Chikout wrote: Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?
No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I just like how the things that were somehow fine for vast majority of 40K history, like FOC having only 3 slots anyway, no charging from deep strike, or no first turn deep strikes, suddenly are colossal game ruining issues. Gee, deletion of half of enemy army from reserve strike with no interaction or possible counterplay from your opponent sure was fun and balanced, eh?
There's so much wrong in your post it's unreal.
And btw if you get half your army wiped out by turn 1 deep strike h2h you seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY, need to learn how to play. Even shooting deep strike is not going to wipe out stuff at will if you know how to use this concept called "screen". H2h? If opponent deep strike 1st turn assaults something worthwhile then it's because you played very badly. Seriously badly. Like somebody who hasn't even read rules before first game.
And max X limitations have been tried for TWENTY YEARS. They have failed to bring balance every single time. Actual practical empirical data has shown repeatedly that does NOT work. It's armchain experts who claim 0-3 limits bring balance. Real world examples have shown that to be false already.
Only thing that changed was that now the next rookie that brought the idea forward was Games Workshop. But same rule without changes does not make it better.
Meanwhile this now allows GW to conveniently forget to actually fix the problem. Did they fix units so they aren't broken when spammed? No? Then the problem still exists.
All GW did is limit scale and put head in sand. "naanaanaananaa. There's no problem. We don't have to fix issue".
If GW would do what they are supposed it wouldn't matter does opponent bring 7 hive tyrant or not(assuming points allow). They bring? Ok that army has it's weakness you can attack. They don't? Ok tyranids arent' screwed either.
It's not only flawed, it's utterly absurd. There isn't even a single game in the world with a tenth of amount of units available in 40K that is even remotely closed to being well balanced. Even if you somehow managed such a feat, and priced everything in the game to make it equally good without losing all flavour, which would require completely new far more granular points system anyway, there would be still an issue of all comers armies not being able to deal with skewed outliers. Say, all heavy tank army making most lighter enemy guns useless. Think army containing all rocks against army that has one third scissors. Or even something simpler, like slow melee army having problems catching quick motorized shooty one. Then, our local loud crew would still complaint game is garbage because their scissors can't beat rocks, something something, unbalanced gak, insert more hyperboles here. Funnily enough, GW made preemptive move to curb down all rocks armies with rules making spam slightly less common, and what they get in response? Of course, complains. GW can't win with some people, eh?
That is not to say I wouldn't like to see more balancing, but to do that, you first need solid base to do it on. You can't build balanced game on foundations including crutchy warptimed army deletions from deep strike coupled with chaff hordes and heavy gun spam being the king. You need to do away with systemic rot first, then, once you see how game plays now, comes time for fine tuned point balance. I wish I could live in fantasy world where point changes in crude, grainy points system precariously stacked like a mound of dominoes is all what we need, but alas, we do not.
Well gee nobody is expecting them to make it 100% perfect since it's impossible but GW isn't even trying(well no wonder seeing if they somehow would get it 100% their sales would drop).
What WOULD be nice they would at least aim to get as close as possible. Then they wouldn't even need 0-3 limitations which btw hurt weaker armies more than others while killing off entire fluffy armies. Good luck building deathwing army now.
And the limitation would be USELESS if GW did it's job. Only thing it actually archieved was give GW excuse for not fixing problem and increasing gap between powerful and weaker armies.
Question: Do you think IG is more powerful than Orks?
If you say IG why then IG benefitted from this FAQ while orks got hurt? 0-3 restriction also IG shrugs it off without sweat, orks meanwhile get hurt.
Eldar? Again while they lost power opponents lost more.
You are just theoretizing while ignoring real life experience. That or you somehow think that because it's GAMES WORKSHOP somehow that magically makes it better.
Every time you introduce blanket restriction that creates unbalance. Why? Because not all units are same. Rule that might work for unit X doesn't work for unit Y. Here's very simple kindergarden level example: Is 4 runtherds broken? Please try to show how 4 runtherds breaks the balance.
If you want to have balance you need to identify the PROBLEM units and fix THOSE rather than fire ICBM and hope it fixes issue. Collateral damage is too big. Which always results in poor armies suffering while powerful armies just shrugs it off. This is proven by actual attempts past 20 years. Blanket restrictions have been tried for 20 years and ALWAYS has resulted in worse balance than before. GW's attempt wasn't even particularly innovative. There's been much better attempts than this one and they failed too. Just like this one has failed in the past.
Why should it matter that the "fluff" of a list is being ruined in a tournament setting?
Why do all these people's lists need to be tournament viable anyways? The majority of 40k players aren't even tournament players to begin with. Is regular ol' match play with friends/at a store/gaming group just not good enough for your 9 Shield Captain on dawneagle Jetbike list? Or your "fluffy" 6 squads of 3 bikers with double plasmagun list?
Again. these are tournament rules. Not anything else. And if you're that dedicated about tournaments anyways, shouldn't you be aware of how often the flavor of the month and meta changes? Who are these tournament players that demand fluffy lists anyways? All I see are arguments for things that don't exist.
edit: and harlequins and other factions that have limited slot choices. Who would EVER run 4 shadowseers/troupe masters? Any serious list builder would know it would be more point efficient to run more harlequin squads anyways than spam HQs. Skyweavers, their only fast attack? You can have up to 18 skyweavers in a list. Thats 810 points of skyweaver. Again, nobody is doing and nobody would do this.
I find tournament armies to be the most unfluffy out there, albeit for obvious reasons. 7 flying hive tyrants is not fluffy. Nowhere in tyranids fluff do you read about tyranids swarms consisting of 7 hive tyrants. Ditto dark reaper spam etc.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I find tournament armies to be the most unfluffy out there, albeit for obvious reasons. 7 flying hive tyrants is not fluffy. Nowhere in tyranids fluff do you read about tyranids swarms consisting of 7 hive tyrants. Ditto dark reaper spam etc.
That's always been 40k though. Swarms of Rhinos or whatever is OP copypasta'd to the limit. Part of the reason I've really liked Allies is that the armies that use them tend to break this up quite a bit and are still overall quite fluffy unless you're one of those people opposed to Space Marines and the Guard working together.
