[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]
Harlequins say hi.
Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.
Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.
Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood the new ruling, but the grav chute insertion didn't change that much. You still can leave the valkyrie, so you are within the 9" needed for the Hotshot-Lasguns RapidFire Range.
[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]
Harlequins say hi.
Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.
Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.
Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood the new ruling, but the grav chute insertion didn't change that much. You still can leave the valkyrie, so you are within the 9" needed for the Hotshot-Lasguns RapidFire Range.
Or am I wrong here?
You can’t disembark in 9” or less from an enemy unit. Scions exit and are at a length of >9” away, so no rapid fire or triggering of the Stormtroopers doctrine.
[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]
Harlequins say hi.
Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.
Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.
Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood the new ruling, but the grav chute insertion didn't change that much. You still can leave the valkyrie, so you are within the 9" needed for the Hotshot-Lasguns RapidFire Range.
Or am I wrong here?
You can’t disembark in 9” or less from an enemy unit. Scions exit and are at a length of >9” away, so no rapid fire or triggering of the Stormtroopers doctrine.
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
And I feel like "any point during it's move" could be within 9".
Or is there another rule, that takes effect.
I'm sorry, if I sound like a smartass or something like that. In fact I feel rather clueless...
[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]
Harlequins say hi.
Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.
Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.
Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood the new ruling, but the grav chute insertion didn't change that much. You still can leave the valkyrie, so you are within the 9" needed for the Hotshot-Lasguns RapidFire Range.
Or am I wrong here?
You can’t disembark in 9” or less from an enemy unit. Scions exit and are at a length of >9” away, so no rapid fire or triggering of the Stormtroopers doctrine.
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
And I feel like "any point during it's move" could be within 9".
Or is there another rule, that takes effect.
I'm sorry, if I sound like a smartass or something like that. In fact I feel rather clueless...
The next sentence in the rule says that models that have disembarked using this rule can not be set up within 9” of enemy models.
[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]
Harlequins say hi.
Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.
Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.
Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood the new ruling, but the grav chute insertion didn't change that much. You still can leave the valkyrie, so you are within the 9" needed for the Hotshot-Lasguns RapidFire Range.
Or am I wrong here?
You can’t disembark in 9” or less from an enemy unit. Scions exit and are at a length of >9” away, so no rapid fire or triggering of the Stormtroopers doctrine.
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
And I feel like "any point during it's move" could be within 9".
Or is there another rule, that takes effect.
I'm sorry, if I sound like a smartass or something like that. In fact I feel rather clueless...
The next sentence in the rule says that models that have disembarked using this rule can not be set up within 9” of enemy models.
damn... sorry guys. I didn't duoble check that with the codex...
So, that's a problem
A problem ? We know people be fearin dem hellguns, some people say hot shot, I say hellguns. So any case, they be afraid of them hellguns, good thing they kept them bad boys in check.
AngryAngel80 wrote: A problem ? We know people be fearin dem hellguns, some people say hot shot, I say hellguns. So any case, they be afraid of them hellguns, good thing they kept them bad boys in check.
I kind of a get them thought. They had removed the threat of brother hood champion, that was blocking the sells of all other melee characters, and with him gone, they had to reign in his hard counter, otherwise no one would be buying those new abadon models. From a financial point of view it makes sense.
So now overwatch happens "as it if was your shooting phase".
Scenario: I have an acid spray tyrannofex that did not move in my movement phase. Because it did not move in my movement phase, it can shoot all of its weapons twice in the shooting phase. In your turn, you charge it. Do I get to overwatch shoot you with my acid spray twice because
1. I did not move in my previous movement phase and
2. Overwatch happens as if it was my shooting phase?
Scenario: I have an acid spray tyrannofex that did not move in my movement phase. Because it did not move in my movement phase, it can shoot all of its weapons twice in the shooting phase. In your turn, you charge it. Do I get to overwatch shoot you with my acid spray twice because 1. I did not move in my previous movement phase and 2. Overwatch happens as if it was my shooting phase?
This is a bit 50/50, but due to the fact that stratagems that specify in the shooting phase can only be used in the shooting phase I would assume the same thing applies here.
