Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVIII: toy soldiers r srs bsns

[Squark]

Dang, what'd they do to that Land Raider?

That's a Repulsor Executioner, actually.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! (Yer rats with wings!)

I'd think that would be an Ork (probably focused on goblins) faction, not a space marine one....

[Forum Explorer]

I'd think that would be an Ork (probably focused on goblins) faction, not a space marine one....

Blood Ravens would disagree with that.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Isn't that just a Repulsor Executioner? So I guess the answer is "give it a grav instead of treads and a turret with way too many guns".

[Lord Torath]

That's a Repulsor Executioner, actually.

Isn't that just a Repulsor Executioner? So I guess the answer is "give it a grav instead of treads and a turret with way too many guns".

Ah. It's "treads" are blocked by other models, so I just sort of assumed...

[Renegade Paladin]

I don't like the inclusion of the word 'left' in the sentence, it implies that there were viable units on the table, and now there aren't.

The way the rule is written, is 'no units on the table'. This opens up the possibility that there are viable units off the table, but, in armies (e.g; in Reinforcements), but you may still Discard the Objective for free anyway.

Also, Big Game Hunter is a separate example for free Discards, because it has no Keywords on it. The result is the same. But the reasoning for why it gets Discarded is not the same reason as, say, Scour the Skies:
0. You may discard as many in play Objectives as you want
1. If an Objective refers to Keywords, and there are no viable units in armies on the battlefield, free Discard from your Hand.
2. Big Game Hunter; If your opponent has no models with 10 or more wounds on the battlefield, free Discard from Hand.
3. Priority Orders Received; If your Warlord has been destroyed*, free Discard from Hand.

*This distinction is important, as with the others, like I said, being in Reinforcements allows for Discard. But not for POR.

As I said, I'd been working backwards from reviews of the White Dwarf. Thanks. I'll work this into the mission pack.

[Cheesegear]

Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! (Yer rats with wings!)

I've always wanted to do a Chapter based around Magpies. But it just looks like Black Templars.

[hamishspence]

I've always wanted to do a Chapter based around Magpies.

Isn't the Bloody Magpies the fan nickname of the Blood Ravens?

[Cheesegear]

Isn't the Bloody Magpies the fan nickname of the Blood Ravens?

It sure is. For inspiration, Googling for 'Magpie Space Marines' only brings up Blood Ravens.

...Then again, the Autralian Magpie that I'm most familiar with, isn't actually part of the Corvidae family, and thus are not real magpies. Australian Magpies are actually Artamidae. But just means that my Chapter Master would simply have to be something based on the name 'Artemis'.

EDIT: Having a Chapter nicknamed 'Swooping Bastards!' has always appealed to me.

[hamishspence]

It sure is. For inspiration, Googling for 'Magpie Space Marines' only brings up Blood Ravens.

...Then again, the Autralian Magpie that I'm most familiar with, isn't actually part of the Corvidae family, and thus are not real magpies. Australian Magpies are actually Artamidae. But just means that my Chapter Master would simply have to be something based on the name 'Artemis'.

The Mortifactors have a black-and cream paint job that looks a bit Magpie-ish - just dilute the cream to off-white. They even have a famous guy called Artemis - in the Deathwatch.

[Cheesegear]

The Mortifactors have a black-and cream paint job that looks a bit Magpie-ish - just dilute the cream to off-white. They even have a famous guy called Artemis - in the Deathwatch.

What the ****!? ...Did someone go back in time and steal my idea?

Like, I know Captain Artemis is a Mortificator. I just never looked up the colours of that Chapter, because Artemis is Deathwatch so his Chapter is irrelavent.
EDIT: Also, Artemis is terrible. While unlikely because he re-rolls 1s to hit, I have Sly Marbo flashbacks anyway.

[LansXero]

The from-hand discard should be kept for actual unachievables imho, not for 'kept this in reserve, kek' situations. I've a feel this would be more intuitive and straightforward.

[hamishspence]

Artemis is terrible. While unlikely because he re-rolls 1s to hit, I have Sly Marbo flashbacks anyway.

If you don't like his stat block, you can use a regular Captain and call him "Artemis after he's finished his term with the Deathwatch"

[Cheesegear]

The from-hand discard should be kept for actual unachievables imho, not for 'kept this in reserve, kek' situations.

Disagree. If I draw Scour the Skies on Turn 1, and my opponent doesn't bring their Captains in until Turn 3, I've had a dead card in my hand for two turns. I don't know what you know about cycling, but having a card in your hand for two turns doesn't help.