Honestly, the biggest problem I have with these FAQs is formatting. The changes are now spread across like 30 PDFs.
The designer's commentary and stepping into new edition ones should probably be rolled into the Big FAQ as a general FAQ. I would also probably merge a bunch of the others by faction or category. A general FAQ, an Imperium one, a Chaos one, an Eldar one, and a Misc Xenos one would be a lot more manageable.
TheWaspinator wrote: Honestly, the biggest problem I have with these FAQs is formatting. The changes are now spread across like 30 PDFs.
The designer's commentary and stepping into new edition ones should probably be rolled into the Big FAQ as a general FAQ. I would also probably merge a bunch of the others by faction or category. A general FAQ, an Imperium one, a Chaos one, an Eldar one, and a Misc Xenos one would be a lot more manageable.
This is what I've felt, I've been trying to find certain things and people kept saying "get the FAQ" but there are so many it's hard to find the ones I need at any one time.
Your solution is clean and sensible, I have it does go that way.
The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight. I'd have more ichor if I weren't so enurred to it at this point. Although GW really needs to stop beating around the bush and just squat the Inquisition at this point. The treatment they get as a faction, and the false-found hope occasionally inspired on their behalf, is frustrating.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
Sure. But there'll probably be again a few tournament players who find an obscure loophole and create some freakish, super-exotic list-abomination. And while they'll play it, they'll rant endlessly about how GW should put more effort into making the game more "balanced" and tournament-viable. And when they do with the autumn-FAQ, they'll be again the first to rage against it on the interwebz.
Fafnir wrote: I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight.
After 10+ years, why not schedule a fun narrative game with your favorite gaming buddies to give the army a send off? Surely after 10+ years you know which local opponents you can invite to such a game and have a good time.
Sucks if you're a regular tournament or organized league player with that army though. I lucked out and my mixed nurgle ended up fitting with some things shuffled around in terms of a single mixed chaos detachment now needing a different keyword.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
Sure. But there'll probably be again a few tournament players who find an obscure loophole and create some freakish, super-exotic list-abomination. And while they'll play it, they'll rant endlessly about how GW should put more effort into making the game more "balanced" and tournament-viable. And when they do with the autumn-FAQ, they'll be again the first to rage against it on the interwebz.
Well... That makes sense. Tournament players are allowed to want the game to be better for everyone while still playing to win. After all, if the game is balanced, people wouldn't need to run "abominations" to win, and players in less competitive circles don't have to worry about accidentally cobbling together an "abomination" that would hurt their own group.
Really, that's just accepting the situation as it is while hoping for the better.
Don Savik wrote: Why should it matter that the "fluff" of a list is being ruined in a tournament setting?
Why do all these people's lists need to be tournament viable anyways? The majority of 40k players aren't even tournament players to begin with. Is regular ol' match play with friends/at a store/gaming group just not good enough for your 9 Shield Captain on dawneagle Jetbike list? Or your "fluffy" 6 squads of 3 bikers with double plasmagun list?
Again. these are tournament rules. Not anything else. And if you're that dedicated about tournaments anyways, shouldn't you be aware of how often the flavor of the month and meta changes? Who are these tournament players that demand fluffy lists anyways? All I see are arguments for things that don't exist.
edit: and harlequins and other factions that have limited slot choices. Who would EVER run 4 shadowseers/troupe masters? Any serious list builder would know it would be more point efficient to run more harlequin squads anyways than spam HQs. Skyweavers, their only fast attack? You can have up to 18 skyweavers in a list. Thats 810 points of skyweaver. Again, nobody is doing and nobody would do this.
Again. You are kidding yourself if you don't think these won't get adopted elsewhere. These will be de facto standards for everywhere and getting game that don't follow these are going to require special agreement. So buying models you aren't going to be able to field on default...
Also you know what? People like to bring fluffy unusual armies to tournaments as well! Shock horror. Not everybody plays hardest possible combination in tournaments either. Deathwing is pretty popular army in tournaments as well.
And on top of that those options are ruined because GW is too lazy to do it properly. Had they been willing to do their job rather than apply stupid 0-3 restrictions that have provenly shown to fail(including by GW themselves) there would have been no need for 0-3 blanket restriction. And GW could have dealt with problem deep strike units rather than this blanket system which for example killed any role kommando unit had. Whee! Kommandos were such a broken cheese right eh? Now remind me...When did kommandos dominate tournaments last time? What was justification for killing them?
Blanket restrictions never work. Core reason is simple. Rule that applies to everybody isn't equal to everybody since it affects units differently. If you hit with big enough nerf to hurt the biggest offender the ones that aren't problem gets hit. It's like sending ICBM with nuclear warhead to assasinate one guy inside a city with population of millions. Yes you'll catch the offender. Collateral damage is unacceptable levels though.
If there's problem unit deal with that specific unit. Scions were problem? Hit THEM. As it is all you did was give IG's their wet dream hope. This was such a IG's wet dream FAQ that it's surprising they didn't remove to-wound roll from the game alltogether to speed up the game!
Fafnir wrote: I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight.
After 10+ years, why not schedule a fun narrative game with your favorite gaming buddies to give the army a send off? Surely after 10+ years you know which local opponents you can invite to such a game and have a good time.
Because that's not the type of game I enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I spend a lot of time putting a lot of work into my armies, my Inquisitional forces themselves being extremely heavily converted/scratch built, and I tend to get rather extensive in developing fluff for them to boot. But at the table itself, I play to win, and am of the firm belief that narrative is not something that is 'forged,' but rather something that develops organically through memorable moments and circumstances that naturally occur within games, not something that players set up (that's what we have books for).