Scenario: I have an acid spray tyrannofex that did not move in my movement phase. Because it did not move in my movement phase, it can shoot all of its weapons twice in the shooting phase. In your turn, you charge it. Do I get to overwatch shoot you with my acid spray twice because
1. I did not move in my previous movement phase and
2. Overwatch happens as if it was my shooting phase?
This is a bit 50/50, but due to the fact that stratagems that specify in the shooting phase can only be used in the shooting phase I would assume the same thing applies here.
"With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g.
abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would
apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking
place ‘as if it were that phase’."
If it's not a stratagem that's allowing you to shoot twice, you're fine shooting twice even when firing overwatch. Vice versa would also apply - a Chaos Decimator can't use a C-beam cannon to fire overwatch if it moved in its last turn.
Scenario: I have an acid spray tyrannofex that did not move in my movement phase. Because it did not move in my movement phase, it can shoot all of its weapons twice in the shooting phase. In your turn, you charge it. Do I get to overwatch shoot you with my acid spray twice because
1. I did not move in my previous movement phase and
2. Overwatch happens as if it was my shooting phase?
This is a bit 50/50, but due to the fact that stratagems that specify in the shooting phase can only be used in the shooting phase I would assume the same thing applies here.
That whole "'as if it was the shooting phase' means all rules apply that would apply in the shooting phase except rules that explicitly only apply in the shooting phase" is a bit hard to wrap your head around.
Then comes question is it YOUR shooting phase on enemy turn. Rule doesn't specify just "shooting phase" but YOUR shooting phase.
Similarly russ won't shoot twice as it says following shooting phase. That's over by the time enemy assault phase comes. It's not just any shooting phase but following one.
As I understand it, stratagems that state they have to be used in the shooting phase does not effect overwatch. Skills, relics, traits etc. that say "as if you were in the shooting phase" or affect shooting phase directly apply in overwatch.
So, the Leman Russ shoots twice on overwatch, if it remained stationary or drove slowly.
E// I see we have some conflicting ideas here.
My explanation: Russ remains stationary in the movement phase -> shoots twice (Leman Russ can fire its weapons twice if it remained stationary in the previous movement phase...) -> shoots overwatch twice -> is in the shooting phase again and remained stationary in the previous movement phase.
Hawky wrote: As I understand it, stratagems that state they have to be used in the shooting phase does not effect overwatch. Skills, relics, traits etc. that say "as if you were in the shooting phase" or affect shooting phase directly apply in overwatch.
So, the Leman Russ shoots twice on overwatch, if it remained stationary or drove slowly.
Since when is enemy charge phase FOLLOWING shooting phase? The shooting phase that followed movement phase is already over.
tneva82 wrote: Then comes question is it YOUR shooting phase on enemy turn. Rule doesn't specify just "shooting phase" but YOUR shooting phase.
Similarly russ won't shoot twice as it says following shooting phase. That's over by the time enemy assault phase comes. It's not just any shooting phase but following one.
What? No! That means nobody would ever be able to use overwatch. BaconCatBug is going to love this one...
Common sense dictates that if you have permission to shoot 'as if it were the shooting phase' then the shooting phase referred to would have to be yours. Otherwise your permission would be utterly meaningless - you're never allowed to shoot in your opponent's shooting phase!
Ah, wait, I checked the rule. I suppose for the grinding advance rule, the 'following shooting phase' can be argued to have passed. I'd assume that's not RaI, but a case could be made for RaW. The Tyrannofex still gets to shoot twice though.
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
The next sentence in the rule says that models that have disembarked using this rule can not be set up within 9” of enemy models.
damn... sorry guys. I didn't duoble check that with the codex...
So, that's a problem
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
The_Real_Chris wrote: Does that mean minuses to hit would now apply to overwatch shooting?
Minuses to hit always effected overwatch, but a to hit roll, not result of a 6 is needed in overwatch.
Ie. You shoot at something with -1 to hit you hit on 6 but overheat on 1 or 2.
It's more for the interaction of things like forewarned, auspex scan etc.
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
The next sentence in the rule says that models that have disembarked using this rule can not be set up within 9” of enemy models.
damn... sorry guys. I didn't duoble check that with the codex...
