Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: the_trooper on November 06, 2008, 12:06:47 PM
-
I assume we will be following the same rules as before.
No sharing teleport homers / icons of fellow players. But what about your own?
I plan on running a chaos marine list and a chaos daemons list. The mortals following their rules, the daemons following theirs. The common bit between the two are Icons. In previous friendly apocalypse games I have ran them together and had the Chaos Daemons come in off the CSM icons.
Can they share their icons as they are both considered chaos icons?
-
oooo good question
-
Have we gotten any more input as to when it is?
The 3rd is best for me.
-
Also how is it looking for amount of players per side?
(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll240/Tanrel/awkwarmoments.jpg)
-
Pssst, wrong thread. http://www.battlegroundgames.com/forum/index.php?topic=360.0 (http://www.battlegroundgames.com/forum/index.php?topic=360.0)
-
as of now the amount of players is still mere speculation. I think there are those out there planning on showing up but they don't use the boards as much.
but I think Derek was expecting around thirty players in all.
-
Yea,
hey anyone from the order side want to chime in on Rich's post about the chaos icons. I don't see a problem with it, its like allies using transports. Anyone opposed to this? I would think that is it was rules ok it would go both ways for marine players using their homers.
Clarification: the question is can on player us his army, allies included in that. Each individual player would not be extending army benefits to other players unless it is clearly stated in their respective codexes.
-
Also, the majority agreed that bell of lost souls was a legal source of data sheets.
but if anyone is interested in fielding a home made data sheet they should be thinking about bring it up now. That way if something is not approved we can try to offer suggestions to allow it or people will have time to alter their lists. No one wants to have to redo their armies that night before because they found out that the Ctan they made up if not allowed.
-
Data Sheet Idea.
I just built a Necron AA gun tower. I'm basing the points on the IG Hydra Flak-Tank. Do you think the point cost is OK?
Cost 200 pts
Weapons 4 AA gauss cannons Range:48, Str:7, AP:4, Heavy 4, Gauss, AA mount
BS 4, Armor; F12 S12 R12
Counts as Immoble, but has Deepstrike (same as the Pylon Special Deployment)
Living Metal
Same Damage effects as pylon (No driver, and no engine) except each weapon destroyed effect takes away one of the Gauss cannons because it has no flux arc.
From the prior thread from Cryptoron.
My questions about this is: It says 4 AA Guns. The gause cannons are heavy 4.
Does this mean 16 possible shots?
-
what about this:
sternguard "eliminator" strike force - 225 pts + models
requirements:
3+ sternguard units in drop pods (one must be 10 strong)
1 captain (must be equipped with a bolter, combi-bolter, or stormbolter and cannot take terminator armor or a storm shield. the captain gains all the sternguard's special ammunition)
special rules:
-strike force (all units must arrive together and within 12" of each other)
-grants the asset "precision strike" (may only be used once and if the captain is alive and on the table)
-advanced targeting systems (all drop pods in the formation only scatter 2d6, pick the highest)
-
I love how Rich calls this a "friendly" when he wants something, we all know the chaos boyz are dying for revenge after the last drubbing they received.
As for Icons, Bring it on. I'd suggest we keep them per force though. So Riches daemons could not arrive on someone elses Icon.
As for Teleport Homers, same thing, with the exception of the new space marine drop pod rules. That's a little more open.
Cheers,
Alan
-
I love how Rich calls this a "friendly" when he wants something, we all know the chaos boyz are dying for revenge after the last drubbing they received.
As for Icons, Bring it on. I'd suggest we keep them per force though. So Riches daemons could not arrive on someone elses Icon.
As for Teleport Homers, same thing, with the exception of the new space marine drop pod rules. That's a little more open.
Cheers,
Alan
I said friendly because my other apocalypse games ended in the opposing player's head being mounted in my truck. Ask Paul, he has seen the trophy.
-
I HAS SEEN IT WIF MAH OWN EYES.
-
I said friendly because my other apocalypse games ended in the opposing player's head being mounted in my truck. Ask Paul, he has seen the trophy.
Along with your dead bike.
-
I said friendly because my other apocalypse games ended in the opposing player's head being mounted in my truck. Ask Paul, he has seen the trophy.
Along with your dead bike.
That is a trophy of my masculinity. "I was hit by a bus and... I'M A MAN!"
-
well the question rich proposed was always reguarding his own army. If was just questioning if his deamons could use his marines icon.
-
well the question rich proposed was always reguarding his own army. If was just questioning if his deamons could use his marines icon.
Nothing wrong with being complete in ones answers. There will be, I'm sure, plenty of Icons out there.
Cheers,
-
Seeing as Order seems down with it, the official ruling on icons / teleport homers is?
-
Seeing as Order seems down with it, the official ruling on icons / teleport homers is?
I see no problem with them being used inside your own force (chaos - demons, SM - Grey Knights for example) but not between two teammates.
-
Seeing as Order seems down with it, the official ruling on icons / teleport homers is?
I see no problem with them being used inside your own force (chaos - demons, SM - Grey Knights for example) but not between two teammates.
Exactly. Looking in Derek's direction...
-
This came up the other day (Saturday maybe?) at the store when a player called and asked me about it. The concensus was that you can use "it" within your own list, but two teammates cannot share.
I'm not sure who was around, but they had said it was something that had been discussed earlier that day and that a conculsion had been reached.
If for no other reason than that I told one of the players over the phone that he wouldn't be able to use someone elses icons, let go with that.
Cool?
-
Sorry it's late, need to clarify, only four shots, I just modeld four guns to show the four shots.
-
Thanks Chase and thanks Ron.
Order players, what do you think about Ron's datasheet?
-
Archetypes!
Can we over-rule this rule?
I mean it sounds pretty RAD to face 15 Marneus Calgars on the table and a squad of Pedro Cantors but it seems like it would be best if we limited special characters like last year even if the codex says they are not unique.
-
Archetypes!
Can we over-rule this rule?
I mean it sounds pretty RAD to face 15 Marneus Calgars on the table and a squad of Pedro Cantors but it seems like it would be best if we limited special characters like last year even if the codex says they are not unique.
I'm not sure we can. I agree that Yarrick can only turn up once, or even MR. Macharius. But Codex space Marines allows the use of arch-types for a reason. I would say that there's no way you should have more than one type per Army, that'll get rid of your "Squad of Pedro Cantors" concern.
