Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Traditio wrote:
This article from Bell of Lost Souls is from 2011.

This article is more recent.

Again, just suggestions/ guidelines rather than actual rules. Again, it mentions that the standards get more lax as the editions go forth.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Traditio wrote:
This article from Bell of Lost Souls is from 2011.

This article is more recent.

Again, just suggestions/ guidelines rather than actual rules. Again, it mentions that the standards get more lax as the editions go forth.

It wasn't a strict "rule" even in 4th edition.

I'm not making the claim that there is a "rule" that you HAVE to do this.

I simply assumed that it was more or less standard procedure among players, especially given that my own FLGS (only relevant because the owner's been playing for over a decade) has an informal "9 pieces (imagine a 9 square grid)" ethos.

And if the DE player did bring night shields and played with such a terrain "rule," he should reliably get 4+ cover saves without jinking.

No?

You are still assuming that everyone uses the same terrain standards as you do (which is still not surprising coming from you)

Traditio wrote:

I simply assumed that it was more or less standard procedure among players, especially given that my own FLGS (only relevant because the owner's been playing for over a decade) has an informal "9 pieces (imagine a 9 square grid)" ethos.

Rules for a number of terrain pieces are problematic unless every terrain piece is the same size.


The best rule of thumb I've seen for getting the 'right' amount of terrain on the table is to divide the table into quarters, fill one quarter with as much terrain as will fit in there, and then spread that terrain out to cover the table.


My usual process is to just keep plonking terrain on there until my opponent starts whimpering or the table collapses (whichever comes first), and go with that.



An awful lot of the problems that people have with 40K are just caused by not having enough terrain on the board.

 CrownAxe wrote:
You are still assuming that everyone uses the same terrain standards as you do (which is still not surprising coming from you)

Let me rephrase my recommendations to the DE, then:

1. Use more terrain.
2. Pay the points cost for night shields.
3. Enjoy the 4+ non-jinking cover saves.

What I'm saying shouldn't be as controversial as what you're making it out to be.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
You are still assuming that everyone uses the same terrain standards as you do (which is still not surprising coming from you)

Let me rephrase my recommendations to the DE, then:

1. Use more terrain.
2. Pay the points cost for night shields.

What I'm saying shouldn't be as controversial as what you're making it out to be.

It's 'controversial' because it's not how Dark Eldar are supposed to work. They're supposed to be a fast-moving strike force, not sitting around huddled behind the bushes.

The FAQ suddenly makes them not as good as they used to be at what they are supposed to do, and telling people to suddenly start using their army in a way contrary to what they're supposed to be good at might 'fix' the issue from a rules perspective, but not from a background one.

insaniak wrote:It's 'controversial' because it's not how Dark Eldar are supposed to work. They're supposed to be a fast-moving strike force, not sitting around huddled behind the bushes.

The FAQ suddenly makes them not as good as they used to be at what they are supposed to do, and telling people to suddenly start using their army in a way contrary to what they're supposed to be good at might 'fix' the issue from a rules perspective, but not from a background one.

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

Just food for thought.

At any rate, I've played games against Dark Eldar raider/venom spam after the release of the FAQ drafts.

If you follow the 9 piece terrain rule, it's pretty easy for DE to get cover saves, even without being "huddled behind the bushes."

Venoms, raiders and ravagers are fast vehicles and skimmers. They move 12 inches per movement phase and can still fire at full BS. And they ignore terrain when making said movements.

DE players can use this to position their vehicles to gain cover without "huddling." [Remember, for this last point, that cover is always relative; Cover is always relative to 1. the one firing, 2. the target and 3. whatever it is that intervenes between them. In the case of a solar eclipse, one scarcely would say that the sun is "huddled" behind the moon.]

Traditio wrote:

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

A lot of people thought models firing at full BS from a jinking vehicle was a bit odd.. but it was given a pass because it was an abstraction that allowed the army to function as everyone assumed it was supposed to function.


Ultimately, it's impossible for the game to completely accurately represent a real world battle with static models. It all comes down to which abstractions make the game work.