So, that's a problem
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
The next sentence in the rule says that models that have disembarked using this rule can not be set up within 9” of enemy models.
damn... sorry guys. I didn't duoble check that with the codex...
So, that's a problem
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
I assume that this was a deliberate nerf of the Scions from the Vigilus Drop Force as opposed to an accidental nerf that they could/would fix. I was enjoying using a little Drop Force as a Distraction Carnifex. It can still do that with Plasma Guns, but the Hotshot guns and stormtroopers' doctrine are, sadly, relegated to the backseat of the Taurox once again since they never survive the ensuing opponent's turn.
I'm not seeing how Russes get to shoot twice. That ability only applies during the shooting phase. Overwatch takes place during the Charge phase. It says handle shooting like normal, but it does not say "as if it were the shooting phase"
Hawky wrote: And so the identity crisis Scions suffer from had increased a little more. I'm glad I didn't get any of them.
Scions don’t have an identity crisis. All the ol’ hellgun and stormtroopers types just don’t want to move onto the superior killer design and two-syllable “Scions.”
Ordana wrote: To those complaining about CP farming.
How many times does GW need to NOT address this before you understand that it is a part of the game that GW is ok with?
These changes may see CP farming reduced in power. You might have a bunch of CP, but what are you fueling with it? With all the big stuff losing their efficiency with force multipliers we may start to see a lot more variety.
Ordana wrote: To those complaining about CP farming.
How many times does GW need to NOT address this before you understand that it is a part of the game that GW is ok with?
These changes may see CP farming reduced in power. You might have a bunch of CP, but what are you fueling with it? With all the big stuff losing their efficiency with force multipliers we may start to see a lot more variety.
The only thing lost is a Castellan rotating Ion shields.
So you drop the Castellan down to a Crusader and bring back smash captains. Viola we can burn infinite CP in a turn again.
I don't see how you think these changes have reduced the need for CP.
Insectum7 wrote: ^aka primaris stuff. So no wonder why I don't think of it.
You might not, but GW definitely should! For example, it is silly that Intercessors have three bolter variants, but two of them are so bad that they might as well not exist.
That's the text:
Pa ge 117
– Valkyries, Grav-chute Insertion
Change the first sentence to read:
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point
during its move, but if they do they cannot move further
during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking.’
The next sentence in the rule says that models that have disembarked using this rule can not be set up within 9” of enemy models.
damn... sorry guys. I didn't duoble check that with the codex...
So, that's a problem
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
This doesn't follow the recent trends on getting things within 9" in the first turn. What you're suggesting is if the comtents of the valkyrie has a rule that allows a form of deepstrike then they can be set up within 9" of enemy.
Darsath wrote: God, I hope this FAQ has an impact on the meta. It's looking like it will, too. I'm so sick of seeing the same factions played over and over again. Also I predict Tau will start to dominate pretty hard.
Not really. Castellan Ian still good. Yes he has a bigger weakness and can actually be killed, but still good and will be battery farmed.
The castellan is gone mate.
You took a castellan to do 2 things.. be the hard points in your force. And to Murder someone else 3++ castellan.
So its now more points, to do a job it doesn't do as well (be tough in the middle) to counter something that isn't showing up.
Why would you take it?
If you need a tough spot in the middle, for the exact some cost, take 2 gallants. If someone brings a 4++ castellan, much more normal firepower deals with it.
Ordana wrote: To those complaining about CP farming.
How many times does GW need to NOT address this before you understand that it is a part of the game that GW is ok with?
These changes may see CP farming reduced in power. You might have a bunch of CP, but what are you fueling with it? With all the big stuff losing their efficiency with force multipliers we may start to see a lot more variety.
The only thing lost is a Castellan rotating Ion shields.
So you drop the Castellan down to a Crusader and bring back smash captains. Viola we can burn infinite CP in a turn again.
I don't see how you think these changes have reduced the need for CP.
I have little fear of smash captains and crusaders. If you took an IG & Castellan list, halved the Castellan guns, and put 250 to 300 points into melee it isn't nearly as scary.
You CAN still burn CP, but it's not going to be an inviolate thing any more.
I really like the FAQ, GW did a great job considering how they used to run things.