Cheers,
Alan
-
I don't really see a compelling reason why space marines should be allowed to field multiple instances of a "special" character. If it's in order to change the chapter tactics, then let the player just declare that they're going to replace that rule with whatever character grants it.
Otherwise, I really don't see the difference between 5 people each fielding Marneus Calgar vs. 5 people each fielding Abaddon.
Mike D.
-
What I believe Rich was getting at is that there are currently 5 Vanilla Marine (not counting the specialized chapters) players signed up that have access to the Archetypes. That means there is a potential to have 5 Calgars, Cantors, Tigirus and so on just named differently ie. Marneus Calgar II for each Marine army. So in essence there still could be a 'squad of Pedro Cantors' and possibly one squad of each named character.
-
Ok, why not have a whole bunch o' kharnes?
See, the issue is here: They say they are Arche-types so The green marines can field a tigerious.
Spirit of the rule time- Kharne the Betrayer is marked as Unique. You can only use one per army. Last year, only one person could bring Kharne as per the house rule.
Using the Archetypes rule, you can field Marneus Calgar and still try to be fluffy in a yellow space marine army. Just call him Carneus Malgar.
So, why not limit characters just like last year. Only one person can field each character.
-
I agree. Especially since many of the space marine special characters are just as powerful as the chaos/ork/daemon/etc. special characters.
-
of course the real point is that the rules let you do this, and they do it in a way to establish an Armies identity. Other Armies, mine included are not so lucky.
So what you are proposing is a single instance of each archtype be allowed, and marine players can however select the army type by simply stating so and not buying the character.
Is that correct?
-
Ok, why not have a whole bunch o' kharnes?
See, the issue is here: They say they are Arche-types so The green marines can field a tigerious.
Spirit of the rule time- Kharne the Betrayer is marked as Unique. You can only use one per army. Last year, only one person could bring Kharne as per the house rule.
Using the Archetypes rule, you can field Marneus Calgar and still try to be fluffy in a yellow space marine army. Just call him Carneus Malgar.
So, why not limit characters just like last year. Only one person can field each character.
I am arguing that there is only 1 Kharne the Betrayer, because he is Kharn the betrayer, he is what 10000 years old, but there have been X number of chapter masters of the White Scars, Crimson Fists.
GW really messed up, because they told marine players they could subchapter the "named" characters, instead of just calling them chapter masters and distributing out the changes in combat tactics that way.
I agree with the HQ selections being limited to 1 per side, I have no qualms about that. However for squad upgrades to telion and chronus I have issue. They are unit upgrades and cannot be purchased on their own and should not be included with this rule. They are there to be the best of the best in the scout and tank world, but GW in their infinite wisdom and Blue Boy Fanboi made all the unit upgrades with fluff about the ultraweenies.
-
of course the real point is that the rules let you do this, and they do it in a way to establish an Armies identity. Other Armies, mine included are not so lucky.
So what you are proposing is a single instance of each archtype be allowed, and marine players can however select the army type by simply stating so and not buying the character.
Is that correct?
That is exactly what I propose.
Now, I know in the grand scheme of this Apocalypse battle, having 4-5 marneus calgar's not going to swing the battle in either way a whole lot (not when you've got vortex grenades and D weapons around) but I'm of the opinion that it takes away from the fluff too much.
-
I agree with the HQ selections being limited to 1 per side, I have no qualms about that. However for squad upgrades to telion and chronus I have issue. They are unit upgrades and cannot be purchased on their own and should not be included with this rule. They are there to be the best of the best in the scout and tank world, but GW in their infinite wisdom and Blue Boy Fanboi made all the unit upgrades with fluff about the ultraweenies.
I think the reason Telion and Chronus are upgrade characters is because mechanically, it made the most sense to do it that way in order to follow the fluff -- Telion and Chronus (in my opinion) aren't meant to lead space marine forces or act in a leadership role outside of their squad/vehicle. I don't have the codex on me at the moment, but they're "Unique" right? so there should only be one of them.
-
I agree with the HQ selections being limited to 1 per side, I have no qualms about that. However for squad upgrades to telion and chronus I have issue. They are unit upgrades and cannot be purchased on their own and should not be included with this rule. They are there to be the best of the best in the scout and tank world, but GW in their infinite wisdom and Blue Boy Fanboi made all the unit upgrades with fluff about the ultraweenies.
I think the reason Telion and Chronus are upgrade characters is because mechanically, it made the most sense to do it that way in order to follow the fluff -- Telion and Chronus (in my opinion) aren't meant to lead space marine forces or act in a leadership role outside of their squad/vehicle. I don't have the codex on me at the moment, but they're "Unique" right? so there should only be one of them.
I completely disagree with you on this. If they were meant to be unique named characters they would have been able to be purchased as such and not as upgrades, and therefor should be exempt from the rule.
-
i see both sides of this and i have to say that gw f***ed up. i personally dont care about archtypes in the megabattle as long as your not doin it to be cheezy... if your doin it cuz of fluff purposes (ie 2 salamanders players both want vulcan cuz of the chapter rules) thats fine with me, but if your doin it to be a dick, thats a different story.
plus the majority of space marine characters arent that hard to kill.... they kinda made it so that space marines HAVE to use characters to be good. cuz marines have no balls
DEATH TO THE FALSE QUADRAPELLEGIC EMPEROR!!!!
-
of course the real point is that the rules let you do this, and they do it in a way to establish an Armies identity. Other Armies, mine included are not so lucky.
So what you are proposing is a single instance of each archtype be allowed, and marine players can however select the army type by simply stating so and not buying the character.
Is that correct?
Correct- Although I don't think it will be an issue.
As far as I know, there is only one person planning on Salamanders, and I don't believe there are any white scars, etc. Josh is playing Blood Angels, Tom is playing Ultramarines which don't necessarily need Marneus at the helm. Space Marine players should chime in.
EDIT:
I think Lee drunk posts.
-
How about a compromise. If the entry in the codex denotates it a unique, then only 1 per side, and if it is not then all is fair.
PS Telion is only non unique named character in SM book, meaning any chapter can have a sgt who was always too thick around the waist to fit into power armor ;)
-
of course the real point is that the rules let you do this, and they do it in a way to establish an Armies identity. Other Armies, mine included are not so lucky.
So what you are proposing is a single instance of each archtype be allowed, and marine players can however select the army type by simply stating so and not buying the character.