Personally, I think the FAQ call on jinking vehicles was the 'right' one to make for the rules... but it is a hit to certain armies, and that needs to be taken into account one way or another, unless all of the armies affected were previously stronger than they should have been as a result of people playing it the 'wrong' way.

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

A lot of people thought models firing at full BS from a jinking vehicle was a bit odd.. but it was given a pass because it was an abstraction that allowed the army to function as everyone assumed it was supposed to function.


Ultimately, it's impossible for the game to completely accurately represent a real world battle with static models. It all comes down to which abstractions make the game work.


Personally, I think the FAQ call on jinking vehicles was the 'right' one to make for the rules... but it is a hit to certain armies, and that needs to be taken into account one way or another, unless all of the armies affected were previously stronger than they should have been as a result of people playing it the 'wrong' way.

Imho, GW could easily fix this by giving all of the vehicles the option to upgrade to flicker fields.

Edit:

Though, in the absence of that, I do think that my advice, given that the rules are as they are, is tactically sound:

You don't want to jink and you don't want your vehicles to go boom? Then get night shields and use cover.

Simple as that.

Traditio wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

But these same objectors raise absolutely no "background" issues about how ridiculous it is for immobilized vehicles to jink or for troops embarked on a jinking vehicle to fire at full BS.

A lot of people thought models firing at full BS from a jinking vehicle was a bit odd.. but it was given a pass because it was an abstraction that allowed the army to function as everyone assumed it was supposed to function.


Ultimately, it's impossible for the game to completely accurately represent a real world battle with static models. It all comes down to which abstractions make the game work.


Personally, I think the FAQ call on jinking vehicles was the 'right' one to make for the rules... but it is a hit to certain armies, and that needs to be taken into account one way or another, unless all of the armies affected were previously stronger than they should have been as a result of people playing it the 'wrong' way.

Imho, GW could easily fix this by giving all of the vehicles the option to upgrade to flicker fields.

Edit:

Though, in the absence of that, I do think that my advice, given that the rules are as they are, is tactically sound:

You don't want to jink and you don't want your vehicles to go boom? Then get night shields and use cover.

Simple as that.

How is this any different then you insisting on you using lascannons but us suggesting that grav is more tactically sound?

CrownAxe wrote:How is this any different then you insisting on you using lascannons but us suggesting that grav is more tactically sound?

I'm not proposing that he change his army (except to the extent that I'm saying that he should scribble "night shields" onto his army roster"). Aside from that, all I'm saying is: 1. put more stuff on the table (which could mean anything from notebooks to actual terrain pieces) and 2. be more tactical in the movement phase.

Wow, you guys seem to like empty tables. Currently we divide the table into 6 areas and roll a d3 for each , for an average of 12 pieces

While it may suck for DE, lets be real, from both a basic rules and background perspective, Jink forcing passengers to snapshot makes sense, and was likely just one of the litany of things GW just missed when hastily re-issuing 6E and the flashy new 7E, much like the issues with immobilized skimmers Jinking.

Being able to Jink with no effect on passengers was a little silly, particularly when the non-skimmer counterpart, Smoke Launchers, prevents shooting from passengers entirely (on top of only being able to be used once, for a lower cover save, and sometimes having to buy them or not have access to them at all).

Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While it may suck for DE, lets be real, from both a basic rules and background perspective, Jink forcing passengers to snapshot makes sense, and was likely just one of the litany of things GW just missed when hastily re-issuing 6E and the flashy new 7E, much like the issues with immobilized skimmers Jinking.

Being able to Jink with no effect on passengers was a little silly, particularly when the non-skimmer counterpart, Smoke Launchers, prevents shooting from passengers entirely (on top of only being able to be used once, for a lower cover save, and sometimes having to buy them or not have access to them at all).

Not to mention also at the cost of being able to move flat-out. If you read the rules for smoke-launchers, it explicitly says that you can pop smoke in lieu either of shooting OR moving flat out.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

Since its not official, we dont care atm. I see them more as ''experimental rules''.

 wuestenfux wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

Since its not official, we dont care atm. I see them more as ''experimental rules''.

