Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Adeptus-B

The Outer Reach now available

66 posts in this topic

 Can't seem to find it anywhere. Barnes and Nobles doesn't even list it. I know I can order it online, but I like frequenting brick and mortar establishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up a copy yesterday. Abbreviated ToC would be:

ToC, intro, etc. - pages 1-5

The Dead Cabal (Deathwatch forces in the Outer Reach) - pages 6-47

Lost Worlds of the Jericho Reach (locations and story seeds) - pages 48-99

A Dynasty Returned (Necrons) - pages 100-141

Appendix on condensed vehicle rules - pages 142-144

 

 

Probably a bit too much Necron crunch for my tastes - especially since I also own Black Crusade and am drowning in Necron crunch - but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the Necrons compare to their appearances in the Black Crusade books?  When I read about them in the Tome of Fate, they didn't strike me as tough enough to take on a Deathwatch Team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mkall said:

How do the Necrons compare to their appearances in the Black Crusade books?  When I read about them in the Tome of Fate, they didn't strike me as tough enough to take on a Deathwatch Team.

They seem pretty tough to me. The basic Necron Warrior comes in Hordes and everything else is considerably harder. Lots of Elites in here, ranging from the Lychguard with their 2d10+20 damage melee weapons to the Deathmark snipers. There are also about a half-dozen Master baddies (Lords, Overlords, Destoyer Lord, Canoptek Spiders, some others) that don't initially seem as nasty as some of the daemon princes and such, but when you look closer at how their special rules work they're pretty badass.

OTOH, there is a specialty career for Space Marines that fight Necrons that gives them the ability to cut through many of these guys (along with Tyranids and Daemons) much more easily, so perhaps that's what's intended.

As I'm primarily a RT GM, I appreciate that these stats are more compatible with RT than those from Black Crusade, and in RT, even a few Warriors are a nasty opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dead Station Vigilant is a fun advanced speciality. My DSV, Brother Onesto Salvatore of the Blood Angels, has had a lot of success.


peterstepon said:

There was a section on Necrons in Tome of Fate.  Are the stats the same or are there any differences?


The all follow the same lines. They were both written by the same guy.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mkall said:

How do the Necrons compare to their appearances in the Black Crusade books?  When I read about them in the Tome of Fate, they didn't strike me as tough enough to take on a Deathwatch Team.

 

From our experience it comes down to the mix of Necrons you face rather than individual Necron types. A Warrior isn’t dangerous, but a Horde of them is extremely dangerous. Oddly the safest place to be when facing Warriors is in melee with them.

 

Immortals aren’t all that scary, but occasionally they get lucky with the Gauss rule and cause decent damage. Destroyers are similar in that their gun doesn’t do a heck of a lot of damage, but it fires so many shots that the Gauss rule is bound to kick in eventually. Heavy Destroyers are very dangerous, akin to Rail-gun toting Broadsides. Try not to be on the business end of that thing’s Gauss Cannon.

Overlords never posed a problem unless they had a Warscythe. I hope that’s been changed, as they were a bit too easy to assassinate. Scarabs were dangerous if you didn’t deal with them immediately, as they mess with your armour. Tomb Spyders were ok. Flayed Ones didn’t really do a great deal, but that could change.

Wraiths were the amusing ones. Most of the time they did nothing. Occasionally they caused a fair amount damage. Between these times they avoided almost every attack thrown at them. Interesting things to fight, and a challenge for most Marines simply due to their evasion and phasing abilities.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HappyDaze said:

 


Lots of Elites in here, ranging from the Lychguard with their 2d10+20 damage melee weapons to the Deathmark snipers.
 

 

Which brings me back to the old question: Is this damage supposed to fit with the DW Core Rules or with the errated weapon stats?

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TechVoid said:

HappyDaze said:

 


Lots of Elites in here, ranging from the Lychguard with their 2d10+20 damage melee weapons to the Deathmark snipers.
 

 

Which brings me back to the old question: Is this damage supposed to fit with the DW Core Rules or with the errated weapon stats?

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

How would it matter since there is only one set of damage values for Necron weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HappyDaze said:

How would it matter since there is only one set of damage values for Necron weapons?

I am not sure, if I fully understand your comment. But it matters, since the threat level of an enemy is based on the assumption that the weapons follow the same guidelines. Thus, for example, if the authors had in mind that an enemy weapon should be equal to a Heavy Bolter than you know that the enemy weapon is weaker, if played according to the Errata. Which makes the enemy weaker.

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TechVoid said:

 

HappyDaze said:

How would it matter since there is only one set of damage values for Necron weapons?

 

I am not sure, if I fully understand your comment. But it matters, since the threat level of an enemy is based on the assumption that the weapons follow the same guidelines. Thus, for example, if the authors had in mind that an enemy weapon should be equal to a Heavy Bolter than you know that the enemy weapon is weaker, if played according to the Errata. Which makes the enemy weaker.