I'm not much of a tournament player outside of local events, but I am competitive. Now, I generally stick to models that I enjoy from modelling and gameplay (as in, is this unit fun to use) perspectives. By "playing to win," I mean that I don't enjoy making intentionally weak lists, and I don't enjoy taking courses of action that are knowingly poor ones. I want my opponent to be able to beat me, but to pull my punches to allow them to do so is insulting to the both of us, and is boring for me. Moreover, beating opponents constantly and without effort is also boring, which is why I like to encourage them to develop better game plans themselves. Ultimately, while I play to win, I don't actually care about who actually wins or loses. What I do care about is having earned the result.
Fafnir wrote: By "playing to win," I mean that I don't enjoy making intentionally weak lists, and I don't enjoy taking courses of action that are knowingly poor ones. I want my opponent to be able to beat me, but to pull my punches to allow them to do so is insulting to the both of us, and is boring for me. Moreover, beating opponents constantly and without effort is also boring, which is why I like to encourage them to develop better game plans themselves. Ultimately, while I play to win, I don't actually care about who actually wins or loses. What I do care about is having earned the result.
All of that is just how I play every time I play a Planetfall Scenario or a game with Open War cards using PL.
Not sure where people get the idea that outside of Matched Play, this is not the case.
If anything, having to adapt on the fly to an unusual battlefield condition from an Open War card with an army that isn't necessarily designed for it makes the "competitive", "think on your feet" aspect much more pronounced in Open Play than it does in the highly restrictive, formalised and thus more predictable Tournament-Matched-Play environment.
Sure, once every 10 games or so, there's a blow-out, but that happens in tournaments just the same.
tneva82 wrote: Had they been willing to do their job rather than apply stupid 0-3 restrictions that have provenly shown to fail(including by GW themselves) there would have been no need for 0-3 blanket restriction.
Curbing exponential unit effectiveness with a limit (a mechanic that has been a staple of game design for ages) translates directly into the ability to price individual units correctly.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight. I'd have more ichor if I weren't so enurred to it at this point. Although GW really needs to stop beating around the bush and just squat the Inquisition at this point. The treatment they get as a faction, and the false-found hope occasionally inspired on their behalf, is frustrating.
I expect that I'll retire my Custodes because of the first turn deep strike thing. I can now either have my army shot up as I walk across the board for three turns that I won't have, or else lose half of my army before the other half even appears and then try to do something with half an army against an enemy at full strength.
Guess that's what I get for not spamming jetbikes...
Sunny Side Up wrote: Not sure where people get the idea that outside of Matched Play, this is not the case.
If anything, having to adapt on the fly to an unusual battlefield condition from an Open War card with an army that isn't necessarily designed for it makes the "competitive", "think on your feet" aspect much more pronounced in Open Play than it does in the highly restrictive, formalised and thus more predictable Tournament-Matched-Play environment.
The expectation for some people is pretty much this:
Fafnir wrote: But at the table itself, I play to win, and am of the firm belief that narrative is not something that is 'forged,' but rather something that develops organically through memorable moments and circumstances that naturally occur within games, not something that players set up (that's what we have books for).
A good rule framework that allows for decent player control that can lead to naturally occurring narrative and tactical situations without the need for outside influence.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
The idea is that if you have to set something up to happen, you are cheated out of your reward because of course it happens as planned. Similar to playing Listbuilding: The Game, the skill here is not to play the actual game well and have something awesome happen along the way, but to plan the "game" well in advance and then just let it play out with as little interference from the players as possible so as not to ruin the planned great narrative/moment of thinking on your feet/whatever.
It's basically about wanting the game to mean something, not the whole setup around it.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, have an Inquisitorial mandate and speak with the voice of the Emperor. Your superior officer can go suck it.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, have an Inquisitorial mandate and speak with the voice of the Emperor. Your superior officer can go suck it.
You have bigger Inquisitors coming around. And then maybe your Inquisitor realizes losing battle where hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys with titans and whatnot is important enough that the tiny inconsequential battle isn't end of the world. Inquisitors are generally supposed to work for Imperium rather than personal vendettas and Imperium can burn.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, have an Inquisitorial mandate and speak with the voice of the Emperor. Your superior officer can go suck it.
You have bigger Inquisitors coming around. And then maybe your Inquisitor realizes losing battle where hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys with titans and whatnot is important enough that the tiny inconsequential battle isn't end of the world. Inquisitors are generally supposed to work for Imperium rather than personal vendettas and Imperium can burn.
My Inquisitors always work for the good of the Imperium. You're just not seeing the big picture. Titans, hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys are an acceptable loss.
tneva82 wrote: For insignificant skirmish of no consequence...
you don't seem to grasp the scale of 40k battles. The game represents more like bar crawl for us.
The game represents whatever you want it to represent. From the clash of exactly the forces you see on the table to a tiny fraction of a wider conflict. The background is wide open by design and lets you do pretty much whatever you please. As such it's entirely pointless to argue whether you or I are right on the matter. If you want your games to be insignificant skirmishes of no consequence, I cannot rightfully claim otherwise. Nor can you prove me wrong if I see my games as self-contained. That's just not how it works.
The rules, on the other hand, are less flexible in no small part due to GW's fixation with a certain game philosophy. Unlike the background that can be tailored to each player's liking, the rules are firm and cater to a subset of casual players the most. If you like loose rules, making stuff up on the fly and throwing in random events at every turn, GW provides. If you like a more controlled environment, you're mostly out of luck.
No amount of fluffing bogus rules will actually improve the game experience if it's the rule implementation you object to.
I'm pretty bummed about my Inquisition stuff as well. I think these changes needed to happen, but I've definitely been hoping they'd fix things before they had to break them when it comes to the Inquisition. That's really not a problem with the FAQ though; just a problem with how they relied on the Imperial keyword as a catch all for models they didn't otherwise have a plan for. I don't have a particularly large 40k collection and I'm definitely have fears that the Deathwatch codex is going to invalidate the rest of my collection in favor of Primaris, but changes like this are still really healthy and needed to keep players heavily invested in the game.
LunarSol wrote: I'm pretty bummed about my Inquisition stuff as well. I think these changes needed to happen, but I've definitely been hoping they'd fix things before they had to break them when it comes to the Inquisition. That's really not a problem with the FAQ though; just a problem with how they relied on the Imperial keyword as a catch all for models they didn't otherwise have a plan for. I don't have a particularly large 40k collection and I'm definitely have fears that the Deathwatch codex is going to invalidate the rest of my collection in favor of Primaris, but changes like this are still really healthy and needed to keep players heavily invested in the game.