It was you who asked "why would you", not me. Yes, they're not yet official, and your way of treating them is perfectly fine - I'm just saying that it's not the only way to treat them ;-)

I guess it's best to have a balanced army that doesn't rely on a gimmick. Sucks that it prevents you from playing how you want, but you can still run GSC and Tyranids...right?

This happens to me all the time .

Made an ork army -> 6th edition rule changes killed it

Made a new ork army -> They FAQ killed off my HQ

Made a squiggoth -> FW made it roughly 4x as expensive to field

Made a Inquisition army based around the priests being able to use the LD of Inquisitors -> 7th killed that

New made a new ork army and gave the new codex a try -> It happened to become unplayable weak.

Made a DE hellion army -> They removed my hq and only option to take them as troops.

Made a new Inquision Crusader army with all converted power axes. 7th edition codex update ->Crusaders sword only

Decided to switch to WFB with my old armies awaiting for a new edition. -> AOS : (

Made a new ork army based on with tank busta's -> New FAQ kills it again.

I guess that this is the fate of being original instead of using the usual tactics with the usual armies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I guess it's best to have a balanced army that doesn't rely on a gimmick.

The thing is that all interesting unusual armies are " A gimmick" while almost all SM, Eldar & Tau builds are to popular to be just a gimmick.
This is really sucky

 Griddlelol wrote:
I guess it's best to have a balanced army that doesn't rely on a gimmick. Sucks that it prevents you from playing how you want, but you can still run GSC and Tyranids...right?

They can be fielded alongside each other, but all the synergy is gone. The manufactorum 'stealers can't infiltrate within 18/12 of the Broodkin and i'll have no other choice but to deepstrike the lictors. If i was ever to expand my Tyranid army, the Broodlord would be affected by my own shadow in the warp. The basic concept of the list I really enjoyed was the idea that the enemy started the game surrounded by multiple small 'Stealer units which would attack in waves, first turn Broodkin second turn Lictors and manufactorum. Of the few games I played the list was incredibly fun for me and my opponent, very different dynamic from other forces in the game, but now I can't infiltrate anywhere near each other my deployment options for so many small units are basically non-existant. 5x5 5 man stealer units, 5 lictors and at least 4 Broodkin units really get in each others way.

I understand it's a ''gimmick'' but I didn't get excited to make the list because it was powerful or an exploit, I got excited about the idea of a tyranid vanguard force ambushing an army with waves of rending taloned monsters popping outta every shadow. Something a little different from gun-lines that plague my meta and A tyranid army that didn't rely on Flyrants. I guess I'm agreeing with Oldzoggy, I should of just spent my money on 4 flyrants and not tried to go down a themed fluff route.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The manufactorum 'stealers can't infiltrate within 18/12 of the Broodkin and i'll have no other choice but to deepstrike the lictors. If i was ever to expand my Tyranid army, the Broodlord would be affected by my own shadow in the warp.

Ouch this is horrible. Has there been a similar comment on the facebook draft FAQ ?

GSC treat tyranids as AoC. AOC are treated as enemies, and as such I believe they get in the way of each others infiltration and shadow in the warp would affect them. That's how i'd read it at least.

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Unless you go to a tournament, why would you apply the FAQs? Just talk to your opponent. Wie dont use the FAQs here.

We do, because why not? It's not a tournament FAQ like the ITC, it's the soon-to-be-official FAQ from GW.

Since its not official, we dont care atm. I see them more as ''experimental rules''.

It was you who asked "why would you", not me. Yes, they're not yet official, and your way of treating them is perfectly fine - I'm just saying that it's not the only way to treat them ;-)

Okay no problem.

If somebody in our gaming group wants to play with these FAQ's, it will not be a problem. But the players here ignore them so far.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
GSC treat tyranids as AoC. AOC are treated as enemies, and as such I believe they get in the way of each others infiltration and shadow in the warp would affect them. That's how i'd read it at least.