Is that correct?
Correct- Although I don't think it will be an issue.
As far as I know, there is only one person planning on Salamanders, and I don't believe there are any white scars, etc. Josh is playing Blood Angels, Tom is playing Ultramarines which don't necessarily need Marneus at the helm. Space Marine players should chime in.
EDIT:
I think Lee drunk posts.
nope, im not playing Ultramarines, i heard some one else was, and playing Calgar, so i said screw it, if i cant but the only Ultrmaries player, i wont run calgar and go with something that i can find more interesting and enjoyable ^^
-
I've heard a few talked about a bit recently so I've decided to talk to Derek and some of the others about them and get final rulings... so here they are.
ONLY TROOPS MAY CLAIM OBJECTIVES.
As I understand it, the 5th edition rules state that only troops may claim objectives. The Apocalypse rules state that anything can claim objectives. In this case we are going to go with the 5th edition rules because they make for a better game overall and place an added value in the "little guys."
NO ARCHETYPES
Only one character per "side" of the battle. None of this, "Hey thats Abadon, and thats Babadon... and Cabadon, etc..." crap. If you've got a character, he should be the only one with that name and stat line on the table. I think you all know what I mean here. This applies to ALL named characters, even the ones that are upgrades to squads.
NO TRANSPORTING (or summoning) OTHER PEOPLES STUFF (or stuff out of another Codex)
I'm told the rules allow for it but let's keep it simple. Your guys can only ride in your vehicles. This applies to whatever is going on with the Chaos Icons I keep hearing about. You can only summon your own stuff AND you can only use wargear out of that armies codex (Ex: Demons can only summon off of Demon Icons and Chaos Space Marines can only use Chaos Space Marine Icons).
I realize some this contradicts stuff I've said before, but these are the final be-all end-all ruling.
"GOD" HAS SPOKEN
-Chase
Ninja Edit: If you see this, tell your teammates.
-
For vanilla space marines, certain unique characters changed the base rules for the space marine army so that the army's feel was more in line with the chapter's traits that the character was from.
For example, Lysander, who is an Imperial Fist special character, replaces the "chapter tactics" special rule (which allows space marine units to voluntarily fail morale checks -- a strategic regrouping) all units get with the "stubborn" special rule (units ignore negative modifiers to morale checks -- to represent their fierce resistance to impossible odds).
I propose one addendum: if one player takes a special character that changes the rules for his army (like in the example above), and another player is also playing the same army, then that second player may also benefit from the rules change.
So, if there were two imperial fist players, and one fielded lysander, both players could benefit from Lysander's special stubborn rule if the second player declared before the game started that he wanted to do that.
Mike
-
Named characters can only be taken by one player. Models like Lysander who change the way an army works can also appear only once on the table. However, I do think it is fair to allow what you are saying, Mike.
If you and a teammate want your army to work the same via Lysander, Kharn, Vulcan, etc., one person may take the character and the rules change that they provide will be accessible to you. However, you cannot take that character as well.
If this is going to happen, please plan it ahead of time with your teammate.
Lee's a ginger and sucks.
-
i dont drunk post lol.... im just wierd!
go ahead rob, say something cuz i know youll say somethin like "thats because youre a ginger and gingers are wierd!"
-
God damned Gingers. Making fun of themselves now. Thats it. Harvest the ginger, I need some for a recipie or two
-
thank you murph
-
thats because youre a ginger and gingers are wierd!
You have no clue how much it hurts to post that because of how much of a failure of the English language it is.
-
how would you word it???
-
how would you word it???
thats because youre a ginger and gingers are wierd!
That's because you're a ginger and gingers are weird!
-
how would you word it???
thats because youre a ginger and gingers are wierd!
That's because you're a ginger and gingers are weird!
GRAMMAR'D
-
looks like i just got served a plate of humiliation in the grammar department :o
-
looks like i just got served a plate of humiliation in the grammar department :o
I would also have put a comma after the first 'ginger.'
-
looks like i just got served a plate of humiliation in the grammar department :o
I would also have put a comma after the first 'ginger.'
Perhaps, but I felt that stating that gingers are weird was not a separate clause in itself but just furthering my reasoning connected to the fact that he was a ginger. 8)
-
rob, you need to go on facebook and see the group murph sent me that i joined... youll laugh your ass off!
-
Last year, we considered a rule where Super Heavies had to start on the table, rules permitting. We never implemented it and some think it is a great way to balance all the baneblade variants, brass scorpions, titans, plague towers and other monstrous vehicles from flank marching and being @#$holes.
Some superheavies must come in from reserve and others have special rules permitting it. I bring up Mike's original idea of no superheavies in reserve unless they must start there.
What say you?
-
seconded!
-
I was a big fan of that idea last year. I will discuss it with people at the store tonight and see how they feel. I doubt we will end up asking people to start with them on the table unless there is something worse than flank march this time around.
Remember, the inside edge of the table is cliff / river... I'm not sure how that will effect flank march this year. Can anyone remember if the lava prevented it last year?
-
Last year Simms was allowed to flank march his warhound out of the lava. I'm torn between the whole super heavy starting on the board. I mean it makes sense that these game altering units would be there at the start since they are the most powerful units for some armies. But then the arguement of the battle not ending on the board edge but rather spanning the planet comes into play. Like the titan or baneblade the flank marches just got done rippiing apart an enemy flank and is now joining this fight to boost this front.
-
Unless it is stated as impassible terrain, board edge = board edge.
It wasn't lava, it was ketchup.
-
Last year, Disorder wasn't allowed to flank march the edges that face the "lava" -- but Order players could freely come in from reserves from those edges -- which made advancing across the board pretty difficult.
By the way, how are objectives being handled for this battle? And are there any special rules/equipment/doohickies? I remember someone telling me that Disorder is the "attacker" again this year but how exactly is this gonna work? Any storyline?
Mike
-
Objectives: As far as I know, the way these are being handled is not yet decided. Several things are complicating how we will deal with them. We are trying to make sure the game stays as balanced as possible and at the same time make sure that the tables built-in objectives remain the focus of the battle.
Special Rules: There will be one or two... We have at least one table with trenches on it that lead into the side of a hill via doors. How / if these function has not been discussed in any kind of detail. I'm not sure if the bridge will have any gimmicks at all. As far as I know there will not be any special equipment per-say... there will obviously be terrain features that players can interact with if they choose.