One things that really bugs me though:
DW Terminators in mixed units gets full benefit of Bolter Discipline but Space Wolf Pack Leaders in Terminator armour does not. It really highlights GWs disregard of SW :(
JETapp wrote: I really like the FAQ, GW did a great job considering how they used to run things.
One things that really bugs me though:
DW Terminators in mixed units gets full benefit of Bolter Discipline but Space Wolf Pack Leaders in Terminator armour does not. It really highlights GWs disregard of SW :(
I still can't believe GW initially said this FAQ was just some minor changes. With the Ynnari change, this is probably the biggest reset for 8th since it's inception (if you don't include new additions, like the Castellan for example). So many people are going to be rethinking their armies, which is a great thing.
Hawky wrote: I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.
They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.
Screens still dominate, you just need more of them. Not a problem for guardsmen, a bigger problem for others.
Hawky wrote: I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.
They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.
They did give russes Grinding Advance on overwatch.
Also, screens are not useless against Flyers, just more difficult to correctly play - you can make their charge rolls more difficult by moving up the screen, or make completing the charge move impossible by blocking off a space where the charger can't place his model within 1" of the intended target.
zerosignal wrote: So, IG/Knights/ something choppy is still top, and its closest competitor basically gets axed?
Derp.
Non Ynnari Eldar was not far behind IG + Knight but few people played it because Ynnari existed and was the same models.
I expect Craftworld + DE soup to be in roughly the same place as Ynnari was before (because while they got nerfed a little so did IG + Knight)
Hawky wrote: I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.
They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.
They did give russes Grinding Advance on overwatch.
Also, screens are not useless against Flyers, just more difficult to correctly play - you can make their charge rolls more difficult by moving up the screen, or make completing the charge move impossible by blocking off a space where the charger can't place his model within 1" of the intended target.
I don't think that the LR gets Grinding Advance on overwatch. IIRC Grinding Advance is worded in such a way that it triggers when the tank is permitted to move, and applies only through the following shooting phase.
Martel732 wrote:Guardsmen + something they screen that can never be touched because guardsmen + choppy/indirect fire.
I'm not convinced smash capts are gonna be a great choice even with the fly fix. If they land more than 12" from target, they can't charge.
I think that Smash Captains sound pretty great, actually. Whether hiding behind guardsmen and tanks to avoid getting shot, or letting other units clear the way for drop, I think they'll definitely be a solid option.
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
This doesn't follow the recent trends on getting things within 9" in the first turn. What you're suggesting is if the comtents of the valkyrie has a rule that allows a form of deepstrike then they can be set up within 9" of enemy.
Sorry you have lost me. I am suggesting the Scions can disembark normally from Valkryies post move and not have the 9" restriction. Previously they would deploy outside 9" then move (normally to get into hellgun range). Now deploying from a Valkyrie is the same as their parachute ability, with the added chance of dying if you roll a 1 (normally for your Sergeant and plasma troopers). Therefore I would suggest to given them a reason to do so they should be able to insert closer to the enemy then their floating down from above normal deepstrike, with the added danger you get from a Valk insertion.
Hawky wrote: I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.
They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.
They did give russes Grinding Advance on overwatch.
Also, screens are not useless against Flyers, just more difficult to correctly play - you can make their charge rolls more difficult by moving up the screen, or make completing the charge move impossible by blocking off a space where the charger can't place his model within 1" of the intended target.
I don't think that the LR gets Grinding Advance on overwatch. IIRC Grinding Advance is worded in such a way that it triggers when the tank is permitted to move, and applies only through the following shooting phase.
Martel732 wrote:Guardsmen + something they screen that can never be touched because guardsmen + choppy/indirect fire.
I'm not convinced smash capts are gonna be a great choice even with the fly fix. If they land more than 12" from target, they can't charge.
I think that Smash Captains sound pretty great, actually. Whether hiding behind guardsmen and tanks to avoid getting shot, or letting other units clear the way for drop, I think they'll definitely be a solid option.
"If this model remains stationary or moves under half speed in its movement phase it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same unit both times).
Remained stationary in its movement phase? Check
shooting the same unit both times? Check.
Don't see how this would not apply to attacks made "as if it were the Shooting Phase."
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Hawky wrote: I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.
