has not been further clarified, 3+ cover is what should be applied assuming you can get 25% cover which should be fairly simple.<br /><br />Yes, they'd have to "move" and so on Turn one assuming no night fighting and an ability to remove cover saves they'd only get a 4++... <br /><br />Sorry, too obvious and too broken a combo to make it interesting to play with money on the table...Paul Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04800315555473550635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918834225580166117.post-80965361158053548602013-11-17T06:22:13.832-06:002013-11-17T06:22:13.832-06:00The landing pad iant a building. And by raw only ...The landing pad iant a building. And by raw only the legs provde a 3+ cover. A serpent only has a 3+ if it has holo fields and moves. A wk really only gets a 4++ or a 4+ cover unless night fight. Spaguatyrinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09459803772469387289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918834225580166117.post-39809588905050174862013-11-14T18:06:59.828-06:002013-11-14T18:06:59.828-06:00:-) Yes, the models ON the building are not occup...:-) Yes, the models ON the building are not occupying the building which has no interior... Why I am saying the rules are poor at best for Buildings/Fortifications... Guess I could lob Artillery and as a result hit the Skyshield... Or maybe a Magna-Melta... Not that it really matters, that loophole list is just too annoying to bother playing against.<br /><br />On two, yes... Still, the strict RAW reading of the rule by an anal retentive rules lawyer type would be correct in asserting that without bringing in clarification and dare I say a bit of logic and common sense, well... Would be easily fixed via FAQ but seems odd, at least to American consumers that it has not BEEN fixed...<br /><br />But, yes for fun casual play 30/40K seems to be doing quite well locally at least...Paul Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04800315555473550635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918834225580166117.post-65911991333354878272013-11-14T14:21:15.574-06:002013-11-14T14:21:15.574-06:001, you cannot target a building by itself unless i...1, you cannot target a building by itself unless it is occupied, so you cannot destroy the landing pad.<br /><br />2, ignor covers says wounds yes, but rules for vehilces says takes cover saves as models take wounds. As far as I've heard most places have ruled ignore cover works against vehicles. Markerlights have different wording btw.<br /><br />But the overall feel is generally the same everywhere I've played. It is becoming a much more casual game this edition.TheGraveMindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202256201375802641noreply@blogger.com