If you don't want to Discard it, then don't.

More choices = More better.

[Forum Explorer]

Disagree. If I draw Scour the Skies on Turn 1, and my opponent doesn't bring their Captains in until Turn 3, I've had a dead card in my hand for two turns. I don't know what you know about cycling, but having a card in your hand for two turns doesn't help.

If you don't want to Discard it, then don't.

More choices = More better.

To make sure I'm understanding it right, you've got 3 active, and draw up to 5 in your hand. But you can only score those 3 in a turn. So as long as you have 3 objectives you can do, why not keep it in your hand until turn 3?

[LansXero]

To make sure I'm understanding it right, you've got 3 active, and draw up to 5 in your hand. But you can only score those 3 in a turn. So as long as you have 3 objectives you can do, why not keep it in your hand until turn 3?

That seems like a solid plan, since you can fish for a combo of Kingslayer, Assassinate and Scour the Sky from a single model's kill (or Overwhelming Firepower / Blood and Guts / No Prisoners).

The 'put 3 back into the deck' strat is fairly strong. You draw 5, so its 5 hand - 13 deck. then at T1 end you draw 4 more (since you discarded 1 in morale because deepstrike) and score / discard 3 from in play, so thats 4 discard, 5 hand, 9 deck. T2 you put 3 in play, score/discard them, 1 from hand, and go to 8 discard, 5 hand, 5 in deck. T3 repeat, for 12 discard, 5 hand, 1 deck. T4 / T5 you draw whatever you want from the discard pile, because you've got 1 card left in the deck.

So after a long game of attrition you get Area Denial (because your opponent isnt camping the middle because why would they) or Kingslayer or Behind Enemy Lines or Hold the Line or Advance for a potential automatic guaranteed 3 - 9 VPs by just putting them in play and passing. In an event with a personal timer thats a huge points and timer swing.

[Cheesegear]

The 'put 3 back into the deck' strat is fairly strong. You draw 5, so its 5 hand - 13 deck. then at T1 end you draw 4 more...

Wrong. At the start of turn, you'd Draw 3.
At the end of turn, you Discard from in play, not from Hand - unless you have Unachievables.

T2 you put 3 in play, score/discard them, 1 from hand, and go to 8 discard...

I'm confused about how you're Discarding from Hand. Unless you're confirming that Discarding-by-Reinforcements should be allowed? And thus we agree?

The order goes...
- Start of Turn: Play up to 3, redraw the same amount.
- End Step: Complete Objectives, Discard from Play.
- End Step: If you have Unachieveables in your Hand, you may discard them. Do not redraw.

By the end of Turn 1, you should have Drawn no more than 8 cards.

The only way you can draw more than 3 cards per turn, is by Discarding Unachieveables in the previous turn.

[LansXero]

Wrong. At the start of turn, you'd Draw 3.
At the end of turn, you Discard from in play, not from Hand - unless you have Unachievables.



I'm confused about how you're Discarding from Hand. Unless you're confirming that Discarding-by-Reinforcements should be allowed? And thus we agree?

The order goes...
- Play up to 3, redraw the same amount.
- Complete Objectives, Discard from Play.
- If you have Unachieveables in your Hand, Discard them. Do not redraw.

Right, Im saying that your take for unachievables makes the strat stronger and games swingier. There is also the 'draw 2, discard 2' strat, even if its 2 CPs its worth it if you can cinch victory right there and then. Re-scoring things worth 1d3 or 1d3+3 CPs are more likely to win you the game than a couple of re-rolls.

So, for our part, we chose to keep it a little saner by only letting people discard actual unachievables from their hand. Otherwise you'd build your deck with a few cantrips that your army cant complete at the moment (like master the warp while your farseer / shadowseers are in deepstrike), just for a faster cycling back into auto-completes like some of the AdMech / Guard objectives or things like Kingslayer.

[Cheesegear]

Right, Im saying that your take for unachievables makes the strat stronger and games swingier.

Only if your opponent goes for a Reinforcement-heavy army. Which are fairly few and far between. And even then, they're not fun to play against because you can't stop them.
If my opponent wants to wait to alpha strike me, but, in turn, there's a chance I might get more VPs while he's got his thumb up his butt, that's a fair trade.

Play the game. If you don't, your opponent cycles their deck faster.
Seems fine to me.

If your opponent is going to deny you VPs by holding their units in Reinforcements, **** 'em.