They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.
They did give russes Grinding Advance on overwatch.
Also, screens are not useless against Flyers, just more difficult to correctly play - you can make their charge rolls more difficult by moving up the screen, or make completing the charge move impossible by blocking off a space where the charger can't place his model within 1" of the intended target.
I don't think that the LR gets Grinding Advance on overwatch. IIRC Grinding Advance is worded in such a way that it triggers when the tank is permitted to move, and applies only through the following shooting phase.
Martel732 wrote:Guardsmen + something they screen that can never be touched because guardsmen + choppy/indirect fire.
I'm not convinced smash capts are gonna be a great choice even with the fly fix. If they land more than 12" from target, they can't charge.
I think that Smash Captains sound pretty great, actually. Whether hiding behind guardsmen and tanks to avoid getting shot, or letting other units clear the way for drop, I think they'll definitely be a solid option.
"If this model remains stationary or moves under half speed in its movement phase it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same unit both times).
Remained stationary in its movement phase? Check
shooting the same unit both times? Check.
Don't see how this would not apply to attacks made "as if it were the Shooting Phase."
The following shooting phase.
The charge phase is not the following shooting phase.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
This doesn't follow the recent trends on getting things within 9" in the first turn. What you're suggesting is if the comtents of the valkyrie has a rule that allows a form of deepstrike then they can be set up within 9" of enemy.
Sorry you have lost me. I am suggesting the Scions can disembark normally from Valkryies post move and not have the 9" restriction. Previously they would deploy outside 9" then move (normally to get into hellgun range). Now deploying from a Valkyrie is the same as their parachute ability, with the added chance of dying if you roll a 1 (normally for your Sergeant and plasma troopers). Therefore I would suggest to given them a reason to do so they should be able to insert closer to the enemy then their floating down from above normal deepstrike, with the added danger you get from a Valk insertion.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.
Gwls flat out saying you can't so hopefully you aren't cheater and do it anyway
JETapp wrote: I really like the FAQ, GW did a great job considering how they used to run things.
One things that really bugs me though:
DW Terminators in mixed units gets full benefit of Bolter Discipline but Space Wolf Pack Leaders in Terminator armour does not. It really highlights GWs disregard of SW :(
Deathwatch lose Bolter Discipline with SIA.
But that has nothing at all to do with DW getting to shoot their Terminators in Mixed Units like Terminators regarding Bolter Discipline, and SW Terminators not being considered being Terminators in similar circumstances.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.
"If this model remains stationary or moves under half speed in its movement phase it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same unit both times).
Remained stationary in its movement phase? Check
shooting the same unit both times? Check.
Don't see how this would not apply to attacks made "as if it were the Shooting Phase."
The keyword is Following shooting phase. The attacks made during Overwatch count as if they were made during the shooting phase, but they're still a separate shooting phase from the one immediately following the movement phase in which the Leman Russ moved less than 5".
It is a shame as it is easily fixed by altering the second sentence so the whole rule reads.
‘Models may disembark from this vehicle at any point during its move, but if they do they cannot move further during this phase; if the Valkyrie moves 20" or more, you
must roll a D6 for each model disembarking. On a 1, that model is slain. Models that disembark in this manner must be set up more than 9" from any enemy models unless they have the AERIAL DROP ability in which case they disembark normally.'
Is there a query line to pass on such suggestions?
This doesn't follow the recent trends on getting things within 9" in the first turn. What you're suggesting is if the comtents of the valkyrie has a rule that allows a form of deepstrike then they can be set up within 9" of enemy.
Sorry you have lost me. I am suggesting the Scions can disembark normally from Valkryies post move and not have the 9" restriction. Previously they would deploy outside 9" then move (normally to get into hellgun range). Now deploying from a Valkyrie is the same as their parachute ability, with the added chance of dying if you roll a 1 (normally for your Sergeant and plasma troopers). Therefore I would suggest to given them a reason to do so they should be able to insert closer to the enemy then their floating down from above normal deepstrike, with the added danger you get from a Valk insertion.
