DISQUS

Bell of Lost Souls: 40K NEWS: Forgeworld IA Updates

  • absolutionis · 3 months ago
    Games Workshop proper needs to do stuff like this for obsolete codecies.
  • fireball · 3 months ago
    umm, a question about the Destroyer Tank Hunter:

    Ordnance 1 - no blast indicated. What does this mean? Is this without any blast? Just a single point shot that is done like any ordnance shot with a scatter dice? In other stats there is always the blast size indicated, like 'small blast' or '5"blast' and so on... what now?
  • Atrotos · 3 months ago
    Ordnance in this case only means a boost in anti-tank power as you'll two dice (keep the highest) for armor penetration. There is no blast.
  • Funky · 3 months ago
    On page 58 of the 40K rule book it says, "unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

    I expect they forgot to add the blast size, but in the meantime there's your workround.
  • Dingareth · 3 months ago
    All Ordnance Blast weapons yes. Is the Laser Destroyer a Ordnance Blast weapon? No, it's an Ordnance weapon. It's simply a super Lascannon with 2D6 penetration, rather than an explosion.
  • Funky · 3 months ago
    Interesting. I don't disagree - in fact I had a heated discussion in GW on Saturday about exactly this point. The assumption made, based on that sentence from the rulebook was that ALL ordnance weapons use the large blast template unless specified otherwise. Using the Blast rules on page 30, this would also mean that any ordnance weapon would have to roll scatter dice - lascannon, demolisher cannon, whatever. I rather resent rolling a scatter dice for a weapon with a 24" range and no minimum - at close range I can hit my own tank and on one memorable occasion the shot actually landed behind it, hitting my own rear armour!

    Considering their importance in the game, the rules for Ordnance weapons are vague at best.

    This needs clarifying, as in the recent SM codex, the Demolisher is listed as Ordnance 1 - no blast. In the summary at the back it's Ordnance 1, Barrage. I believe both to be incorrect. In the IG codex the Demolisher is Ordnance 1, Large Blast. Hellstrike missiles are Ordnance 1, no blast.

    My take is that if it doesn't say blast, there is no blast template and you don't roll scatter dice. GW employees disagree, and that throwaway sentence on pg 58 just muddies the water.
  • Joewrightgm · 3 months ago
    Leman Russ Squadrons as troop choices. W00t
  • Atrotos · 3 months ago
    Wow. Sooo many typos.
  • fade_74 · 3 months ago
    I am SOOOOO glad to see the Vulture update!! 150 points for one with rocket pods and lascannons.......so sweet.
  • Atrotos · 3 months ago
    Twin-linked Punisher cannon @ + 50 points and its now a fast skimmer so it can play in regular games.
  • Folkert · 3 months ago
    Could someone help me with this? If I understand correctly, you can choose a Leman Russ Squadron for every Squadron Command Tank right? and for every Armoured Fist Platoon Command Squad you can take four (4) Armoured Fist squads? just asking cause it's a bit vague for me :)

    Thanks

    Folkert
  • Kirasu · 3 months ago
    Probably is.. they are typical forgeworld in this update. For every unit "updated" they "unupdated" another..

    Sweet sisters can use the normal SM rhino.. yet all their land raiders have transport capacity of 10 now (EVEN the SM ones)
  • ColCorbane · 3 months ago
    I think it time I looked into that Armoured company list :-)
  • Plasma Ken · 3 months ago
    As a player with Guard and Sisters armies, these are a great boost. I'm especially looking at the Leman Russ General Grizmund company where every tank in it can take Tank Ace skills. Expensive but fluffy!

    Stormblade!! Big honking Plasma Gun!! Some folks thought since the Stormblade wasn't in the Shadowsword options and IA 1 was hopelessly out of date, it had been dropped from the game. No doubt now, it's here to stay. That's good as I have two of them.

    I like the points revisions for Sisters vehicles. I think I'll scratchbuild a Repressor.

    Typos a problem? I don't think it would be an official GW/ Forgeworld document if it didn't have typos.

    There's something that begs clarification... do you need to own IA 1 & 2 to use this update? As you should have the rules with you when playing, you can see where I'm coming from on this. I have these books so that's not an issue for me, just any allies I have in an Apoc game.
  • Maine · 3 months ago
    For the most part, looking over the doc, it looks like units have been updated to match their Codex counterpart if such exists, though none of the Guard stuff shows up as a Squadron.

    The Superheavies have been updated to use the points and stats straight out of Apoc, including templates. This means the Apoc BB is the same as using it in a standard game (of course, being a superheavy, its not something you usually bring to just any random game anyways).

    It looks like all of the rules you need are in those 2 PDFs, so the books shouldn't be necessary anymore.
  • relasine · 3 months ago
    From the Shooting at Flyers section in the update:

    "When shot at, flying vehicles follow the same rules as
    skimmers moving over 12", so all penetrating hits against
    them are always downgraded to glancing hits."

    Really? This is the 5e update? Do they proofread these documents, or are they just copying and pasting old stuff and calling it an update? They knew that this was an issue as Warwick Kinrade has discussed how it requires clarification in the past and that it would be clarified. Way to fall asleep at the wheel gang...