Otherwise you'd build your deck with a few cantrips that your army cant complete

Not really. Because they'd still be dead cards in your deck. Do you run dead cards in your deck, in order to spend CPs, later?
...Well, how many CPs do you have?

But then I feel like a TO should catch that. You shouldn't be able to put Discardable Objectives in your deck based on your army (with the exception of POR, which is still a bad card).
e.g;
Guard 11. Destroy units using <Astra Militarum Vehicles>.
"lolol I didn't put any <Vehicles> in my Guard Battalions, and even my Spearheads are Mortars. Also, because I'm Guard, I can choke whales with how huge my CPs are because I don't use them for anything else, so I'll just cycle Supremecy back into my deck three times."

That seems at the very least either:
a) Bad Sports, or
b) Pro Strats.
Depending on your viewpoint.

Also, there might be an option to, rather than include whole Decklists - 'cause who really cares, everyone just Discards 21-36 and change - include only the Objectives that are Discardable (Keyword-based Objectives, BGH and POR).

[LansXero]

"lolol I didn't put any <Vehicles> in my Guard Battalions, and even my Spearheads are Mortars. Also, because I'm Guard, I can choke whales with how huge my CPs are because I don't use them for anything else, so I'll just cycle Supremecy back into my deck three times."

See, I knew you'd realize it can happen, and thats what rules packets are for. Once its written and people build to it, the only 'bad sport' moves are those forbidden by the rules. Exploiting the strength of a poor interpretation of the rules is entirely legal and within the scope of the rules packet, so eff it.

Got to say though, the objective minigame adds another layer to planning and building which is great. It feels good to be so in control of what you score, when and how; we are loving new!Maelstrom and hope more tournaments use it going forward.

[Cheesegear]

Exploiting the strength of a poor interpretation of the rules is entirely legal and within the scope of the rules packet, so eff it.

It's not a poor interpretation. It's RAW.

"...if the text on a Tactical Objective card in your hand refers to one or more units with a specific keyword from your opponent's army, and there are none of those units from your opponent's army on the battlefield, or, if it refers to one ore more units with a specific keyword from your army, and there are none of those units on the battlefield, you can discard it."

Verbatim. Emphasis mine.

If you don't want me interpreting that Reinforcements don't count as being on the battlefield - because they don't - and thus, I get free Discards if you go too Reinforcement-heavy using specific Keywords (<Fly> and <Psyker> being two off the top of my head) then you need to write your rules better so that that doesn't happen.

The real problem for tournaments is; What if there aren't any units with the specific Keyword in my opponent's army at all? Which is how people play it, but it's not how it's written.
(e.g; Turns out you shouldn't take Guard 11. and then not take any Vehicles, because RAW, it wouldn't be a free Discard.)

...The Mission as-written is not designed for a deck to be constructed pre-tournament and used against multiple opponents. I think you're supposed to pick 18 cards based on who your opponent is.

The way you want it written is...

Constructing Your Objective Deck
Add:
"If the text on a Tactical Objective card refers to one or more units with specific keywords from your army, and your army does not include units with those specific keywords, you may not include that Tactical Objective card in your deck. "

Unachievable Objectives
Replace:
"...if the text on a Tactical Objective card in your hand refers to one or more units with specific Keywords, and there are none of those units in your opponent's army, or all of those units in your opponent's army have already been removed from play, or, if it refers to one or more units with specific keywords from your army, and all of those units in your army have already been removed from play, you may discard it."

...Which is how I want it written too, but it isn't. Again, the Mission was written for PUGs where you build your deck based on your opponent, so your opponent knows what you did, and holds units in Reinforcements. The Mission was not written for Organised Play...Unless the intent was that you tailor your deck everytime. But since that's slightly more time consuming than 5 seconds, I don't think most TOs would go for that.

We know GW can Errata White Dwarfs - they did it on Assassins.


EDIT:
Head's up, Photobucket is being dumb.

[Artanis]

EDIT:
Head's up, Photobucket is being dumb.

Yeah, they massively dropped what free users are able to do, and sent a nasty email recently about bandwidth usage.

I moved my avatar over to https://imgbox.com

[Blackhawk748]

Yeah, they massively dropped what free users are able to do, and sent a nasty email recently about bandwidth usage.

I moved my avatar over to https://imgbox.com

I would recommend going to Postimg.cc Its free and they have no weird stipulations. Also, blurring images? That seems very passive aggressive.

[Cheesegear]

I would recommend going to Postimg.cc Its free and they have no weird stipulations. Also, blurring images? That seems very passive aggressive.