There really isn’t an aggressor or defender this year like there was last year. Objectives will be fought for from the get go and not held at the start of the battle. They are mostly found in "No Mans Land" on each table. Almost everything should be heavily contested from turn 1. I'd imagine the ability to remain mobile is very important, as are actual "troop" choices, and stuff that drops big green disks on the table.
The storyline is one in a very long line of things Derek is working on. Unfortunately... we have quite a ways to go on the tables (which look awesome so far). Considering there's only 8 days until guns blaze, all of these very important details have been put on the back burner.
I understand that the players require all of this info to effectively plan for the battle and also understand that thinking / talking about a game like this is a large part of the fun. I will try to get you every piece of info I can as soon as I have it. It seems like many of the "minds" will be at the store this Saturday. I would love to discuss many of these issues with them at that time.
Also, if anyone has any questions regarding anything Megabattle related please post them here or email me with them.
-
Last year Simms was allowed to flank march his warhound out of the lava. I'm torn between the whole super heavy starting on the board. I mean it makes sense that these game altering units would be there at the start since they are the most powerful units for some armies. But then the argument of the battle not ending on the board edge but rather spanning the planet comes into play. Like the titan or baneblade the flank marches just got done ripping apart an enemy flank and is now joining this fight to boost this front.
I personally have severe suspension of disbelief problems with an major engagement happening without any attempt to secure the rear area. How is it that something as large as a super-heavy or titan is able to sneak up on an army's rear without being noticed and targeted?
I've some suggestions for compromises, though it is a little late in the game to come to agreement.
I'd suggest allowing anyone to flank march, but not to rear march. Both the river and the chaos rear might be secure, but the flank table edges would be open game for flank march.
It might also be proper to allow units with infiltrate or scout special rules to come in from the rear.
I'd note that Chimera are amphibious, while Deep Dive Marine's fluff says he comes from a water world, and normally fights under water. It might be amusing to allow a few Imperial units with the right fluff and equipment able to roll out of the river.
I'd also be disappointed if all objectives are in no man's land. I prefer a shooting style, and am often discouraged trying to play in store whose style is driven towards assault. A scenario where everywhere on the board we have assaults starting on turn one would be disappointing. All this room, and were going into a scrum right off the bat? Could we consider at least a few objectives where the assault guys have to worry about getting shot at before they are engaged? I like the idea of big tables where the speed and range of the Eldar might possibly come into play as part of a maneuver battle. If what we get is objectives centered in a 12 inch wide no man's land, things might turn rapidly into a rugby scrum. Sure, I can bring all my wraith lords and wade in, but there ought to be more to the game than that.
-
I'd also be disappointed if all objectives are in no man's land. I prefer a shooting style, and am often discouraged trying to play in store whose style is driven towards assault. A scenario where everywhere on the board we have assaults starting on turn one would be disappointing. All this room, and were going into a scrum right off the bat? Could we consider at least a few objectives where the assault guys have to worry about getting shot at before they are engaged? I like the idea of big tables where the speed and range of the Eldar might possibly come into play as part of a maneuver battle. If what we get is objectives centered in a 12 inch wide no man's land, things might turn rapidly into a rugby scrum. Sure, I can bring all my wraith lords and wade in, but there ought to be more to the game than that.
This is a fair point.
The table currently has a moderate amount of its major features in No Mans Land but in talking to Derek the other day, it doesnt mean the actual objective on any given table has to be a major feature.
I may take a quick trip to the store later in the day to discuss table related things with Derek and whoever else is around. If not, I hope to speak with people about it on Saturday and make sure everything is settled and emailed out by Sunday, which is when I will see Derek next if I don’t stop in tonight.
-
Last year Simms was allowed to flank march his warhound out of the lava.
That was ruled to be his table edge and so allowed. I am pretty sure that Flank March did not come into it. I don't remember all the fluff there but that's the way it worked. (Ketchup, not Lava)
So onto the question, to flank march or not to flank march.
I'm torn on this whole debate also. But I quite agree that Super heavies should not be allowed to magically appear in the rear. So to Bobs point the "flanks only" seems fine to me (though it kinda screws my A-- plan). It sounds like there's only 4 flanks so I'm not sure it would be game turning. Of course flank marching 1,000 guard to the enemies rear may be seen just as bad, but at least they're sneaking..
Cheers,
Alan
-
Last year Simms was allowed to flank march his warhound out of the lava.
That was ruled to be his table edge and so allowed. I am pretty sure that Flank March did not come into it. I don't remember all the fluff there but that's the way it worked. (Ketchup, not Lava)
So onto the question, to flank march or not to flank march.
I'm torn on this whole debate also. But I quite agree that Super heavies should not be allowed to magically appear in the rear. So to Bobs point the "flanks only" seems fine to me (though it kinda screws my A-- plan). It sounds like there's only 4 flanks so I'm not sure it would be game turning. Of course flank marching 1,000 guard to the enemies rear may be seen just as bad, but at least they're sneaking..
Cheers,
Alan
Flank march didn't come into because Disorder was told before the game started that we couldn't flank march there :P
As to Super heavies having to deploy before the battle starts, I'm somewhat torn too. On one hand, I think the strategic advantage to keeping superheavies (I'm thinking the really big guys, like titans and stuff) in reserve can't be overstated: it's incredibly hard for standard forces to react to a superheavy walking onto their quadrant, given the size of the table a smart player will deploy their superheavy out of range/los from most guns that can possibly hurt it. by the time the regular troops/tanks finally move into position, the game is liable to be over then.
Fluffwise, I also thinks it's lame to have superheavies "hidden". They're Gods of war and they're being kept in reserve? They should be spearheading assaults!
On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable restricting people this way (after all, it's only my own fluff interpretation -- it can easily be argued that since they're so valuable and rare, the adeptus mechanus won't commit them until the time is right). And it does limit the amount of strategic thinking involved with the game if we do it this way. I'm just concerned whether or not the game is balanced enough to support Superheavies coming in willy nilly.
Mike
-
I'm with you on that idea mike. Personally, as an ork player my super-heavies are supposed to be out in front running at the enemy full gears. Strategically, this causes problems since they can go up in flames to shooting relatively quickly. But all is fair is war right?
I say pros to keeping something in reserve: you keep it safe for a turn or two and then come into the battle on your terms. Cons: you lose the massive fire power of these monsters for all the turns they are not on the board.