    I'll guess I have to continue arguing the use of the auto-glance rule instead of the cover save rule so that I can actually take advantage of the Titan Holo-field rules on my Nightwing...
  • Sida Huang · 3 months ago
    strange why the FW land raider transport 10 while the GW land raider is transport 12?? FW Land raider designers still stuck in 4th ed?
  • Capn_Stoogey · 3 months ago
    I was wondering about that too, which rules do we use?
  • Myu · 3 months ago
    I'd use the vanilla marine codex over the forgeworld books for any units from there. For other marine chapters, not sure. I'm guessing it would be up to the player to choose.
  • Capn_Stoogey · 3 months ago
    Its actually for a Prometheus though (Awesome Variant!). The old rules had it at transport capacity 10, like the standard raider, but when GW upped the standard capacity to 12, the Prometheus stayed at 10, which sux cos you cant have a full squad with an attached character. This is wierd because its original fluff had it used as a command vehicle. I really want it to be 12, but i dont want to go against the rules, im stuck!
  • Myu · 3 months ago
    Not sure, I'd email forgeworld. It may be that the Prometheus is more balanced with ten, but I don't have any experience with using it.
  • Redsun95 · 3 months ago
    no land raider redeemer in this book? ive been looknig for the rules an point cost of the flamestorm incinerators for a long time, thought it was in the second IA book
  • zanzibar · 3 months ago
    The rules for the GK redeemer are in IA7 and they are everything that you'd expect.
  • Funky · 3 months ago
    The Redeemer is in the standard SM codex. It's not in IA 1 or 2 and Forge World don't make the model so there's no reason why it would be in this update.
  • Formerly Wu · 3 months ago
    On one hand, a Vulture with TL Punisher cannons or 4 MRPs is utter death to any infantry unit.

    On the other... why doesn't it have Scout? :\ And 150 points is a little pricey given the existence of the Vendetta.

    Still glad to see it given updated skimmer rules.
  • thekiller23 · 3 months ago
    Turrets can take the executioner plascannon... wait, what?
  • sinsynn · 3 months ago
    reviewing all the topics since the site change, I notice that far fewer comments get posted per topic than before the change.
    Most topics would garner 100 or so comments (sometimes even the 'pic of the day' would get 60 plus!), and since the change this number seems to have dropped off dramatically. A good post would have 150 plus comments. No longer, it seems.
    I'm wondering if this trend will continue, or will things return to normal. The 'back and forth' discussion that took place in the comment section was often more entertaining than the original post, and it was always cool to hear varied opinions from 'down the block' to 'across the pond'.
    I guess like so many others, I really feel that the new layout/format here at BoLS sucks, and it's neither more friendly or more organized. Change CAN be a good thing. But I'm afraid that's not the case here.
    So, after a couple of days of feeling it out, I have to give the new look BoLS a big 'thumbs down', and the more time I spend with it, the less I like it. This means I will spend less time here. I'll probably only visit every few days, so I'll let the posts 'build up'. This way I can browse them all quick, just reading the ones that interest me.
    I used to visit every day and read everything, just 'cuz it was there. That's how Groov3r got me into epic, and I learned a little something here and there about fantasy and Lord of the Rings, even though I don't play those.
    But I guess those days are over. Ah, well.
    Sorry to post this, but I had to get it off my chest. I hate to be all like "this sucks", but in this case it's really true. I love BoLS, it was a 'main stop' for me daily, and I'm gonna miss it. But, with the new format, 'I've lost that lovin' feeling', like the song says.
  • Atrotos · 3 months ago
    I agree with you on a lot of this but I'm not against the new site layout. Your complaints have more to with the frequency and content of posts that any perceived changes in site design.
  • ironhandskyle · 3 months ago
    Grey Knight players we have a great victory! the vehicles now are updated and we can now have psycannon bolts, psycannon turrets on land raider, and heavy bolters that do the same as everyone else
  • BittenByDesign · 3 months ago
    nice, this is great for those of us who don't have the books and need reference points, or just want to try the rules out without spending the cost of the book in advance. ;-)
  • gwensdad · 3 months ago
    Trying to decide if I need to really rant about the Land Speeder Tempest no longer being a Heavy Support choice for White Scars or if I should just go on about the misprints-like having 2 entries for the Baneblade.
  • FoxPhoenix135 · 3 months ago
    So are we getting such an update to Siege of Vraks 1? I want updates to the renegade list so that it isn't so complicated/confusing as the 4th ed IG dex was.
  • Quarren · 3 months ago
    What are Warmachine Detatchments? It says to refer to the codex but I don't see it there...
  • DM294 · 3 months ago
    Incredible! Now the Armored company is viable to use in normal games, since they can capture points with armored fist troop choices! w00t!
  • Hyperion · 3 months ago
    How convenient... finished this yesterday, and today there's rules for it :)
    http://yfrog.com/37photo0274jx
  • Larry Guffey · 3 months ago
    Finally points and rules revisions for the first two big books of fun!