Well, imgur stopped that bull****. So I've moved back to them.

[bluntpencil]

Re: Unachievable objectives.

I think that it should be that if an objective is impossible, due to what the enemy currently has on the battlefield, you should be able to discard.

However, I also believe that if it's unachievable based on what you have on the battlefield, that's your own damn fault (exceptions made for Tau and Necrons getting the psychic card). If your objectives are centred on unit types, you should be taking those unit types (deep strikers, jump packers, whatever). If you don't, that's on you for not building your army to the objectives.

If I built an army entirely out of almost-immobile units, like Centurions, I don't get to discard the 'Control X many objectives' even though it's impossible, because it's my own stupid fault for taking slow units. If I can't score an objective which needs a unit with FLY to do it, that's my own fault, too. If I can't kill any FLYing enemies because the opponent didn't take them, or has them in reserve, that's not my fault, so a discard should be possible.

[Cheesegear]

I think that it should be that if an objective is impossible, due to what the enemy currently has on the battlefield, you should be able to discard.

That is the current rule.

However, I also believe that if it's unachievable based on what you have on the battlefield, that's your own damn fault

When we played old!Maelstrom with houseruled free Discards, we always ruled that you could never 'free Discard' Faction Objectives. So, if you're playing Guard, and you draw 11, you'd better hope your army has Hellhounds, Russes or Wyvens in it.

In New!Maelstrom, by RAW, if you put Objectives in your own deck based on your army that you can't achieve, you're an idiot, because if it's not in your army, it's not actually a free Discard, despite what LansXero and I said before:
...Free Discards only happen when it is in you army and off the table. Free Discards only happen when your opponent has stuff in their army and off the table. That is, constructing your deck should be done after you've read your opponent's army list, not pre-tournament, and not as a permanent deck for an entire run.

Playing with preconstructed decks that you made before you even get to the table requires rewrites to the rules as-written. Which I'm pretty sure everyone has been doing anyway, perhaps without even realising it. I know I had never read the rules properly until today because I was trying to find out if stacking your deck with Unachievables was legal. It is... But it doesn't work the way you think it does. I learned something today. If Scour the Skies is in my deck, and my opponent is playing Orks (Ork <Fly> units are not in the meta), then I'm SOOL. I built my deck wrong. I am bad. It is not a free Discard and I am punished for it.

That being said, as LansXero also said, constructing your deck is a metagame in of itself. Maybe Scour the Skies isn't a free Discard on purpose? Maybe it's a feature, not a bug.
(In that case, it's a bad feature...Like I said, the Mission needs re-writes if you're using preconstructed decks.)

However, that being said, because the only rule for 'free Discard' is in New!Maelstrom is based on Keywords, again, if you're still playing Guard, and draw 13. Issue 3-5 Orders this turn. And all your Officers are dead, this is not a free Discard - despite being impossible - because there are no Keywords on it.

[DataNinja]

Well, imgur stopped that bull****. So I've moved back to them.

Imgur did not stop any of that.

Also, don't use Imgur to host image libraries you link to from elsewhere, content for your website, advertising, avatars, or anything else that turns us into your content delivery network. If you do – and we will be the judge – or if you do anything illegal, in addition to any other legal rights we may have, we will ban you along with the site you're hotlinking from, delete all your images, report you to the authorities if necessary, and prevent you from viewing any images hosted on Imgur.com. We mean it.

Note that this is why GitP is no longer able to display imgur images, because too many people here were using avatars hosted there. Hence imgur banned the site. And so the images will only show up if one is using an anonymizer program in their browser to disguise where the traffic is coming from, if it's in their cache already, or if they copy the link and paste it in a fresh tab (not 'open in new tab', because that'll still have GitP fingerprints).

Long story short, no, I'm not able to see your avatar.

[Cheesegear]

...if it's in their cache already...

Long story short, no, I'm not able to see your avatar.

Well that explains a lot. I'm sure this was explained to me before.

That being said, can you see the images in this post, or is it same deal?

[DataNinja]

That being said, can you see the images in this post, or is it same deal?

Nope, can't see that stuff at all. It's just black [X] boxes to me.

(And, yeah, the cache stuff is why it took people so long to realize that their avatars weren't working, because they had an internal copy their computers could reference without going directly to imgur via gitp.)

[Wraith]

That being said, can you see the images in this post, or is it same deal?

I can see those images from several different computers, most of which clear their caches weekly, but your avatar comes and goes according the phases of the moon, or something. As does mine, I know. It may or may not be an exact science.