I can definitely agree with this statement. Since their inception Scions have had this cool flyer that feels tailor made to drop them in yet they get to do it for free anyways, so why bother? I agree that they need something a little EXTRA to help. I do not agree with the moving closer though because it appears that they are trying to tighten up the rules and make it so that mos things are universal. HOWEVER, that dosent stop you from having some other really cool rule like "If a Valkyrie with <Tempestus Scions> regiment drops a unit they now get to use their regimental rules at max range instead of half range for that turn", maybe something that temporarily alters their Hot Shot Las, like it becomes Assault 2 for a round, or possibly something that affects leadership, or gives them a temporary cover bonus. I personally like the shooting ideas only because it means they are blasting away as they are falling! This can easily be rolled into the Regiment rules itself, make it a general deployment rule for all their vehicles they drive if they deploy from them (being the specialists that they are, the regular aerial drop rule should be an alternative not the only option when deploying)
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.
Overwatch overrides everything.
Not anymore.
That said, a flat "No" from GW on this specific question is the only relevant rule, as posted in YMDC.
bullyboy wrote: I still can't believe GW initially said this FAQ was just some minor changes. With the Ynnari change, this is probably the biggest reset for 8th since it's inception (if you don't include new additions, like the Castellan for example). So many people are going to be rethinking their armies, which is a great thing.
Ynnari changes were technically from white dwarf... And their CT was kinda spiraling out of control to be fair. The point of Ynnari was that you can play eldar soup as a 'monodex' where you can bring the strengths of best units from each aeldari's codex into one. Imagine if knight+IG+imperium flavor of the month soup had a special new faction rule that was over the top.
generalchaos34 wrote: I can definitely agree with this statement. Since their inception Scions have had this cool flyer that feels tailor made to drop them in yet they get to do it for free anyways, so why bother? I agree that they need something a little EXTRA to help. I do not agree with the moving closer though because it appears that they are trying to tighten up the rules and make it so that mos things are universal. HOWEVER, that dosent stop you from having some other really cool rule like "If a Valkyrie with <Tempestus Scions> regiment drops a unit they now get to use their regimental rules at max range instead of half range for that turn", maybe something that temporarily alters their Hot Shot Las, like it becomes Assault 2 for a round, or possibly something that affects leadership, or gives them a temporary cover bonus. I personally like the shooting ideas only because it means they are blasting away as they are falling! This can easily be rolled into the Regiment rules itself, make it a general deployment rule for all their vehicles they drive if they deploy from them (being the specialists that they are, the regular aerial drop rule should be an alternative not the only option when deploying)
The other option I have seen floated is they don't have to make the D6 roll to disembark safely because they do it all the time.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).
I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.
Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.
Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...
Insectum7 wrote: I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).
I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.
Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.
Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...
Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).
I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.
Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.
Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...
Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.
Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun doesn't have "bolt" in it's name.
Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. Scout Shotguns should be addressed as well, although that needed done anyway since they were kind of ----- compared to a Bolt Gun even before Bolter Drill.
* Reivers get the Carbide. It's [i]exactly[/*] the same profile as an Autobolter. I imagine future-proofing was at play there.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.
Overwatch overrides everything.
Not anymore.
That said, a flat "No" from GW on this specific question is the only relevant rule, as posted in YMDC.
Insectum7 wrote: I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).
I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.
Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.
Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...
Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.
Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun don't have "bolt" in it's name.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.
Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.
Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.
Overwatch overrides everything.
Not anymore.
That said, a flat "No" from GW on this specific question is the only relevant rule, as posted in YMDC.
I repeat - overwatch overrides everything. lol
Good to know.
Can you link the FAQ that corrects the 2019 Spring FAQ where it says rules for the shooting phase apply during Overwatch (with a few caveats)?
Can you tell me what page the clarifies that DAs no longer overwatch on 5s?
You can repeat that statement as often as you like, but the rules say otherwise.
Irbis wrote: Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...
Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.
Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun don't have "bolt" in it's name.
hm, well that's dumb lol. Nvm me then,
It's GW, if you don't see something in any given release that a passing chimp could tell you is poorly though out then you haven't read the release closely enough.
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
Insectum7 wrote: I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).
I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.
Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.
Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...
Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.
Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun doesn't have "bolt" in it's name.
Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. . . ..
Hawky wrote: I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.
They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.
you just need learn how to play them properly, as at start of 8th edition when flying unist can fly over screens.
