|
|
Post by talonone on Sept 9, 2021 19:05:21 GMT
menacing: Ooh that "2.50 Explained" document clears up a lot, thanks =) @onepageanon: -The weapons missing spaces is to save space, so that it doesn't go into the next line > Ah. Makes sense, it just looks a bit weird. - The melee weapons should have the same AP values, probably a typo. If you can give me specific examples I can fix it Alien Hives: >Page 2 Upgrade Tables A, F and I, Page 3 Upgrade Table A have different AP values. >Razor Claws also have AP0 and AP1 depending on the Unit. It makes sense the big monsters have AP+1 on their melee weapons, it just might be confusing. Battle Brother Detachments: >Page 2 Energy Swords in A and B are different Dark Elf Raiders: Scissor Claw in D and H, AP4 and AP2 Elven Jesters: Energy Glaive A3 Impact 1, on Heavy Jetbike its A3 Impact 6. Which makes sense for the vehicle. Infected Colonies: Claws exist with AP0, AP1 and AP3 Robot Legions: Ray Cannon Spaces TAO: Suit Fists exist with AP0 and AP1 Stomp exists with AP 1 and AP2 - Advanced Tactics and variations are still WIP and will be changed > Ok =) - You can never be within 1" of enemies except when charging That’s the intention, of course. But I think the wording of the rule is ambiguous. It also sounds like you can put it into the enemy lines while deploying at the start of the game. For me something like this would be clearer: “This unit counts as having the Ambush rule but when arriving from reserve may be placed anywhere over 1” away from enemy units.” (if the Round-1-Ambush thing isn’t intentional!) - Plague Sprayer hero is now a Plague Champion upgraded with a Plague Sprayer Oooh I see. I was just expecting a bigger gun. Nevermind. =) - Stealth Suits never had Flying in our games Right, I was just looking at the old Heavy Stealth Suit. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacing on Sept 10, 2021 2:36:48 GMT
Hello, are the Daemonhosts upgrade in 2.50 supposed to be melee weapon? they were 18" before  |
|
|
|
Post by hirvaan on Sept 12, 2021 12:39:26 GMT
First Skim over Machine Cult:
- Cult Leader can’t take Axe-Halberd, but one model in Cult Infantry can. Is it intentional? It’s specifically worded that only Grifle/Rcarbine + CCW can be replaced with that, and Leader starts with Revolver + CCW. Maybe some steps can be taken to replace rifle/carbine with revolver/CCW and from there remaining upgrades? Just an idea;
- Arc Sword in general. I don’t feel it’s different enough from Energy Sword to warrant it’s own entry at the moment - it’s simply the same, just worse. It needs its niche. I know you are going for consistency between all Arc weapons but it’s already covered by Energy Sword. Maybe rename it to R-Sword or Rad sword and give it Radiation and AP1? Or Deadly(3) to represent devastating effect of Arc discharge on single target? Or just go with Energy Fist route and give it consistent AP3? Anything to make it something else but budget version of Energy Sword;
- Crawler Tank and Twin Machine gun. I know I’m going by the model here, but it has singular machine gun IMO. Is it just for balance?
|
|
|
|
Post by onepagerules on Sept 12, 2021 15:23:38 GMT
Gonna fix the axe-halberd and other swords, love the idea of the r-sword and gonna add it. We don't care as much about the GW models in v2.50 anymore, so it's for balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightschmidt on Sept 16, 2021 17:46:03 GMT
I am Very new to the game… just tried ”gff ” and Love it  . Just playing at home. It can get more complex with the Advanced optional rules. Very nice. But some sort of ”armour” and fixed ”hp” would be nice too. I reallly like the system with stunned models too… means that they can take some more damage over time with a bit of dice-luck… |
|
|
|
Post by hirvaan on Sept 18, 2021 12:33:06 GMT
Gonna fix the axe-halberd and other swords, love the idea of the r-sword and gonna add it. We don't care as much about the GW models in v2.50 anymore, so it's for balance. Really?! Hell yeah, that’s RAD (pun intended)! Glad to be of help! Alright, understood, makes sense. As long as there is some overlap (WYSIWYG) I’m ok. Just out of curiosity, how is +1 Def on Avengers for High Elves Fleet supposed to work? Like GeeDubs roll one wound per model with def3+ until failed then continue with 4pluses? I seriously struggle with this one  |
|
|
|
Post by onepagerules on Sept 19, 2021 10:52:46 GMT
The model with the shield counts as having Def 3+.
|
|
|
|
Post by hirvaan on Sept 23, 2021 9:53:09 GMT
Another question and considerstion regarding rules.