Honestly, I think let everyone play it out as they see fit. Each side can roll with the punches and deal with anything that comes in to play.
"After all are we not the real Gods of War here!!"
Thats right quote me, write it down in a book. Here after live by my lessons and you too shall find life as fulling as I do.
-
"After all are we not the real Gods of War here!!"
The real one just entered this discussion right now. Bow.
-
you've won this round sims. Well played sir, well played.
-
There are two points here to be clarified.
1. Super heavies allowed in Reserve? YES.. seems to be the way most people think.
2. Super heavies allowed to flank march? No or limited to flanks seems to be what I'm hearing. So are Super heavies allowed to turn up in the enemies, erm, rear.
Cheers,
Alan
-
So, what is a daemon pack? I see none in the current codex. :P
I assume it is anything that is not a greater daemon, daemon prince, herald or soulgrinder.
So essentially a group of daemons not in the above group?
-
Demon Packs don't exist any more any rules that referred to them are essentially null and void now.
Oh well.
Cheers,
Alan
-
Some rulings after discussion with Derek and several players:
Scoring: Scoring is objective based. Each table will have ONE objective that must be taken in order to score a point. Points will be scored at the end of each round. If your team meets the requirements for controlling an objective (stated below) at the end of a round you will earn 1 point for your side except in the case of the bridge, which will earn you 3 points.
Requirements for holding an objective: A friendly Troop Choice is within 6 inches of an objective and an enemy Troop Choice is not. This is a combination of the 5th Edition and Apocalypse objective claiming requirements adapted to best suit what we feel would yield the best game.
Super Heavies: Super Heavies do not have to start on the table and may be held in reserve. Super Heavies are not allowed to Flank March.
Deployment: Everything you plan to put down on the table before round 1 begins must be deployed in your designated deployment area (each player will have his own). If you hold things in reserve they may be deployed where ever you see fit. Special rules trump this general rule. Ex: Steve Rileys fliers.
Flank March: You may only Flank March units onto the "top" or "bottom" edges of the table or your own table edge. The inside edge and outside edge are off limits.
We will have an accurate map finished for you guys by the middle of next week. I understand you require it for discussion and further planning but until we know exactly how each and every thing will work and where each and every objective will be it makes little sense to send out a map.
-
Some rulings after discussion with Derek and several players:
Scoring: Scoring is objective based. Each table will have ONE objective that must be taken in order to score a point. Points will be scored at the end of each round. If your team meets the requirements for controlling an objective (stated below) at the end of a round you will earn 1 point for your side except in the case of the bridge, which will earn you 3 points.
By round, do you mean turn or player turn? Will we count scores 6 times, or 12?
Deployment: Everything you plan to put down on the table before round 1 begins must be deployed in your designated deployment area (each player will have his own). If you hold things in reserve they may be deployed where ever you see fit. Special rules trump this general rule. Ex: Steve Rileys fliers.
Flank March: You may only Flank March units onto the "top" or "bottom" edges of the table or your own table edge. The inside edge and outside edge are off limits.
This seems to say all Rob's titans have to be clumped together?
It also seems to make life difficult for paired teams, where they guy with lots of tanks deploys with the guy with lots of troops. Also, if the players don't have some input on the size and location of deployment zones, this effects strategy in terms of limiting the ability to concentrate forces in particular locations.
Is some flexibility negotiable?
-
Some rulings after discussion with Derek and several players:
Scoring: Scoring is objective based. Each table will have ONE objective that must be taken in order to score a point. Points will be scored at the end of each round. If your team meets the requirements for controlling an objective (stated below) at the end of a round you will earn 1 point for your side except in the case of the bridge, which will earn you 3 points.
By round, do you mean turn or player turn? Will we count scores 6 times, or 12?
Deployment: Everything you plan to put down on the table before round 1 begins must be deployed in your designated deployment area (each player will have his own). If you hold things in reserve they may be deployed where ever you see fit. Special rules trump this general rule. Ex: Steve Rileys fliers.
Flank March: You may only Flank March units onto the "top" or "bottom" edges of the table or your own table edge. The inside edge and outside edge are off limits.
This seems to say all Rob's titans have to be clumped together?
It also seems to make life difficult for paired teams, where they guy with lots of tanks deploys with the guy with lots of troops. Also, if the players don't have some input on the size and location of deployment zones, this effects strategy in terms of limiting the ability to concentrate forces in particular locations.
Is some flexibility negotiable?
Scoring will take place 6 times.
Some "problems" with the deployment rules have been brought up. I will speak with Derek about the points made and see if any changes will be considered.
The rule was made in an effort to prevent concentrating forces to much at the start of the game. Due to the scoring rules and the way setting up forces works (player 1 deploys, player 2 reacts and deploys) we found it likely that certain objectives would be simply ignored (or left under manned) by one of the teams from the get go in an effort to focus more heavily on another. This is something we absolutely did not want. Couple this with the fact that we allowed players to be a little bit more flexible with deployment last year (which was largely ignored) and that we want to promote "even" and "fair" match-ups on each table and there you go... Remember, you have total deployment flexibility after turn one. This allows both teams to react to the aftermath of each round in the same way.
The ruling does hurt Rob and what he was planning to do with his forces. However I am lead to believe there are ways for him to get around this.... ;)
Issues with poor player positions and the poor army / deployment synergy is something that the team and players should be prepared to work out.
If I recall correctly, each players DZ will be about 2 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep with a few exceptions.
.
-
I see the arguement that bob is making, but sadly this is countered simply by the fact that one can move their forces in the movement phase. Of course a stand and shoot army will be hard pressed in this situation, mostly because the ideal situation is to deploy and not move after that. A counter arguement can be made then that allowing player to deploy where ever results in a clump of gun lines that is near impossible to tackle. Of course you can really argue anything in any situation. The counter I would say to robs deployment problem is simply that yes you must deploy in your deployment zone but after that are allowed to march in reserves from your teams side. This gives a teams reserves the chance to come in where needed. You could also say that having rob put that many titans together results in a massive firepower zone of the field, one that could very well counter many things that were thrown at it.
And for fluff reasons I'm with the whole own deployment zone idea because in an actual war a few of these armies while willing to work "together" are not thrilled about working side by side. Plus, any of the defending armies while having intel on the attack would not necessarily know how or where forces were coming with what amor or troops. I just don't see it as being fluffy that a side could really co-ordinate their armies within multiple deployment zones to effectivly deal with what threats are dropped across from them. That is why armies would come to the fight balanced in the first place.