GW is just bad at getting to the point. Overwatch states you hit on a 6's regardless of modifiers.
So unless the rule is written to override overwatch restrictions (like tau sept or defensive gunners) You hit on a 6. GW just doesn't know how to actually say that.
Fortunately, the Reaper case is answered in another rule, so that doesn't matter. But Overwatch only overrides most things, not everything. And it doesn't invalidate as much as it did before the FAQ.
Xenomancers wrote: GW is just bad at getting to the point. Overwatch states you hit on a 6's regardless of modifiers.
So unless the rule is written to override overwatch restrictions (like tau sept or defensive gunners) You hit on a 6. GW just doesn't know how to actually say that.
Naw, they actually did say that. It's in the Battle Primer.
It's when the playerbase tries to break things by arguing their individual unit rules overwrite overwatch even though they make no reference to it.
Then GW has to sit down and think about whether those are actions they want to allow, because by their rules it was intended not to. It's far better to explore those interactions than to just say no, so they go ahead and give it a go. They now have to playtest and iterate on it, tweak the wording to limit it to certain interactions only, and re-test etc.
That's the difference here. It's super easy to just say "no, you can't do that", but for GW they very clearly intend to question whether that interaction should be allowed, even if their initial intent was not to allow it. You can tell that's the way they design based on the designer commentary posted in the main FAQ document on WarCom.
Yea I think people are over-reading these updates looking for nuggets and it's gonna drive me bonkers.
Same story every FAQ. 99% of the playerbase reads it and says. Okay. This makes sense. Then that last 1% comes in with "but if you squint really hard at this one specific example and use this obscure (mis)interpretation of the word 'shoe', clearly I'm allowed to break this rule that the FAQ specifically forbids me from breaking."
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes. GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing. The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in awkward places but some people in the community went straight to abusing it to place models in impossible situations. And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
I just got back from an ITC 2 day event this weekend, fairly big with 32 players and 6 rounds (for some unknown fething reason) and when someone would go to use the "wobbly model" syndrome to put something where it clearly shouldn't have been, if the TOs saw it, they would just remove the model as a casualty citing they fell of the side of the cliff after hanging on with their toenails and 14D6. It happened twice the first round. to my knowledge, after that, when someone went to "wobbly model" something, they called the judge over first, it stopped shortly after that save for big models that could legitimately sit somewhere but the roof of a building had a small thing on it that made it uneven or some such nonsense.
The players that lost the models to wobbly model were none too happy. I don't think the TOs cared much though, they seemed hard AF...
It was a good time by all.
BTT: Players are not responsible for making the rules, they are responsible for playing the game. And I agree with this statement. But there is a point, where rules, as intended, has to be considered in the equation. Things like wobbly model, and other rules that have been abused, i think the players know they are breaking the intent, they just know they can do it and get away with it.
Also, Im not sure that smash captains are that great anymore honestly. It's not a question of points, because even with the increase of 100 points to the Castellan, you can still field a castellan, a BA SCD, and a full brigade in AM in 2k, but rather since the game is switching off to hordes now, and doing so quite heavily, i dont think three smash captains are really beneficial, especially if the number of knights we have seen will go down (now, if the inverse is true and everyone just takes two wardens or whatever to cover it) that's a good reason to run them, but as is, with orks gaining in popularity, Aeldari soup taking a hit, and Nids kind of jumping on the scene with approximately 2 billion models per army, I'm not sure he is a good investment. Even with loyal 32 kind of taking a side or even back seat to the full brigade, I'm not sure they will have the space to land and assault precious targets, and you dont want to waste them just blowing up a 10 man guard unit...
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.
They can still get on top of obstacles and then form a ring at the top.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.
They can still get on top of obstacles and then form a ring at the top.
But then I can shoot you and make room to assault you. The initial problem was ITC ruling that you could enter enclosed buildings so you could not be shot or charged at all unless you had ignore LoS weapons which not every army has access to.
It was ITC problem and not a game problem because the base game doesn't allow for this.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.
They can still get on top of obstacles and then form a ring at the top.
But then I can shoot you and make room to assault you. The initial problem was ITC ruling that you could enter enclosed buildings so you could not be shot or charged at all unless you had ignore LoS weapons which not every army has access to.