Battle Brothers Destroyers are supposed to be nearly immovable, walking bunkers basically. They are one of few cases I would actually leave Def2+, especially now that AP(1) is a bit more prevalent among armies, and that even basic battebrother is running around with AP(1) rifle. That leaves them at Def4+. If they were in squads of 5 I would say it’s warranted, but in squads of 3… I’m not so sure.
Granted it may be residue from previous, worse (different?) game system I have played, but it kinda just does not feel correct to me.
|
|
egge
Member
Posts: 123 
|
Post by egge on Sept 24, 2021 9:06:29 GMT
As I am kind of hoping it will not be AP1 on the Battlebrothers I think the destroyers ar quite fine. About 14 shots from Brothers to take one down. At AP 1 it only need 9 brothers which is a little to easy.
By moving to Def 3+ for the battle brothers a lot of options open up.
Super Battle brothers (prime) are at 2+ def instead of regen and double regen standard.
Then you have destroyers being three times as survivable than battle brothers.
And then you have the option for regen on even tougher stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacing on Sept 25, 2021 0:38:05 GMT
Hello - Something I've seen mentioned in #rules-and-questions on the Discord a few times is about the language used for upgrade trees telling what can and can't be taken and how many times, etc. Was just wondering if the section in the FAQ (or, hell, even the whole FAQ) could be added to the rulebooks at some point (in 3.0 at least if not in this version, as I understand there's no major revisions happening to anything except army lists)
|
|
|
|
Post by hirvaan on Sept 25, 2021 17:24:10 GMT
As I am kind of hoping it will not be AP1 on the Battlebrothers I think the destroyers ar quite fine. About 14 shots from Brothers to take one down. At AP 1 it only need 9 brothers which is a little to easy. By moving to Def 3+ for the battle brothers a lot of options open up. Super Battle brothers (prime) are at 2+ def instead of regen and double regen standard. Then you have destroyers being three times as survivable than battle brothers. And then you have the option for regen on even tougher stuff. You may be totally right, and it does make sense. As I said, it just feels off most probably due to mental residue from the other grim dark future setting. |
|
egge
Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by egge on Sept 26, 2021 16:07:57 GMT
I played old 40k.
Marines shooting:
9 shots to kill a marine.
18 shots to kill a terminator.
So for me a terminator had double the survivability than a marine (ignoring 2nd ed) and here in one page it is tripple.
|
|
|
|
Post by skynjay on Sept 27, 2021 1:25:56 GMT
Is 2.5 values meant to be used with the current system or is it reliant on the next update?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacing on Sept 27, 2021 1:59:39 GMT
The v2.50 points values are based on the current calculator
|
|
|
|
Post by izachiel on Oct 13, 2021 14:48:52 GMT
Havoc Brothers Disciples - Change Brothers:
- I wonder why the Change Destroyer have normal Storm Rifles like every other Destroyer ... i think they should have Hexed Storm Rifles like their little Brothers, the Change Brothers have
- Speaking of these, i don't think the "Rending" approach to Hexed Rifles differentiate them enough from the normal Heavy Rifle the Havoc Brothers have, it should probably AP(2) then to represent them from the Counterpart from the Big Company
- I think it would be nice to have an entry for the Mutalith Vortex Beast, since this is missing ... of course i can built it with the generator, but for a broader approach it would be nice having an official entry for it
Hope you understand my point and could probably work on it. If not so, i'd still love your game!
|
|
.