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

 

 

I believe that everything published since the weapons were revamped are scaled using those revamped stats as a balancing point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TechVoid said:

HappyDaze said:

 


Lots of Elites in here, ranging from the Lychguard with their 2d10+20 damage melee weapons to the Deathmark snipers.
 

 

Which brings me back to the old question: Is this damage supposed to fit with the DW Core Rules or with the errated weapon stats?

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

Errata is.. well.. errata. Errata is Core. Errata effectively replaces whatever any book said before. So I don't see how this can even be a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fgdsfg said:

TechVoid said:

 

HappyDaze said:

 


Lots of Elites in here, ranging from the Lychguard with their 2d10+20 damage melee weapons to the Deathmark snipers.
 

 

Which brings me back to the old question: Is this damage supposed to fit with the DW Core Rules or with the errated weapon stats?

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

 

Errata is.. well.. errata. Errata is Core. Errata effectively replaces whatever any book said before. So I don't see how this can even be a discussion.

 

The changes to Deathwatch weapon stats in Appendix I are not really true errata. They are called out as an optional rule that GMs can use or not as desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, we the general public know that 'errata' = 'core'; but the question is:  does ffg?  Because, as the previous poster mentioned, ffg's stance seems to be that errata = optional….preocupado.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HappyDaze said:

Fgdsfg said:

 

TechVoid said:

 

HappyDaze said:

 


Lots of Elites in here, ranging from the Lychguard with their 2d10+20 damage melee weapons to the Deathmark snipers.
 

 

Which brings me back to the old question: Is this damage supposed to fit with the DW Core Rules or with the errated weapon stats?

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

 

Errata is.. well.. errata. Errata is Core. Errata effectively replaces whatever any book said before. So I don't see how this can even be a discussion.

 

 

 

The changes to Deathwatch weapon stats in Appendix I are not really true errata. They are called out as an optional rule that GMs can use or not as desired.

That's… really odd and of course you are entirely correct now that I check. That said, since it's "optional", I would say that "Core" is.. well, Core.

Beats me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HappyDaze said:

The changes to Deathwatch weapon stats in Appendix I are not really true errata. They are called out as an optional rule that GMs can use or not as desired.

Well, that is true. This leads me to the simply conclusion that FFG has to consider that some GMs use the optional weapon stats and must state in any upcoming books: "If you use the errata, the weapon stats have to be changed like …".

Of course, this is only true for "new" weapons. Another imperial soldier in another book with his lasgun does not need any changes, because you find new weapon stats in the appendix of the errata.

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TechVoid said:

HappyDaze said:

 

The changes to Deathwatch weapon stats in Appendix I are not really true errata. They are called out as an optional rule that GMs can use or not as desired.

 

 

Well, that is true. This leads me to the simply conclusion that FFG has to consider that some GMs use the optional weapon stats and must state in any upcoming books: "If you use the errata, the weapon stats have to be changed like …".

Of course, this is only true for "new" weapons. Another imperial soldier in another book with his lasgun does not need any changes, because you find new weapon stats in the appendix of the errata.

Cheers,

-- TechVoid.

no weapon needs alternate stats, if there is only one line of stats for a weapon then you use that statline regardless of whether appendix i is being used or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure about that?  because the errata weapon rules are a significant change from Rules As Written….heavy bolter RAW is most definitely NOT heavy bolter errata….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zappiel said:

are you sure about that?  because the errata weapon rules are a significant change from Rules As Written….heavy bolter RAW is most definitely NOT heavy bolter errata….

And Gauss Flayer only has one set of stats so it doesn't matter which heavy bolter you use since it will be the same either way. Appendix I was primarily intended to rebalance the weapons used by the Astartes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HappyDaze said:

 

And Gauss Flayer only has one set of stats so it doesn't matter which heavy bolter you use since it will be the same either way. Appendix I was primarily intended to rebalance the weapons used by the Astartes.

The Astartes ones are the baseline against which the others are set, using the tabletop stats to determine where one weapon compares to another,. A gauss flayer should do about the same as a bolter, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, bogi, which is why this issue is an…issue…is the 'official' ffg 'baseline' based on a RAW bolter, or a 'nerfed' errata bolter?  Cause i love canon; i love to know what the parameters are….but just what are the parameters of dw?  RAW or errata?  And are the newcrons in 'outer reach' supposed to go toe-to-toe with RAW marines or errata marines?  These are important questions, cause a RAW newcron can be expected to be a lot different from an errata newcron, based strictly on considerations of the bolter as a baseline for damage output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the biggest result of the changes to bolt weapons was the reduction in frequency of RF, I'd say that this is a much of a muchness. We're talking about a difference of 5-6 damage per hit, and some differing Rates of Fire. Neither of those things have as big an effect as extra RF rolls would.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what has also changed is the targets that a bolter can actually damage. 1d10+9 and 2d10+5 are about the same average damage, but the latter can damage targets with much higher damage soak that the former can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0