Real easy fix for inquisition would have been to add a rule to Authority of the Inquisition that exempted them from Battle Brother rules. Inquisition forces often attach themselves to other organizations in their efforts, which is why they have that rule in the first place, and adding that to the rule would make so much sense and not really break anything in my opinion. You could then include a single assassin with an inquisition detachment if you did not want to have to field three in a vanguard. Although, I honestly think Independent Operative should also work that way (providing Battle Brother exemption), which would also fix assassins.
LunarSol wrote: I'm pretty bummed about my Inquisition stuff as well. I think these changes needed to happen, but I've definitely been hoping they'd fix things before they had to break them when it comes to the Inquisition. That's really not a problem with the FAQ though; just a problem with how they relied on the Imperial keyword as a catch all for models they didn't otherwise have a plan for. I don't have a particularly large 40k collection and I'm definitely have fears that the Deathwatch codex is going to invalidate the rest of my collection in favor of Primaris, but changes like this are still really healthy and needed to keep players heavily invested in the game.
Real easy fix for inquisition would have been to add a rule to Authority of the Inquisition that exempted them from Battle Brother rules. Inquisition forces often attach themselves to other organizations in their efforts, which is why they have that rule in the first place, and adding that to the rule would make so much sense and not really break anything in my opinion. You could then include a single assassin with an inquisition detachment if you did not want to have to field three in a vanguard. Although, I honestly think Independent Operative should also work that way (providing Battle Brother exemption), which would also fix assassins.
Have this weird feeling they were ignored for a reason.
The new Deathwatch Codex is coming out, and I'm sure they did not want to change the rules already written for this army. Would not be surprised to see Ordo Xenos on some of their datasheets.
I'm fine with Inquisitors in a Vanguard detachment, for now. It's not like Acolytes are a bad thing.
Hi guys, just bringing this issue from the Codex: Craftworlds thread.
Shriftshroud relic allows you to go on reserve and appear by deepstrike in your first movement phase.
This was clearly designed without the FAQ nerf to 1st turn deepstrike and it's now not only almost useless (as you can't decide to deepstrike properly on turn 2) but also contrary to the spirit of the original rules.
Do you think we should ask GW for this (and other similar rules) to be errata'ed?
I'm fine with Inquisitors in a Vanguard detachment, for now. It's not like Acolytes are a bad thing.
That's a good point. I've mostly been running a supreme command mix of HQs that are now a lot harder to fit (adding MORE Grey Knights doesn't sound like a great plan....). I should definitely look into making some acolytes. They're certainly nice, but the lack of models meant I didn't really bother.
I think the rules on deepstrike are pretty clear. They want you on your side of the board. And when you arrive, they don't want you moving.
There is value in deploying outside your enemy's deployment zone board turn 1, and for waiting until turn 2. The reason it seems this is useless is that some players have gotten used to a playstyle centered around turn 1 charges, which isn't happening anymore.
As more players adapt, the value will become clear. But saying its useless just means you haven't played many games post-FAQ yet.
I'm fine with Inquisitors in a Vanguard detachment, for now. It's not like Acolytes are a bad thing.
That's a good point. I've mostly been running a supreme command mix of HQs that are now a lot harder to fit (adding MORE Grey Knights doesn't sound like a great plan....). I should definitely look into making some acolytes. They're certainly nice, but the lack of models meant I didn't really bother.
That's weird. Until a couple months ago, I could still find all the old henchman models on GW's site by searching for them by name. Now all I see is Warriors and Acolytes.
DanielFM wrote: Hi guys, just bringing this issue from the Codex: Craftworlds thread.
Shriftshroud relic allows you to go on reserve and appear by deepstrike in your first movement phase.
This was clearly designed without the FAQ nerf to 1st turn deepstrike and it's now not only almost useless (as you can't decide to deepstrike properly on turn 2) but also contrary to the spirit of the original rules.
Do you think we should ask GW for this (and other similar rules) to be errata'ed?
Its clear what can deepstrike and where, and what cant. Yup, it made it worthless, but oh well. Adapt and change up the strat
DanielFM wrote: Hi guys, just bringing this issue from the Codex: Craftworlds thread.
Shriftshroud relic allows you to go on reserve and appear by deepstrike in your first movement phase.
This was clearly designed without the FAQ nerf to 1st turn deepstrike and it's now not only almost useless (as you can't decide to deepstrike properly on turn 2) but also contrary to the spirit of the original rules.
Do you think we should ask GW for this (and other similar rules) to be errata'ed?
Does it actually say "Go into Reserves"? If it doesn't than it would work like Wings of Fire and Gates of Infinity, and you are allowed to redeploy on the first turn if the unit starts on the table.
All the units in each Detachment must share at least one faction keyword, and it cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Eldar, etc.
That affects units in DETACHMENTS. That does not affect Detachments in ARMIES.
So you're saying that a Death Guard army that includes Plague Bearers, or Beasts of Nurgle, or Nurglings - all things from their own Codex, not Chaos Daemons - wouldn't suffer because of this new rule, even if they're in the same detachment?
All the units in each Detachment must share at least one faction keyword, and it cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Eldar, etc.
That affects units in DETACHMENTS. That does not affect Detachments in ARMIES.
So you're saying that a Death Guard army that includes Plague Bearers, or Beasts of Nurgle, or Nurglings - all things from their own Codex, not Chaos Daemons - wouldn't suffer because of this new rule, even if they're in the same detachment?
No. They share the Nurgle Keyword and they are fine. They wouldn't get the Battle-Forged-Death-Guard-specific-bonuses, just as they didn't get those before the FAQ, but Nurgle (just like Tzeentch, Khorne, Slaanesh) is a valid Keyword to tie a Detachment together.
