Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DCannon4Life

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65
1
Discussion: THE LIST / Re: CSM 2k Brigade
« on: September 29, 2017, 11:24:59 AM »
Abbadon leads from the back, by buffing the preds and brutes and keeping the Cultists in check (holding the backfield).

If you want Chaos Lord-style support out front, then you should work a Daemon Prince back in. Difficult choices, I know.

2
Discussion: THE LIST / Re: CSM 2k Brigade
« on: September 28, 2017, 03:33:34 PM »
I'd swap out the Chaos Lord for a Sorcerer (maybe with a Jump Pack). You have Abaddon for the re-rolls, a Sorcerer can give a unit or two a little boost.

3
Discussion: THE LIST / Re: CSM 2k Brigade
« on: September 28, 2017, 08:53:04 AM »
Suggest you run Black Legion and look to get Abbadon into your list. This is a general recommendation for any time someone runs Helbrutes + Predators + Cultists.

4
Discussion: 40K Rumors / Re: Codex Releases?
« on: September 22, 2017, 12:50:40 PM »
The next 3 codices to be released after AdMech will be Tyranids, Eldar, and Astra Militarum.

Source?
It was announced at NOVA Open.

5
Following.

6
I have 2x5 CSM with Plasma/Combi-Plasma in one Rhino and 10 Cultists in my other Rhino. Both Rhinos have double combi-bolters.

7
Discussion: Eldar / Re: Points cost for unit abilities
« on: July 31, 2017, 10:25:19 PM »
Interestingly the BAO list that has gone 5 wins 0 losses so far with 2 hemlocks has not paid for the spirit stones. I haven't had time to go through all of the other lists to see if there are any other Hemlocks or Autachs to see if they paid for their abilities.
I am aware of that. Due to the numerous people that have legitimate questions about spirit stones (and the force shield), I imagine the T.O. will be lenient, as it was not clarified in the BAO tournament packet, or in an official GW FaQ.

Still, my advice is to pay for the 'abilities' as if they were wargear so you're used to it when it gets clarified.

Cheers!

8
Discussion: Eldar / Re: Points cost for unit abilities
« on: July 29, 2017, 11:50:32 PM »
You think the striking difference between Fortune & Molten Body can be explained with just GW being incompetent as always with wording their rules?
Or you could attribute the difference to GW's (newfound) sensitivity to making things 'unkillable'.

As for, "incompetent as always"; what percentage of all rules written by GW would you classify as 'incompetent'? And, presuming you don't classify the vast majority of the rules as such, do you imagine there may be other explanations for why they write rules the way they do?

9
Discussion: Eldar / Re: Points cost for unit abilities
« on: July 23, 2017, 09:28:19 PM »
While an FaQ may clarify at some point, you are best to assume that the mistake was in putting it in "Abilities" rather than "Wargear" or "Equipment". The Iron Halo is not a piece of gear with a point cost, but Spirit Stones and the Forceshield do have point costs. I recommend you pay the points for the Spirit Stones and the Forceshield.

Cheers!

10
Mattler, great work on this. I'm confident that we can expect Dire Avenger point costs to come down when they get their codex. Take Space Marine Inceptors as an example: their cost came down 15 points compare to what they were in the index.

Cheers!

11
Reserves for matched play, if I have 11 units can I keep 6 in reserve? (5.5 rounded up)
No. The rule states, "at least half" with no mention of rounding (either up or down). Thus, in order to satisfy the condition, you have you have 6 units on the table to put 5 in reserve (as 5 on the table is not, "at least half").

12
Discussion: Eldar / Re: 8th Edition Mathhammer #1 - The Wraithknight
« on: June 16, 2017, 01:02:54 AM »
Good work!

13
Discussion: Eldar / Re: Eldar Leaks 8th Ed - moved to here
« on: June 04, 2017, 05:23:54 PM »
Regarding (all) Indexes: Might be helpful to keep in mind that these are transitional documents. Drawing hard conclusions (or making harsh criticisms) based on them may not be the best use of your time.


True. But they arnt going to bring all thoae new codexes in in 3 months. They will be around  for a whike yet.
GW has indicated their timeline for releasing the codex for every army; it's short, given the number of armies.

14
Discussion: Eldar / Re: Eldar Leaks 8th Ed - moved to here
« on: June 02, 2017, 09:55:07 AM »
Regarding (all) Indexes: Might be helpful to keep in mind that these are transitional documents. Drawing hard conclusions (or making harsh criticisms) based on them may not be the best use of your time.

15
Discussion: Eldar / Re: Eldar Leaks 8th Ed - moved to here
« on: June 01, 2017, 12:25:11 PM »
Suspect that's a rule that TO's will swiftly jettison.
I suspect that's a rule that TO's will quickly appreciate, as will players. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65