I could be wrong in my view though.
-
Some more rules stuff:
Ork subs will only be able to deploy on the bridge table. Since the table edge represents the "edge of the world" we will not allow players to "pretend" that their sub is somewhere off the table and still function. There is no river present on any of the other tables and therefor no legal spot for a sub to land troops.
Also, Vital Objective will increase the value of an objective by 1 point. Something worth 1 point will increase to 2 points, the bridge will increase from 3 points to 4.
-
You could also say that having rob put that many titans together results in a massive firepower zone of the field, one that could very well counter many things that were thrown at it.
Is that really fair though? I mean, whoever's across from me is boned if I have to concentrate most of my firepower there. And I would for protection of my titans since they're all in one place.
The fluff reasoning that armies wouldn't want to intermingle makes sense, but I'd imagine titans would spread out, since this battlefield is comparatively small on their scale.
-
You could also say that having rob put that many titans together results in a massive firepower zone of the field, one that could very well counter many things that were thrown at it.
Is that really fair though? I mean, whoever's across from me is boned if I have to concentrate most of my firepower there. And I would for protection of my titans since they're all in one place.
The fluff reasoning that armies wouldn't want to intermingle makes sense, but I'd imagine titans would spread out, since this battlefield is comparatively small on their scale.
I think it'll balance out: If you deploy 2nd, we'll get a turn to react before you can shoot. if you deploy first, then we can adjust our deployment to counter you.
-
Storm of Iron-
They setup to defend the titans (each other) and left the IG to die to the Iron Warriors. Just sayin'.
-
You could also say that having rob put that many titans together results in a massive firepower zone of the field, one that could very well counter many things that were thrown at it.
Is that really fair though? I mean, whoever's across from me is boned if I have to concentrate most of my firepower there. And I would for protection of my titans since they're all in one place.
The fluff reasoning that armies wouldn't want to intermingle makes sense, but I'd imagine titans would spread out, since this battlefield is comparatively small on their scale.
Your weapons have a range greater than most armies. If you setup across from someone, we will be ready. ;)
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180078_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Plague_of_Zombies.pdf
The plague zombie units for the plague of zombies datasheet aren't assigned a "slot" (elites, hq, troops, etc). Can they claim objectives?
-
I guess the answer should be "no."
I'm being told that many special units created by data sheets aren't given slots.
I am also under the impression that if the unit were intended to be considered "troops" (or anything at all, I guess) that the data sheet would specify... An example of this is The Green Tide.
Thoughts?
-
I guess the answer should be "no."
I'm being told that many special units created by data sheets aren't given slots.
I am also under the impression that if the unit were intended to be considered "troops" (or anything at all, I guess) that the data sheet would specify... An example of this is The Green Tide.
Thoughts?
That sounds fair.
Now I know who's going to be in the vanguard of the army :P
-
I see the argument that bob is making, but sadly this is countered simply by the fact that one can move their forces in the movement phase. Of course a stand and shoot army will be hard pressed in this situation, mostly because the ideal situation is to deploy and not move after that. A counter argument can be made then that allowing player to deploy where ever results in a clump of gun lines that is near impossible to tackle. Of course you can really argue anything in any situation. The counter I would say to robs deployment problem is simply that yes you must deploy in your deployment zone but after that are allowed to march in reserves from your teams side. This gives a teams reserves the chance to come in where needed. You could also say that having rob put that many titans together results in a massive firepower zone of the field, one that could very well counter many things that were thrown at it.
And for fluff reasons I'm with the whole own deployment zone idea because in an actual war a few of these armies while willing to work "together" are not thrilled about working side by side. Plus, any of the defending armies while having intel on the attack would not necessarily know how or where forces were coming with what armor or troops. I just don't see it as being fluffy that a side could really coordinate their armies within multiple deployment zones to effectively deal with what threats are dropped across from them. That is why armies would come to the fight balanced in the first place.
Color me dubious. Titans are not organized that way. Each company of infantry doesn't have an attached Titan or an attached fighter wing or an attached heavy artillery company, or an attached anti aircraft battery. These are often strategic assets organized under their own commands and spread out to cover wide fronts. You don't assign fighter wings an area of front to defend. Clumping a bunch of titans together without a screening force in front of them is absurd. We have players coming in who have been for months building forces with all infantry, others with little to no infantry. Some have many exotic big things, some have none. This last minute change is significantly impacting how forces are organized or will fight. If the game was intended to enforce balanced armies only, we should have been told a lot sooner.
I'd suggest that if a heavy force lacks screening front line units, adjacent forces with appropriate units might be allowed to spread out to cover an extended front. A primarily heavy force that allows adjacent units to cover it's front might be allowed to deploy in adjacent rear areas. This might allow players who intended to play a strategic team oriented game to deploy rationally while preventing too heavy a concentration of forces at vital areas.
-
I guess the answer should be "no."
I'm being told that many special units created by data sheets aren't given slots.
I am also under the impression that if the unit were intended to be considered "troops" (or anything at all, I guess) that the data sheet would specify... An example of this is The Green Tide.
Thoughts?
I'd like to be careful here, because we do have some people who take things literally some times. If a datasheet is made up of units that are troop choices per their codex, then obviously being part of a data-sheet does not counter this. For example, nearly every imperial data sheet in the book :)
Cheers,
Alan
-
I don't think anyone is going to argue a data sheet consisting of codex troop choices prevents those units from holding an objective. I always just assumed it gave those units some additional rules. I.E. the space marine battle company, all those troop choices still can hold an objective.
-
I don't think
Behold the power of removing context....
-
hahahaha.
-
I have a question, Do the forge world Demons count as HQ choices or as just a monsterous creature? For example Trophy Kill reads as "must reveal the most expensive hq"
-
I have a question, Do the forge world Demons count as HQ choices or as just a monsterous creature? For example Trophy Kill reads as "must reveal the most expensive hq"
The datasheet does not specify. Back in the day, pre apocalypse, it counted as an HQ.
And it's gargantuan creature to you, bub.
-
As a man fielding one, I'll go ahead and offer my two cents:
As they use the rules for summoning a greater daemon, which is an HQ choice, why not let it count as an HQ? Besides it would be fitting to have hunting such a daemon be a trophy kill. Since Lee won't be posting (sober), I'll talk for him too :P.