You could even throw in Epidemius or a Nurgle Soulgrinder or something like that into that Detachment without a problem.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So do the Death Guard Marines lose their special rules if they take Plague Bearers in the same detachment?
You don't lose any special abilities printed on the datasheet.
You do not get the bonuses you explicitly get for a Detachment that only includes units with the Death Guard Keyword (again, unchanged from pre-FAQ). Those would be:
- Inexorable Advance
- Plague Host (i.e. ObSec)
- Unlocking Death Guard Stratagems (at least via this Detachment)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Right, so, just to clarify/confirm, Deathguard armies are punished for taking units from their own Codex?
As they were before the FAQ no? (Not entirely sure, just know it screwed my CSM if I took the Daemons in book in a detachment Strategem/relics wise eyc)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Right, so, just to clarify/confirm, Deathguard armies are punished for taking units from their own Codex?
Just like all armies. An Ultramarine detachment including an Imperial Fist gets "punished" just the same. And it's no different than an all-Jetbike Eldar army being "punished" with less command points for not bringing Guardians.
It's not punishing to offer some extra-incentives for limiting yourself with unit selection and/or to off-set more unit flexibility with reduced access to some special rules.
That's been a staple of 40K since forever. Arguably, it's much, much, much more toned down in 8th than it was in the formation days of 7th.
You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Daemons are a different army than Death Guard Space Marines. Just because they re-printed the rules for reference for abilities such as summoning or some stratagems, so people don't have to buy the Daemons Codex as well, doesn't mean they're part of it. And you can easily do a Daemon-heavy Detachment with maybe a Malign Plague Caster and a Sorcerer and lots of Daemons, that loses nothing from having the (utterly unfluffy) not-Battle-Focus-run-and-shoot rule.
If you claim they "must be the same army" just because they are in the same book, than Imperial Fists and Ultramarines are also the same army by the same logic.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Daemons are a different army than Death Guard Space Marines. Just because they re-printed the rules for reference for abilities such as summoning or some stratagems, so people don't have to buy the Daemons Codex as well, doesn't mean they're part of it.
No... they're in the Codex. They're part of that army. They're part of that book. They're not reprinted for 'reference'. They're part of the Death Guard Codex. The fact that the units overlap with another army is utterly irrelevant and an arbitrary, nay, an imaginary distinction. You have invented a divide that simply does not exist. Plaguebearers are part of the Death Guard Codex. Why would you Death Guard army lose its rules because you took something from your own book.
The very notion that an army can be punished by taking units from your own book is ludicrous. How can it not be seen that way? This is dumber than 8th's ed's idiotic LOS rules.
Sunny Side Up wrote: If you claim they "must be the same army" just because they are in the same book, than Imperial Fists and Ultramarines are also the same army by the same logic.
But there's no such thing as an Ultramarine or an Imperial Fist army. Those are special rules applied to a Space Marine army, taken from the Space Marine Codex.
Again, the comparison isn't "Ultramarines" and "Imperial Fists". The comparison is units.
If your Space Marine army chose the Ultramarine Special rule, but lost those rules upon taking Devastator Squads, that would be the equivalent.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Daemons are a different army than Death Guard Space Marines. Just because they re-printed the rules for reference for abilities such as summoning or some stratagems, so people don't have to buy the Daemons Codex as well, doesn't mean they're part of it. And you can easily do a Daemon-heavy Detachment with maybe a Malign Plague Caster and a Sorcerer and lots of Daemons, that loses nothing from having the (utterly unfluffy) not-Battle-Focus-run-and-shoot rule.
If you claim they "must be the same army" just because they are in the same book, than Imperial Fists and Ultramarines are also the same army by the same logic.
You must not know 40k very well to think anything you said is true. It's not the *same* logic at all as Imperial Fists and Ultramarines, as stated, are totally different forces. Have you ever seen an Ultramarine librarian summon Imperial fists in the same way a chaos sorceror summons demons? Space marines, Imperial guard, eldar, etc all fight in their different factions using totally different tactics, command and control, logistics, etc however Demons have always been simply another unit in a chaos space marine force. It's pretty stupid that Deathguard would LOSE special rules by fighting alongside a unit that they are trained to fight with. It's okay to understand that the rule-as-written is dumb.
Nurgle daemons are not part of a Death Guard army, they are not part of that legion, they are allies of that legion, which is a different thing.
It's not like the Death Guard codex is the only one that works that way, Thousand Sons are also designed like that.
Since you have models that can summon, and bringing a whole codex with you just to have the stats for those daemons would be cumbersome, they have added some reference data sheets in your codex.
If you want those units in your detachment and still have the bonuses of a pure DG detachment, you can reserve the points and summon those daemons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would you Death Guard army lose its rules because you took something from your own book.
Because Plaguebearers are not Death Guard in the background. They aren't descended from Mortarion and/or the Emperor. They aren't gene-engineered super soldiers who have fallen to Chaos and/or warmachines build by the (Dark) Mechanicum for them.
They are units from a different army that happens to be in the same book.
The very notion that an army can be punished by taking units from your own book is ludicrous. How can it not be seen that way? This is dumber than 8th's ed's idiotic LOS rules.
Again, the comparison isn't "Ultramarines" and "Imperial Fists". The comparison is units.
If your Space Marine army chose the Ultramarine Special rule, but lost those rules upon taking Devastator Squads, that would be the equivalent.
Than it's Ultramarines taking a Crusader Squad. Or Lysander. Point remains. Simply being in the same book doesn't mean they are automatically or intended to be the same army all the time no matter what. Or Khorne Daemons taking Daemonettes. Or now a Kabal-Detachment taking a unit of Wyches.
8th Ed. Codexes (just like those from previous Editions) don't work on the basis or claim that everything in a book is always of the very same army background-wise and can always be combined willy-nilly without any loss of some special rules included only to promote more fluffy armies to begin with.
You CAN combine them if you want. But the designers also added a few carrots to reward people who stick closer to the background. To me, that seems like the perfect middle-ground between making things impossible and not giving a gak about background at all.
Spoletta wrote: Nurgle daemons are not part of a Death Guard army, they are not part of that legion, they are allies of that legion, which is a different thing.
