-
Posts
2041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Rogue last won the day on August 14 2023
Rogue had the most liked content!
About Rogue

Profile Information
-
Location
Crediton
-
Faction
Red Brotherhood (GSC), Gorgons
Recent Profile Visitors
2611 profile views
Rogue's Achievements
-
Lynn_Moore reacted to a post in a topic:
Home and no mans land objectives
-
Just chipping in to add that Central objectives only refers to the one or two objectives right in the middle of the table, and not to all of the objectives across the centre-line (give or take) of the board. We got that wrong in our first game.
-
But why, though? What's the rule I'm missing here? Rule 01.04 says that when measuring, you go base to base. Rule 11.02 says you roll 2d6 to determine a maximum distance for your charge move. Rule 11.04 says you must select an enemy unit within the maximum distance. So if I roll a 9, I have enough movement to get underneath the enemy model, but not enough to cover the base to base distance (which in this example was 9.5"). That means I'd fail the 'Before moving" criterion in 11.04, and couldn't make the charge. What allows me to ignore that check, and just move across to be within engagement range?
-
I have to end the move in engagement range, yes. But in order to be eligible to make a charge move, the target unit has to be within the maximum distance I rolled - that's the bit I'm unsure about. If we measure the elevated unit to be 13.1" away (measuring along the ground, then vertically), I can't declare that unit as a charge target because it's more than 12" away. But if we measure in a direct line, base-to-base (diagonally upwards), the bases are just 9.5" apart, in which case I can make a charge if I roll at least a 10. If I can make a charge, I agree that I only need to move forward 8" or so, and can then fight upwards.
-
Here's the scenario: - my opponent has a model on a 5" high platform. - I deep strike in a unit 8.1 inches away horizontally, on the ground floor. - I want my unit to charge his model. My question is: can I make that charge? Do I measure the charge distance as 8.1 + 5 (for a total of 13.1, so the charge would never be possible)? Or do I measure a diagonal line from base to base (which is a touch over 9.5"), in which case a 10" charge makes it? Or a third option we both missed. If anyone could set us straight, or point to the relevant rule, I'd appreciate it.
-
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
Il-Kaithe Wraithseer
-
Interesting. I've deleted the app (I thought I had earlier, but I'd just removed it from the home-screen) and as soon as I came back into the site via Chrome, I saw this pop-up again: I don't know if you can do anything about it, but that's what I saw previously. I thought I'd read something about B&C having a app version, but it must have been for some other forum.
-
DemonGSides reacted to a post in a topic:
Does anyone else think our DPs feel off?
-
Lazarine reacted to a post in a topic:
40K mysteries
-
Inquisitor_Lensoven reacted to a post in a topic:
Does anyone else think our DPs feel off?
-
In 10th, if you killed the squad, any attached characters became separate units. In 11th, the character and the squad are a single unit - if you kill the squad, the character remains part of the same unit (meaning that any 'while this character is leading a unit' rules still apply, as the character is effectively leading themselves). That screen shot seems to be using the old, 10th edition wording about separating. It wouldn't be the first updating error that's been made.
-
Hello. I recently downloaded the B&C app. Today, when I tried to open it, I got a full-screen message saying that it needed the Chrome app to open. I have Chrome, but the app didn't open. When I went online to access the site normally, I got the same pop-up message about needing the Chrome app. At this point, I was unable to open the app, and unable to open the website. I deleted the app, but that didn't solve the website issue. I restarted my phone (Samsung S20, Android, Chrome), and can now access the website normally. I've not tried reinstalling the app. Thanks.
-
WBRBloom reacted to a post in a topic:
WBRBloom's GSC finished stuff
-
Very cool. Always enjoy a classic genestealer colour scheme.
-
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
WBRBloom's GSC finished stuff
-
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
WBRBloom's GSC finished stuff
-
It's early doors, but the updated appeals me that my 1500 Xenocreed list has gone up 30 points. And that purestrain enhancement comes in at 30 points, so something would have to be dropped to fit that in. Currently wondering if I can fit enhanced stealers into a biosanctic list...
-
foxlight713 reacted to a post in a topic:
Order of the Argent Rose. more ready for the table. Cannones, Banner, Palintine, Aveline,
-
Zoatibix reacted to a post in a topic:
Today in the hobby I....
-
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
Order of the Argent Rose. more ready for the table. Cannones, Banner, Palintine, Aveline,
-
Antarius reacted to a post in a topic:
Today in the hobby I....
-
Not sure if you're looking for opinions, but I like option 3, the more grey skin-tone; I like the contrast with the hair and facemask.
-
Laurence reacted to a post in a topic:
New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!
-
Antarius reacted to a post in a topic:
New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!
-
New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!
Rogue replied to TheArtilleryman's topic in + NEWS, RUMORS, AND BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS +
I'd take the GSC 2dp detachments over the 3dp one, for various reasons. - I have a small gaming group, and limited armies, so varying the detachment helps to keep things interesting for my opponents. - I don't really like Host of Ascension (the sole 3dp option): I'm not playing Cults to shoot at things, I don't have the Benefictus model, and it doesn't suit my style. - Conversely, I have a lot of fun with Xenocreed, Biosanctic and Outlander, which are all 2dp. Would I take the extra 1dp detachment at 2000 points? Of course. Would I feel the need to 'maximise' my list by always taking the one 3dp option at anything less than 2000 points? Not really, no. (My headcanon is that my Cult are pretty tactics-agnostic - they'll adapt to the situation, theatre, opposition and so on. Sometimes an aberrant spearhead is the right move, but sometimes it's better to employ the hit-and-run bikers, or whatever. Detachments are like unit choice - fluid from game to game.) -
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
Today in the hobby I....
-
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
Ahzek's Pyramid armies work (T.sons and Necrons)
-
Rogue reacted to a post in a topic:
New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!
-
The more I look at it, the more I agree. As Christian von Carmian pointed out, it would be the same as telling any other faction that their army rule no longer applies to any unit with a leader - no Oath of Moment for your Captain and his bladeguard; no Orders for any Guard unit with an officer... Given the number of other errors (or failures to fully update) that have made it in to the faction pack, I think this is just someone at GW failing to anticipate the issue, and so failing to do anything about it. Either that, or Ambush is near dead in the water.
-
Yeah, still keen on the purestrains - fall back and charge, can't shoot them outside of 9", reactive move (knowing that we can easily move back in our turn). That'll make them very difficult to engage with. What do you make of the potential issue that's been highlighted regarding units with characters. Character don't have the Ambush rule, but are now tied to their unit - so any unit with a character won't be able to Ambush...
-
I really like the look of the genestealer mini-detachment - S5/T5 stealers with free up-down moves feels very strong. I'm already running two units of ten in my current Xenocreed 1500pt list, and they can be a handful as they are now.