-
Well, if my zombies don't count as troops, An'ggrath can't count as an HQ :) besides, greater daemons don't count as any slot in the CSM codex right?
Mike
-
Well, if my zombies don't count as troops, An'ggrath can't count as an HQ :) besides, greater daemons don't count as any slot in the CSM codex right?
Mike
Greater Daemons count as HQ. You play loyalists too much?
-
As a man fielding one, I'll go ahead and offer my two cents:
As they use the rules for summoning a greater daemon, which is an HQ choice, why not let it count as an HQ? Besides it would be fitting to have hunting such a daemon be a trophy kill. Since Lee won't be posting (sober), I'll talk for him too :P.
Rich, I'd highly recommend you making a post on a forum like Warseer about this. It may be that there's something we've missed that certifies whether or not it does. I don't know what surprise you're planning with it, and I don't plan on looking, but if you share it with them you could show us the response so we could see a general consensus of those out of this battle.
-
As a man fielding one, I'll go ahead and offer my two cents:
As they use the rules for summoning a greater daemon, which is an HQ choice, why not let it count as an HQ? Besides it would be fitting to have hunting such a daemon be a trophy kill. Since Lee won't be posting (sober), I'll talk for him too :P.
Rich, I'd highly recommend you making a post on a forum like Warseer about this. It may be that there's something we've missed that certifies whether or not it does. I don't know what surprise you're planning with it, and I don't plan on looking, but if you share it with them you could show us the response so we could see a general consensus of those out of this battle.
Warseer is full of 4chan dropouts, I'm cool. Boobie marines (not slaanesh) and other crap.
Fine, he isn't an HQ, I was just being lenient. Most expensive I've seen is Abadabadoodon.
-
Warseer is full of 4chan dropouts, I'm cool. Boobie marines (not slaanesh) and other crap.
Fine, he isn't an HQ, I was just being lenient. Most expensive I've seen is Abadabadoodon.
They're worse than me? Christ. :o
Post it on a different forum, then. I'm fine with him being one, but I just want to see if there's something that sets this in stone. I like when things are plain out.
-
Warseer is full of 4chan dropouts, I'm cool. Boobie marines (not slaanesh) and other crap.
Fine, he isn't an HQ, I was just being lenient. Most expensive I've seen is Abadabadoodon.
They're worse than me? Christ. :o
Post it on a different forum, then. I'm fine with him being one, but I just want to see if there's something that sets this in stone. I like when things are plain out.
It doesn't say, so I won't do it. I can't find it specifying it. Murph can hunt something else, something smellier but smaller.
-
We cheaked and the asset targest a independent character not a HQ which none of those huge demons are.
But they are still HQ's. read under the slanesh one he has a entry explaining that Demon Lords are HQ's.
-
Color me dubious. Titans are not organized that way. Each company of infantry doesn't have an attached Titan or an attached fighter wing or an attached heavy artillery company, or an attached anti aircraft battery. These are often strategic assets organized under their own commands and spread out to cover wide fronts. You don't assign fighter wings an area of front to defend. Clumping a bunch of titans together without a screening force in front of them is absurd. We have players coming in who have been for months building forces with all infantry, others with little to no infantry. Some have many exotic big things, some have none. This last minute change is significantly impacting how forces are organized or will fight. If the game was intended to enforce balanced armies only, we should have been told a lot sooner.
I'd suggest that if a heavy force lacks screening front line units, adjacent forces with appropriate units might be allowed to spread out to cover an extended front. A primarily heavy force that allows adjacent units to cover it's front might be allowed to deploy in adjacent rear areas. This might allow players who intended to play a strategic team oriented game to deploy rationally while preventing too heavy a concentration of forces at vital areas.
We have re-thought the deployment situation and while we will be sticking with the original "plan" I think players will be more than happy with how we allow them to set up. As it stands now, a pair of players will have to deploy on a table (each team chooses where each person deploys, roughly 2 per table). Spilling over onto an adjacent table is fine, so long as its "necessary." This will still restrict players to an area but that area is far less ridged than the original idea intended it to be. It accomplishes the goals Derek and I had in mind, allows for more structured deployment options as well as army comp options, and should keep players a bit happier overall. More details on this will go out with the map of the table, which should be made available Wednesday at some point.
This is not a change to the deployment rules; I am just posting this to let the player base know that we have re-thought the idea and that it will be a bit more flexible than you have been lead to believe.
-
I guess the answer should be "no."
I'm being told that many special units created by data sheets aren't given slots.
I am also under the impression that if the unit were intended to be considered "troops" (or anything at all, I guess) that the data sheet would specify... An example of this is The Green Tide.
Thoughts?
I'd like to be careful here, because we do have some people who take things literally some times. If a datasheet is made up of units that are troop choices per their codex, then obviously being part of a data-sheet does not counter this. For example, nearly every imperial data sheet in the book :)
Cheers,
Alan
I agree with you, Alan.
I have seen a few data sheets that list what is necessary to fufill the pre-req and do make mention of that fact that some are "troops" etc. and then provide some kind of "extra" for a few points. I'm not sure if these sheets actually change the units around at all. I do not have the books present and I do not know them well enough to list an example, I am just curious if these are some you're talking about, Alan?
An aside: I wonder though... Why is it that The Green Tide (made up of a large amount of "troops"?) data sheet makes it a point to refer to the new "unit" as troops for purposes of claiming objectives? Is it because it actually alters the units involved and makes it a single new one? My lack of knowledge fails me again...
Sadly, I should refrain from getting deeper into this away from the books and someone who can answer questions I have on the fly.
I do agree that things can be taken literally and that fact is very dangerous when it comes to making a ruling.
Please let me know if this does create any issues.
-
A green tide is just one unit of boys. A huge unit of boys. The way it works is essentially all orks falling back join it. So one huge troop choice. A unit.
-
the green tide is refered too because it alters the rules of a normal troop choice. So, some may argue that it loses its troop status by taking on an apocalyptic stature. That is why they make the reference to make it clear that this unit, while very very large, is still able to hold objectives in apocalypse games. Many other data sheets that use troops only restrict you in what you are required to take to meet the requirements of the data sheet. Most of the time those data sheets to actually alter the composition of the unit from the codex.