You're arguing fluff. I'm arguing mechanics.
Mechanically each army has a book. In that book are that army's rules.
The Deathguard have their book. It's called Codex Deathguard. In Codex Deathguard you have units. This book creates a situation where the player is penalised for taking units from their own book.
"Daemons are from another book!" No, they're from the Deathguard book. Printed in black and white (and green, I suppose).
There is no Ultramarine Codex. There is no Imperial First Codex. What there is is Codex Space Marines. If there was a rule that caused you to lose whatever special rules you have applied to your army by taking a unit from that same Codex, it wouldn't be right.
"You cannot use the White Scar special rules that you have applied to your Space Marine army because you took a Vindicator". That would be stupid.
This is the same thing. This isn't about fluff. This is about mechanics. These mechanics are in dire need of a Tech-Priest!!!
Mechanically each army has a book. In that book are that army's rules.
There is no Ultramarine Codex. There is no Imperial First Codex. What there is is Codex Space Marines. If there was a rule that caused you to lose whatever special rules you have applied to your army by taking a unit from that same Codex, it wouldn't be right.
You're proving your own point. If each army has a book "mechanically" (quote please!), than there is no "Ultramarines army" or "Imperial Fist" army in 40K, there'd only be a Space Marine army because that's the book.
So nobody should lose rules for throwing in Tigurius, Shrike and a Crusader Squad. But they do ...
You know why?
Because Codex books for 40K 8th Edition can and do include units from and for multiple armies!!!
Your entire rant hinges on a weird, fabricated one-book-one-army rule that is nowhere to be found and has never ever been a thing in 40K.
Hell, if every book were by default one army ... Indexes would be pretty good again!!
Again, you are inventing a distinction that does not exist. "Multiple armies?" What does that mean.
What "armies" come out of Codex Space Marines? I'll tell you. Just one: Space Marine armies.
Then special rules are applied to that army, depending on what you want. A Special Character limiting the use of said special rules doesn't strike me as particularly repugnant because, well, this is where fluff and mechanics cross over.
Tigurious is an Ultramarine character, so naturally you should have him in a Space Marine army that uses the Ultramarine special rules, and if you weren't, you wouldn't gain said benefits.
But if you want to go at this from a fluff perspective, fine:
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
But if you want to go at this from a fluff perspective, fine:
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
They don't. If you summon them, you get to keep all your precious special rules. It's almost, almost as if ... as if that's what the designers want to encourage!!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Again, you are inventing a distinction that does not exist. "Multiple armies?" What does that mean.
What "armies" come out of Codex Space Marines? I'll tell you. Just one: Space Marine armies.
Then special rules are applied to that army, depending on what you want. A Special Character limiting the use of said special rules doesn't strike me as particularly repugnant because, well, this is where fluff and mechanics cross over.
Tigurious is an Ultramarine character, so naturally you should have him in a Space Marine army that uses the Ultramarine special rules, and if you weren't, you wouldn't gain said benefits.
But if you want to go at this from a fluff perspective, fine:
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
Ok, let's try a different comparison then. Do you know how the loci work for Chaos Daemon? That's exactly whats going on here. Your Deathguard Detachment gets a bonus for specialising/limiting themselfes to only Death Guard units, just like for example a Khorne Chaos Daemon Detachment get's a bonus for not having any Nurglings, but only Khorne Daemons.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
They are my favorite model in the game. Also I really liked the hit and run playstyle. I did it in WHFB with Wood Elves, I did it in 40k with Lictors. While it lasted, that is.
Also, I have been telling GW many things multiple times. for example the fact that Rubric marines currently have two different datasheets (with the same name but different rules), both of them 100% valid at the same time. And two FAQs later, this has not been addressed.
Did it ever dawn on you that your situation might be rather rare?
Do you seriously belive that GW can ever make EVERYONE, including those that bought nine lictors, happy?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
They are my favorite model in the game. Also I really liked the hit and run playstyle. I did it in WHFB with Wood Elves, I did it in 40k with Lictors. While it lasted, that is.
Also, I have been telling GW many things multiple times. for example the fact that Rubric marines currently have two different datasheets (with the same name but different rules), both of them 100% valid at the same time. And two FAQs later, this has not been addressed.
Did it ever dawn on you that your situation might be rather rare?
Do you seriously belive that GW can ever make EVERYONE, including those that bought nine lictors, happy?
The current rules changes.
text removed.
Reds8n
/ Best regards, Fredrik
It's not about making people happy, it's about the same company that sold you physical copies of models is now forbidding you to use them in their official ruling. Not a tournament comp, not a third party or FLGS house ruling, the actual company that makes the game.
MtG does the same by rotating out cards from past years I suppose, so that makes a precedent. And sure, they give you alternative formats to use your old cards, just as you are allowed to play 9 lictors in narrative play. However, warhammer and MtG are not the same. In MtG you get 15 cards for 3 bucks and that's the end of it (of course you should always draft your packs otherwise you are an uncivilized brute). In warhammer you spend 30 bucks for one model and then an extra 10-15 bucks on paints and 5-10 hours to prepare, paint and base it. It's a HUGE slap to the face if you are not allowed to bring your nicely painted models in a tournament by orders of the same company that encourages you to buy more models.
They could have any other kind of restriction to limit spam. Points penalties, diminishing returns, you name it. But banning physical models is insane. This is not a video game, it's not like we can cancel our models and instantly get our money back.
I think a better example for the chaos+daemons thing is if servitors didn’t have the chapter trait or if ratlings and ogryn didn’t have the regiment trait. Chaos space marines have always had the option of splashing a few daemons in. I don’t understand why the basic daemons didn’t have the same rule fallen get in CSM. Now they have difficult summoning rules AND remove you legion traits? I think GW just wants you to spend more money and start a daemon army.
Except GW placing restriction on force compositions is not a new thing. Prior to 7th edition, the belt was kept pretty tight, and the current composition rules are still largely open compared to those days. This is nothing new, it's been this way for decades.