I know why it happened. It was just me asking if somebone complained at the FAQ draft that this happened just so that GW knows how we interoperate what this does.
It might just reduce the chance of them ruling this way. Posting it here will just result in me thinking: Glad I did no start a genestealers army ; )

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were doing it for power-gaming reasons, just that basing a list on a single rule is dangerous.

The FAQs are drafts, so maybe give them feedback and explain how it doesn't make sense that GSC and Tyranids aren't best of friends.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were doing it for power-gaming reasons, just that basing a list on a single rule is dangerous..

I dare to challenge that. Allmost all white scars lists are build around a few special rules of one HQ that doesn't even have a model for editions now and jet they get buffed instead of FAQ't / rule changed into oblivion.
It is only dangerous if you are a non mainstream player.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The manufactorum 'stealers can't infiltrate within 18/12 of the Broodkin and i'll have no other choice but to deepstrike the lictors. If i was ever to expand my Tyranid army, the Broodlord would be affected by my own shadow in the warp.

Ouch this is horrible. Has there been a similar comment on the facebook draft FAQ ?

There has been a torrent of abuse on the FAQ for obvious reasons, it destroyes any synergy the Tyranids and GSC might have had. I mean sure drop podding in Cult with Tyranocites was dumb fluff wise but the FAQ already nixed that. I can only hope they reverse the decision as I was considering building a Vanguard Nid army along the same lines as Alex was (though I'd be looking at adding Mawlocs, they work great with a bunch of Lictors), the only thing that stopped me was not wanting to spend £80 on 5 Lictors.

As far as DE are concerned I think all the talk of them being nerfed to oblivion with the Jink FAQ is pure BS. Anybody running Venoms didn't rely on the Warriors for firepower and the Raiders can take Splinter Racks to twin link everybody's weapon. With 10 guys, one with a splinter cannon thats a minumum of 9 twin linked poison shots at 24" (assuming the Raider moved so the cannon's salvo range is halved) with up to 24 twin linked shots at 12". Admitedly at 85pts they're a bit expensive for AV10 all round but a 3+ jink makes them quite survivable. The only unit this really hurts are Trueborn, though at least the Venom's they'd be riding in have Flickerfields. Frankly, given the usability of Reavers, Incubi, Scourges, Razorwings, Grotesques and Talos I don't see any reason to weigh yourself down to a single unit type in the DE codex.

pm713 wrote:
No idea where you got that from. Standard here is 4 and won't help the DE player much. You mean a person who doesn't want to either play a different army (in fact the opposite of Dark Eldar) or have no shooting power in a shooting based book is somehow being irrational?

you play with ONLY FOUR terrain pieces?! better be some bigass multistructure multileveled pieces of terrain

seriously, i know there is no rules for it in the book (a shamful disgraze btw) but you guys should reaaaaally consider putting more terrain on the table. you should take alook at miniwargamings youtube channel, thats how a proper table should look like:



it just adds so much more variance into the game, actual maneuvering and hiding is a big part of 40k and if playing without terrain you are loosing that aspect of the game.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you were doing it for power-gaming reasons, just that basing a list on a single rule is dangerous..

I dare to challenge that. Allmost all white scars lists are build around a few special rules of one HQ that doesn't even have a model for editions now and jet they get buffed instead of FAQ't / rule changed into oblivion.
It is only dangerous if you are a non mainstream player.

What are you talking about?
There's exactly one named WS HQ and that's https://www.games-workshop.com/de-DE/Kor-sarro-Khan - as you can see he does have a model.

And White Scars armies are based on their Chapter Tactics, Scout from Khan is a really nice buff but just reinforces the armies general play style and basic design concept of "Look at me, I'm on a hors...erm, bike!". That's really not going to change, so having WS bike squads will never be a bad idea. Now, if I based my entire SM army around the Lib Conclave with Inquisition "warp charge battery" henchmen, I'd be royally fethed by the FAQ. "Great, you have 12 charges and can channel on a 2+, but you can only cast a total of two powers from your Conclave". "But you can just roflstomp with a Gladius" - sure, but there are other viable DE army lists, too - right?