Jump to content

Captain Idaho

++ MODERATI ++
  • Posts

    21433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Captain Idaho last won the day on July 29 2025

Captain Idaho had the most liked content!

About Captain Idaho

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hampshire, England
  • Interests
    Besides 40k, I'm a sci-fi fanatic. If you haven't guessed from my user name, I'm a BIG fan of the Dune series of books!

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm into video gaming and board games. RPGs, Final Fantasy and Borderlands in particular, are my absolute favourites.

    My main ambition is to one day become a successful writer/novelist. I am always working on a writing project of some sort or another at any one time.

    Love flims and reading too.
  • Faction
    Ultramarines

Retained

  • ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

Recent Profile Visitors

9984 profile views
  1. My question is; why don't all those units have the keyword "Speeder" already?
  2. I'd say firstly, you could easily adjust that sentence to say "a single Battlewagon gets to double its shooting phase ranged attacks within half range. Note this doesn't include any embarked units." Done. Secondly... if it is because of Rapid Fire being such an issue potentially, then unfortunately you have to adjust the rules to be more elegant and fit rather than a marathon reading session to work out an equation of "Rapid Fire X where X = A but not adjusting Rapid Fire weapons that pre exist" *** Considering that actually, this isn't reducing the need for questions with its legal technical speech. So if adding Rapid Fire X equals A, what if the weapon is already Rapid Fire, does it just not change or does it get Rapid Fire on its Rapid Fire? It's not clear at all. Of you're casual or drifted out of the game or are just starting... what on earth am I supposed to be doing with all these complicated rules depictions? And yes it does mirror HH 3.0 in the same format. The Strategums are the same complex format as the Reactions. Which similarly are complicated.
  3. Yeah it feels like GW are moving to a position where they use a lot of words to say something that could be said a lot more concise. Example: The first bullet point doesn't need to exist. Merely say: Battlewagon/Hunter Rig/Kill Rig units reroll charge rolls and can choose to advance 6. Done. And this next one... I'm not even sure what they're trying to say as I keep zoning out mid read: X is the value of an attack's attacks? Wait, are just trying to say a unit doubles it's shots? Why not say that then? Is it me, or is GW using Chatgpt to write their rules? The whole thing is exhausting. We don't need a when, a target or effect section... Just tell us: "a single battlewagon gets to double it's shooting phase ranged attacks within half range." Just seems... naff.
  4. Oh yeah each to their own of course. Interesting to see if there's some substantial changes that require substantial FAQ and errata to existing army books. But yeah I totally agree it just feels like a bi-annual dataslate change rather than a new edition right now. Which doesn't win anyone onside really.
  5. I don't mind the staff but the anyway Grotsmasha's play is amazing. Same model with minor changes and it looks great.
  6. I think I know what it is. The issue is it has those cables flaring off it but no coruscating energy about them to denote the energy that is apparently causing it. As such, it just looks like bad hair glued onto it.
  7. Contrary to many an opinion here I'm gonna have to go with: Garbage model. Just looks like a pants and clumsy conversion done by a novice just sticking bits to a model.
  8. Totally agree man. 11th edition is not for me as I didn't like the direction of 40K since 9th and 10th I just can't stand. Maybe it's more the Codex books over the main rules, but still. Anyway, yeah to get excited for a game I don't like... we got new missions because they haven't changed the game.
  9. Now you mention it, that's likely what can be changed without changing the army books which is why GW are going harder there. To me that's why I think the methodology of 40K is flawed to be honest. It relies on too many special rules that are exceptions to have fundamental changes possible. If the baseline of a faction were inherent to the stats with very limited special rules, a more substantial change in the core rules is possible without completely overhauling every faction ruleset as well.
  10. They did say that all the previous army publications and Codex books will still be usable in this edition, so it is going to be fundamentally the same as 10th to be honest.
  11. His high heels suck. His blandness doesn't look like a veteran at all which sucks. Ultimately I just feel the newest Marines look like clumsy hodpodges of models: MK7 helm Mk8 gorget Mk10 lower legs
  12. HH list building is unnecessarily complicated for a mainstream game. Generally most of this forum are old hands when it comes to these things so it's easy to think "I don't have any troubles so no one does" but in reality coaching my casual friends into the hobby has shown this to be an unnecessarily difficult element of the game.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.