I'll be among the first to say that the FAQ was scatterbrained and an absolute mess, but the problems with these changes, and the 0-3 restriction itself, have more to do with their interactions being poorly thought out with the current state of the game and its armies than the nature of the changes to the core systems themselves.
Unit restrictions in themselves are not a bad thing. 40k opens itself up to a huge problem with spam where certain units increase in effectiveness near exponentially with redundancy, and a lot of times the only way to curb that is with such limits. Linking stratagems to unit abilities can help at times (see Riptide double roid mode, for example), since stratagems are limited in spam potential themselves, but tying command point use to a much broader redevelopment towards how stratagems work and command points are cultivated. And as much as I think that's a good idea that organically helps to reduce the effectiveness of unit redundancies, often you just need to deal in raw numbers.
Henshini wrote: I think a better example for the chaos+daemons thing is if servitors didn’t have the chapter trait or if ratlings and ogryn didn’t have the regiment trait. Chaos space marines have always had the option of splashing a few daemons in. I don’t understand why the basic daemons didn’t have the same rule fallen get in CSM. Now they have difficult summoning rules AND remove you legion traits? I think GW just wants you to spend more money and start a daemon army.
????
First, if you summon them, Daemons don't break your Legion trait.
Second, in most previous editions, you were FORCED to summon daemons. It was the only way you could get them on the table in a pure Chaos Space Marines army. Now summoning is optional, even if you take some disadvantages for just fielding them without summoning in ways you couldn't possibly ever do in 4th, 5th, etc...
In 7th, there were ways to get mixed Daemons/CSM to the table with with formations, etc.., but guess what, these formations were far more restrictive in other ways and breaking the far more specific formation rules also meant you lost the associated benefits. Going straight-up unbound Daemons/CSM mix without following the guidelines of formations or "decurions" was far more costly in 7th than losing a legion trait is in 8th.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
They are my favorite model in the game. Also I really liked the hit and run playstyle. I did it in WHFB with Wood Elves, I did it in 40k with Lictors. While it lasted, that is.
Also, I have been telling GW many things multiple times. for example the fact that Rubric marines currently have two different datasheets (with the same name but different rules), both of them 100% valid at the same time. And two FAQs later, this has not been addressed.
Did it ever dawn on you that your situation might be rather rare?
Do you seriously belive that GW can ever make EVERYONE, including those that bought nine lictors, happy?
The current rules changes.
text removed.
Reds8n
/ Best regards, Fredrik
It's not about making people happy, it's about the same company that sold you physical copies of models is now forbidding you to use them in their official ruling. Not a tournament comp, not a third party or FLGS house ruling, the actual company that makes the game.
MtG does the same by rotating out cards from past years I suppose, so that makes a precedent. And sure, they give you alternative formats to use your old cards, just as you are allowed to play 9 lictors in narrative play. However, warhammer and MtG are not the same. In MtG you get 15 cards for 3 bucks and that's the end of it (of course you should always draft your packs otherwise you are an uncivilized brute). In warhammer you spend 30 bucks for one model and then an extra 10-15 bucks on paints and 5-10 hours to prepare, paint and base it. It's a HUGE slap to the face if you are not allowed to bring your nicely painted models in a tournament by orders of the same company that encourages you to buy more models.
They could have any other kind of restriction to limit spam. Points penalties, diminishing returns, you name it. But banning physical models is insane. This is not a video game, it's not like we can cancel our models and instantly get our money back.
Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no restrictions to anything, ever? If not where are you drawing the line? What models is banned by the FAQ ?
MTG is a truly worthless comparison - do you buy booster packs of models hoping for the right rare? No you choose specific models and buy them.
I really can't see what the problem is here other than you want to play a specific list and are not allowed to?
Henshini wrote: I think a better example for the chaos+daemons thing is if servitors didn’t have the chapter trait or if ratlings and ogryn didn’t have the regiment trait. Chaos space marines have always had the option of splashing a few daemons in. I don’t understand why the basic daemons didn’t have the same rule fallen get in CSM. Now they have difficult summoning rules AND remove you legion traits? I think GW just wants you to spend more money and start a daemon army.
????
First, if you summon them, Daemons don't break your Legion trait.
Second, in most previous editions, you were FORCED to summon daemons. It was the only way you could get them on the table in a pure Chaos Space Marines army. Now summoning is optional, even if you take some disadvantages for just fielding them without summoning in ways you couldn't possibly ever do in 4th, 5th, etc...
In 7th, there were ways to get mixed Daemons/CSM to the table with with formations, etc.., but guess what, these formations were far more restrictive in other ways and breaking the far more specific formation rules also meant you lost the associated benefits. Going straight-up unbound Daemons/CSM mix without following the guidelines of formations or "decurions" was far more costly in 7th than losing a legion trait is in 8th.
GW put the rules for nurgle daemons in the DG codex so you didn't have to buy the daemon codex to use your DG characters' abilty to summon daemons.
You can also build totally legal detachments using plaguebearers. They just don't get the DG legion trait. That might not matter too much though, if say you build a battalion with a daemon prince and a chaos lord as characters. They don't lose much. I'd probably go for a daemon detachment instead, but the option is there and it's not awful.
The point is, putting the rules in the book is better than not putting them in. It's good to have the option available, even if you don't take it.
As for the changes, I really like them. The only one I'm a bit wary of is the deep strike change. I like it in principle, but in practice it obviously changes the value of lots of deep strike units, which should result in their points being adjusted downwards. It's ironic to see hive tyrants hit by the 0-3 nerf, the tactical reserve nerf and have their points go up as well. Bit harsh.
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
They dont. Only if they are part of the detachement in army list creation. Notice that nurglings, plaguebearers and beast of nurgle dont have a points cost only power level for summoning in Codex: Death Guard. On the other hand chaos spawn have the Death Guard keyword and a points cost.
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
They dont. Only if they are part of the detachement in army list creation. Notice that nurglings, plaguebearers and beast of nurgle dont have a points cost only power level for summoning in Codex: Death Guard. On the other hand chaos spawn have the Death Guard keyword and a points cost.
