Show Notes
Date
Intro
- Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube! Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
- We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.
News
- TSHFT Recap
- Forge World just can’t miss these days it seems. They show off what looks like a Possessed Contemptor, new AdMech Castellax with Dark Fire, and the new shooty Contemptor.
- A new Retribution Myrmidon is released and it looks bad ass!
- War Mage Games out of Europe shows off some stellar 10mm scale buildings.
- Puppet’s War shows off some new Ogre models that look really cool.
- Bushido shows off a cool looking new model, the Rashka.
Upcoming ITC Events
Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.
- Final book rumored to be called Archaeon.
- March is the date being talked about for release.
- Chaos book, focuses on Khorne.
- -Archaon on Dragon / van Horstmann / Galrauch Box
-Bloodthirster / two Characters Box
-New Khornate Unit
-Archaon is a Lvl 4 Caster
-New Tzeentch Lore
- Round bases in Fantasy?
- Draigo in Fantasy?
- EARLY – MID JAN
Skaven (confirmed) - The Skaven Stormfiends look pretty crazy.
LATE JAN
Necrons
EARLY – MID FEB
Harlequin
LATE FEB – MID MAR
Endtimes : Archaon
LATE MAR
CSM Suppliment
EARLY – MID APR
Adeptus Mechanicus
LATE APR – MID MAY
Warhammer Fantasy 9th (or a new Game called “Warhammer”)
LATE MAY
Maybe Sororitas
EARLY JUN
New Warhammer Starter Set - More rumors that the Sisters codex is in fact done and awaiting release. Rumors indicate it is a full release.
- Rumors of the Khorne Chaos release keep coming up, but we’ll see if it is just of Fantasy or also 40k or even real.
Rant Session
Tactics Corner
Rules Lawyer
Completed Commissions
List Review
addressing the TL scatter laser, I hate when people use “in real life” as argument for rules in warhammer, but imo a scatter laser is being used as tracer fire for the other weapons so it wouldn’t make sense to fire it at one target then get twin linked for other weapons firing at other targets
SISTERS ARE COMING101=!=”=!?!!?
(sorry for back-to-back posts) do you guys attend Wet Coast?
Would be really cool to see some pics of Frankies new DE!
Lynx needs to shoot at the same thing as the laser in order to be twin linked that is shitty people are pulling that other crap….
LaserLock was written for vehicles (units) without the capacity to fire at multiple targets. Is there anything in the LaserLock rule that expressly allows it to be applied in situations where the remaining weapons on a vehicle (unit) are being fired at a different target? No, there isn’t.
Anyone that tells you they can twin link their Pulsar by getting a Scatter Laser hit on a DIFFERENT target is wrong. They may also be jerks, etc., but at the very least, they are wrong.
That is conjecture and opinion not fact in regards to how rules are written and they aren’t wrong. The rule 100% supports using the scatter lasers in that manner, it’s not a grey area or even remotely vague, in its wording.
No, it doesn’t. 40K remains a permissive rule set. The rule does not give permission to gain LaserLock on a target other than the one the other weapons are shooting at.
SuperHeavies have the ability to fire their weapons at different targets. Good for them, but they (the Lynx in particular) do not have *permission* to gain LaserLock on a target other than the one the scatter lasers fired at (and hit).
2 things,
Reece, how do you handle flamers and facing when someone uses the “No Escape” rule against your drop pod?
I don’t if I caught this, but will the Scatter Laser + Lynx issue be resolved before LVO?
Were the AM super heavy tanks allowed at TSHFT? Like the Stormlord?
Many, but not all, superheavies were allowed. The Hellhammer and I believe Stormsword were the only two Baneblade chassis not permitted.
Thanks Puppy, and congrats on the win!
Is there anything under laser lock that indicates weapons need to fire at the same target? No. So they are not wrong.
the RaW isn’t ambiguous, the issue seems to be that they are in direct opposition to the RaI and he flg guys want to know if the community agrees since RaI is so subjective
RaW is useful so you can find out what rules actually say, but that should never be considered the end of the discussion. In this case the rule was never written with split fire in mind, so that should not be ignored when deciding on how it should be played.
Its not even a RAI argument, it is really a permissive ruleset issue, and when some other rule gives permission to splitfire and doesn’t address the laser lock rule (and vice versa), it actually makes the rule ambiguous.
Oh so a unit of crisis suits using split fire + monster hunter or tank hunter when firing at a target other than the commander is the same…right
The commander doesn’t fire on a target in that case and the rule is not predicated on him hitting a target. An interesting straw man argument though I guess.
So is using the name of the weapon rule to define it’s intent.
Definitely think laser-lock should apply to only the target hit by the scatter lasers. But I gotta say I would be super bummed if you banned the Lynx altogether. I think its very mild considering all the insane combinations of formations, unit combos and psychic shenanigans.
Wait banning the Lynx? I haven’t had a chance to listen to the podcast yet, but if I just shelled out cash and painted a center piece model for my army only to have its rules changed or the model prohibited almost a month out I would be pretty pissed. It’s been there on the site as good to go for MONTHS, suddenly people are gasping because some of the preliminary tournaments to the LVO have seen them being played. Seriously disappointed this is even consuming attention.