-
From what I've read in a few forums online, it seems that a fair number of people think that psychic hoods taken by Witch Hunters have infinite range since the range isn't specified, and that their psychic hoods still work that way despite the change in the Space Marines hoods.
By the same token, I'd say a Witch Hunter Land Raider wouldn't have the machine spirit rules since it's not mentioned in the Witch Hunter codex.
But I figured I should make sure the Chaos players agree that the psychic hood employed by Witch Hunter Inquisitors have infinite range, because otherwise I'm not sure I'd bother taking them an Inquisitor.
Thanks for considering!
-
Unlimited range is reduced to 6 feet in the megabattle that was what was ruled last year and what was told to me by D as well for this year.
-
Thanks very much for the information. To my mind that's both fair and useful.
-
the green tide is refered too because it alters the rules of a normal troop choice. So, some may argue that it loses its troop status by taking on an apocalyptic stature. That is why they make the reference to make it clear that this unit, while very very large, is still able to hold objectives in apocalypse games. Many other data sheets that use troops only restrict you in what you are required to take to meet the requirements of the data sheet. Most of the time those data sheets to actually alter the composition of the unit from the codex.
Agreed, Green Tide was a new unit, and so needed to be classified. Whereas others did not. The reason for my point was to get a like minded individual to agree that just because it doesn't say troop, as long as it's composed of units that are troops they're not changed to be non troops because of a one off classification.
For example Space marine companies are not classified as troops because they have a mix of units, the individual untis are well known, but a broad ruling could cause issues with the more, "cunning", rodent player.
Anyway, we're all good, I didn't mean to spark huge threads here, it's enough to know that we're all on the same page :)
Cheers,
Alan
-
We have re-thought the deployment situation and while we will be sticking with the original "plan" I think players will be more than happy with how we allow them to set up. As it stands now, a pair of players will have to deploy on a table (each team chooses where each person deploys, roughly 2 per table). Spilling over onto an adjacent table is fine, so long as its "necessary." This will still restrict players to an area but that area is far less ridged than the original idea intended it to be. It accomplishes the goals Derek and I had in mind, allows for more structured deployment options as well as army comp options, and should keep players a bit happier overall. More details on this will go out with the map of the table, which should be made available Wednesday at some point.
This is not a change to the deployment rules; I am just posting this to let the player base know that we have re-thought the idea and that it will be a bit more flexible than you have been lead to believe.
Appreciated. That seems like a good balance between concerns.
-
So whats the final consensus, do i need to slay angrath or abbadon the ponytailed freak?
-
The beast is completed!!! It now must be annointed with oils!
-
The beast is completed!!! It now must be anointed with oils!
Anointed with oils? Don't you mean boiled in oil?
-
The beast is completed!!! It now must be annointed with oils!
Any chance you could post a little picture of it (or even a corner of it) so that I can match the colors of the towers to the concrete base? If not, just give me a basic color description or something.
Thanks!!!
D.
-
I'm planning on being there on Friday after work (after 5). I will paint the bridge at that time. Sorry for the late finish, my family has been ill for most of this week.
I was thinking about painting the bridge similar to the way I painted the buildings I made for last year's Megabattle.
I'll see you then.
John
-
Necrons. How do you want to deal with their phase out rule? Combined count amongst all necron players? Or just per player?
-
If I'm not mistaken, I thought I heard someone say that according to the Apocalypse rules, the Necrons are free from the Phase Out Rule for Apocalypse battles.
-
No Phase out is a Common House rule for mega battles. similar to the max range on unlimited range weapons. Its so necron players can spend all there points on monoliths and pylons and not bring useless warriors to the battle.
remember apocalypse was writen so you ignore all points limits and bring EVERYTHING they own..necrons with a unit of gray knights and those harlaquins you bought all working together in a happy happy family. with a Brood Lord.
-
Right. It's an example of a house rule in the Apocalypse book, which makes some sense because of what this game is. In last year's megabattle we ignored Phase Out.
-
I remember. I just wanted it to be an "official" houserule so everyone remembers :P
Also. I hear there's a bridge. God gave us bridges so that we can burn them in times of war. Can we do it on Saturday? (maybe give it a ton of structure points or something).
Mike
-
Yes let us burn the bridge! lets see if in the future there are swimming lessons to go with all this war!!!
Floaties for all the guardsmen!
-
Yes let us burn the bridge! lets see if in the future there are swimming lessons to go with all this war!!!
Floaties for all the guardsmen!
Power armor does not float!
-
The bridge, as well as other objectives and large pieces of terrain, will be considered "part of the table" and cannot be removed or destroyed.
For better or for worse... ;)
-
No vortex grenade? How hilarious it would be to see a baneblade sinking.
-
The bridge, as well as other objectives and large pieces of terrain, will be considered "part of the table" and cannot be removed or destroyed.
For better or for worse... ;)
Whaaaa? I can understand the bridge, but c'mon -- it's part of the fun if objectives, hills, forrests get sucked into the warp by vortex grenades :)
Basically, anything that's not a permanent part of the table should be free game to destroy, given the right equipment ;P
c'mon Chase!
-
hey are guys sending out a picture of the maps for us?
-
No vortex grenade? How hilarious it would be to see a baneblade sinking.
You'd have to look quick those things are heavy..
-
hey are guys sending out a picture of the maps for us?
Yes, it will be snet out really late tonight. You people with 9-5's might not want to wait up.
-
The bridge, as well as other objectives and large pieces of terrain, will be considered "part of the table" and cannot be removed or destroyed.
For better or for worse... ;)
Whaaaa? I can understand the bridge, but c'mon -- it's part of the fun if objectives, hills, forrests get sucked into the warp by vortex grenades :)
Basically, anything that's not a permanent part of the table should be free game to destroy, given the right equipment ;P
c'mon Chase!
I understand what you mean, but when you see the size of some of the pieces of terrain / objectives you’ll understand why we consider them "part of the table." It would take 20 min to remove some of them when you consider the models on or around them.
Most buildings, forests, and smaller terrain features will be removed by the grenades.
The tables are really coming together and by the end of the night tonight they should look really badass. I'm very excited to witness the carnage.
-
Cool. That seems fine then.
-
I still wanna see the floatie guardsman laughing as the terminator marines sink like rocks around him. Give a guy no armor and a flash light for a gun, who's laughing now.
-
they guy with a fully sealed suit of armor and days worth of air who isent being shot at floating helpless in the water.
-
The table looks awesome guys.