I hadn't noticed they don't have a points value. They actually do have one in the enhanced edition, if you click on their force org icon, but there's nothing in the back of the book.
That's actually unhelpful. You still need to pay reinforcement points to summon them, so it would be handy if the book said how much they cost!
Nevermind wrote: Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
No it's not. RAW you need to resolve unclear situations in 40K by intent, for failing that by rolling a D6. Textualism, the textual interpretation of rules is not allowed in 40K. Intent is clear from the facebook page.
Nevermind wrote: Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
As is Upon Wings of Fire for Blood Angels (with more CP in the back pocket anyhow). Basically .. lists stay as they are.
Na, not really. Is not the same to have an unsupported unit of 30 ork boyz in your face turn 1, or 1-2 squads of Blood Angels without support character, than what we had previously.
Blood Angels can put you a squad of Death Company with the 2CP stratagem and one of Sanguinary Guard with Upon Wings of Fire. But they will have 0 character support until turn 2.
This "clarification" means that... theres still ways to make turn one charges, but they have been nerfed. They are now a tool to use carefully, not a thing you do every single game.
Nevermind wrote: Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
This is wrong like almost everything you add to these FAQ and rumor threads.
1. Ork Weirdboyz
Using Da Jump, you'll still be able to deliver your favourite infantry unit to the enemy frontlines in your first turn. Like any ability that lets you move an already-deployed unit, it's unaffected by the new beta rule.
Please reread the second sentence and stop with this false narrative. It's sad.
Nevermind wrote: Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
This is wrong like almost everything you add to these FAQ and rumor threads.
1. Ork Weirdboyz
Using Da Jump, you'll still be able to deliver your favourite infantry unit to the enemy frontlines in your first turn. Like any ability that lets you move an already-deployed unit, it's unaffected by the new beta rule.
Please reread the second sentence and stop with this false narrative. It's sad.
docdoom77 wrote: This still doesn't fix the emergency invasion beamer issue. Sigh.
What issue?
I would imagine if you go first and move a Night Scythe up the table which is then destroyed in your opponents turn, are you allowed to use the Emergency Invasion Beamer stratagem or not, since you'll then be deplying a unit from reserves outside of your deployment zone turn 1? RAW I'd say no though that looks more like an unintended consequence than anything.
docdoom77 wrote: This still doesn't fix the emergency invasion beamer issue. Sigh.
What issue?
I would imagine if you go first and move a Night Scythe up the table which is then destroyed in your opponents turn, are you allowed to use the Emergency Invasion Beamer stratagem or not, since you'll then be deplying a unit from reserves outside of your deployment zone turn 1? RAW I'd say no though that looks more like an unintended consequence than anything.
That's not an issue, if you read the rule it is clear in the RAW, the limitation is only "On the player's first turn". Whatever happens during your opponent turn is unrestricted, including deathmarks.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ.
Pretty sure the Auxillia are allowed.
Sure, but that doesn't change that anything with <Regiment> breaks the Tempestus.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ.
Pretty sure the Auxillia are allowed.
Sure, but that doesn't change that anything with <Regiment> breaks the Tempestus.
Which isn't what he said:
Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword?
However, re-reading the relevant rules, Tyr is actually correct.
Which means by RaW, Tempestus that want to use Storm Troopers can't have Commissars. Hilarious.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I think it might be time to let this thread die. All that's left is the crying, and that's saved for a Discussions thread.
My thoughts on the whole FAQ issue summed up nicely in a Reddit post:
Woulda been better if GW was stomping on a 40k table with a giant AM boot in the cartoon - it would be a lot more accurate. Oblivious fans - GW being GW - and people who actaully play the game being like...WTFOMG!?!??!
He's not wrong though. Trying to claim that a post on the official facebook page somehow isn't official is the epitome of being a poor loser.
Also this thread needs to be taken out back and humanely put down already.
The people that is saying this image of the Facebook page isn't official reminds me the people that arguee that the "Developer's Commentary" wasn't an official FAQ because it wasn't named as such , it was just PR and marketing!
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I think it might be time to let this thread die. All that's left is the crying, and that's saved for a Discussions thread.
My thoughts on the whole FAQ issue summed up nicely in a Reddit post:
Woulda been better if GW was stomping on a 40k table with a giant AM boot in the cartoon - it would be a lot more accurate. Oblivious fans - GW being GW - and people who actaully play the game being like...WTFOMG!?!??!
Manfred von Drakken wrote: I think it might be time to let this thread die. All that's left is the crying, and that's saved for a Discussions thread.
My thoughts on the whole FAQ issue summed up nicely in a Reddit post:
Woulda been better if GW was stomping on a 40k table with a giant AM boot in the cartoon - it would be a lot more accurate. Oblivious fans - GW being GW - and people who actaully play the game being like...WTFOMG!?!??!
A post that proves the Meme. We are getting Meta up in this thread.
docdoom77 wrote: This still doesn't fix the emergency invasion beamer issue. Sigh.
What issue?
I would imagine if you go first and move a Night Scythe up the table which is then destroyed in your opponents turn, are you allowed to use the Emergency Invasion Beamer stratagem or not, since you'll then be deplying a unit from reserves outside of your deployment zone turn 1? RAW I'd say no though that looks more like an unintended consequence than anything.
The wording actually states during a player's first turn, not during the player's first turn. I actually interpret this as meaning either player's first turn. I don't think it's the intention, but i wouldn't play my Deathmarks outside my deployment zone until the second battle round. I will, however, be giving some feedback to GW to have this clarified if and when these rules become official.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Right, so, just to clarify/confirm, Deathguard armies are punished for taking units from their own Codex?
Not at all, you are just pushing an anti-GW narrative as you often do. What is happening is that Death Guard are rewarded for taking only units with that keyword. Their units weren't suddenly given a penalty they didn't have, they were given a reward they didn't have. To call it punishment is untrue.
The daemon warscrolls are there to be convenient for summoning purposes. The great hypocrisy is that you wouldn't hesitate to criticise GW for forcing players to buy another codex just to summon basic daemons.
from what I saw.