No.. not banning it before LVO. The worst case scenario you are facing is after LVO there is a poll that asks if ranged D should be allowed. Best case scenario is LVO shows that ranged D is fun for the whole family and everyone loves it.
Considering all the events using LVO rules so far this year, and I am pretty sure no ranged D stomped the enemy to victory as yet, I would be shocked if the knee jerk reaction was to ban it in the future. It’s like saying because I lost to X or don’t like X, X should be banned, but not because it was unfun or dominated the meta. GW opened the game up to new ways to play yet everyone seems to clamor towards how the game USED to
play and refuse to move forward.
Your Lyncx is safe as houses for the LVO, buddy, don’t worry about that. Bring it and have fun with it.
I know my experience with it this weekend wasn’t typical, but I don’t think the Lynx is overpowered. It has a strong gun for a cheap price, to be sure, but it’s VERY fragile even with Titan Holofields, which necessitates the purchase of some kind of dedicated defense for it, raising the price up and often constraining how it can be used. And even then, assaults and similar stuff will tear it up pretty badly.
The Titan Holofields work in CC as well…much to my Powerfist wielding Chaos Lord’s disgust.
Its a paper tiger, looks tough but once you get ahold of it, it crumbles pretty easily
Trying to apply RAI is a pretty slippery slope, especially with nothing to back it up. The laser lock is very clearly written in this case, there isn’t any vagueness to its wording. Changing a rule because you don’t agree with it is ridiculous.
Listen to the podcast to get Frankie and Reece’s take on it and how it applies to the LVO first. Then proceed to argue.
Also in terms of changing rules. FLG already changed the rules for the grimoire and on invisibility based on attendee votes, so it wouldnt be the first time. GW always said the rules were a guide and we’re finally addressing them as a community. Regardless if the rule is RAW or RAI, if it’s dumb, we can change it if majority agrees.
Didn’t agree with the grimoire or invisibility rulings either.
Is there another example in the game of fire weapon X at anything and all other guns are twin-linked vs everything?
I can only think of guns that fire at something and give twin link vs that something.
Not that I can think of. The Bane Blade also sets a precedent, Its coax autocannon twin-links its main cannon but only against the target the autocannon hit
Baneblades don’t hang the coaxle rule anymore
Lighter terrain wouldn’t be bad, I think, if there were also tables with heavier than normal terrain, too. Say 50% normal, 25% heavy, and 25% light. All levels would need LOS blocking of some kind though.
CORRECTION! I went 3-1-1! Lol! Only lost to Paul MacGyver and beat Jy2 in the final round! Shoulda challenged! Top Grey Knights! (out of 2!) Too many !!!
Feel pretty good coming in 13th in that shark tank, played five great guys and had a good time even being sick. Learned a lot in that tourney and working towards LVO.
In other news, just read the cullexus and that model can pretty much shut my whole army down!
Wasn’t there three GK players? Yourself, Shaylynn, and another Centurionstar?
GK Primary.
And and Reece, you can expect a special present from me at the LVO with how markerlights impacting invisibility after the modification. Good we caught it before the LVO so you guys can fix it but……:P
That was actually a really good thing to catch, yeah. My personal fix for things would be something like as follows:
“Models firing at a unit with Invisibility can only make Snap Shots. However, this does not prevent weapons that cannot fire Snap Shots (such as blasts and templates) from firing at the unit, though they are still resolved at BS1 where appropriate.”
It avoids the issue with Markerlights and other BS-modifying values while keeping as close as possible to the intended functionality.
Yeah, I just found in that game that Tau have the best of both worlds for Invisible units.
Or just say “at an unmodified BS of 1, this may not be further modified by any skills or traits unless they can apply to snap fire”
With the laser lock argument it is really boiling down to the scatter laser special rule was written before the Lynx rules and was therefor never meant to apply to vehicles that can fire at multiple targets, i.e. superheavies. Should be clarrified in the Lynx’s profile but you know, Warhammer. The argument now boils down to the person with the Lynx obviously wants to read it as they can twin link other weapons firing at different targets than the scatter laser per rules as written when in rules as intended that cannot be the case. I would let the person with the Lynx play it the way they feel it should be played since the rule is ambiguous, but would most certainly not enjoy the game or want to play against them again if they overlook the rule as intended in order to play using the loophole.
I would agree that it’s clearly not what the Scatter Laser was intended to do, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s a big enough deal to be particularly unhappy about. It’s not like those four S6 shots going at a different target are typically going to make a tremendous difference- certainly it is possible it could do so, but it’s not all that likely.
Nah but the range on them vs the 60 on the big gun is a big deal. It means some of the time that big D will actually scatter off as opposed to when it is twin linked and that rarely happens. Up close sure, it doesn’t matter at all really.
I don’t think anyone on this website knows what “ambiguous” means… Words mean things.
Man, I wish I had the dough to goto tournaments like your team does. It seems like every other week you are getting back from one
Thats the life of a Nerd Baller
Lol!
nice podcast btw!
Thanks!