It was ITC problem and not a game problem because the base game doesn't allow for this.
yup, there is a reason why nightspinners actually saw play in some events...for that exact reason.
I don't think I should have to shoot a hole when I'm wearing a jump pack. Assault already has a menagerie of nerfs this edition. I prefer ITC wobbly model.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in awkward places but some people in the community went straight to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
I just got back from an ITC 2 day event this weekend, fairly big with 32 players and 6 rounds (for some unknown fething reason) and when someone would go to use the "wobbly model" syndrome to put something where it clearly shouldn't have been, if the TOs saw it, they would just remove the model as a casualty citing they fell of the side of the cliff after hanging on with their toenails and 14D6. It happened twice the first round. to my knowledge, after that, when someone went to "wobbly model" something, they called the judge over first, it stopped shortly after that save for big models that could legitimately sit somewhere but the roof of a building had a small thing on it that made it uneven or some such nonsense.
The players that lost the models to wobbly model were none too happy. I don't think the TOs cared much though, they seemed hard AF...
It was a good time by all.
BTT:
Players are not responsible for making the rules, they are responsible for playing the game. And I agree with this statement. But there is a point, where rules, as intended, has to be considered in the equation. Things like wobbly model, and other rules that have been abused, i think the players know they are breaking the intent, they just know they can do it and get away with it.
Also,
Im not sure that smash captains are that great anymore honestly. It's not a question of points, because even with the increase of 100 points to the Castellan, you can still field a castellan, a BA SCD, and a full brigade in AM in 2k, but rather since the game is switching off to hordes now, and doing so quite heavily, i dont think three smash captains are really beneficial, especially if the number of knights we have seen will go down (now, if the inverse is true and everyone just takes two wardens or whatever to cover it) that's a good reason to run them, but as is, with orks gaining in popularity, Aeldari soup taking a hit, and Nids kind of jumping on the scene with approximately 2 billion models per army, I'm not sure he is a good investment. Even with loyal 32 kind of taking a side or even back seat to the full brigade, I'm not sure they will have the space to land and assault precious targets, and you dont want to waste them just blowing up a 10 man guard unit...
The supreme comand detachment doesn't have to be full 3 roid range captains, libratians make some good defence and Liberian dreadnaughts.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.
But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.
And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad
Martel732 wrote: I don't think I should have to shoot a hole when I'm wearing a jump pack. Assault already has a menagerie of nerfs this edition. I prefer ITC wobbly model.
ITC wobbly model was just obviously downright broken as an interpretation to any long-term player.
Junppacks still allow you to move over enemy models just no more 2inch charges from buildings. Though I have ro question why someone's assualting Cattachan guardsmen with marines anyway thats so blatantly suicidal.
The FAQ was both substantial and positive for the game.
Some factions still need more substantial alterations but those will come with a new codex. Neither the FAQ nor Chapter Approved has really changed the way armies play beyond toning down the most egregious combinations of rules or units (Not counting the new Ynnari mini-dex in WD). If this FAQ funnels more forces into the category of winning 45%-55% of games then it’s succeeded. I don’t think that the existing lists that win the overwhelming majority of games will continue to do so.
I have a prediction that Knights will be deminished significantly and that Castellans will remain popular as the model is widely in circulation but it won’t be involved in any more major tournament winning lists. It’s swung a bit to the point where destroying it is a likely outcome for the right list in the initial turn, and that’s too much of a gamble. You can’t base a winning strategy over having to go first in every game to neutralise key threats or be destroyed. Imo the 4++ cap to the Ion shield was all that it needed, but at least using one won’t lead to accusations of power gaming anymore
I also think that my streak of losing to Dark Eldar and friends might come to an end now that the most OTT powerful things about Eldar soup have been eliminated. This was a great change it’s so much more thematic.
Orks and Tau might actually be the biggest winners of this. Both armies are exceptional without relying on soup combinations, both are high performers, and both are now relatively better off.
Galef wrote: I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"
-
I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.
This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.
Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.
But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.
And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad
Why do you think you can't assualt a 2+ level building?
Or is this the design of the specific piece of terrain?
Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.
Insectum7 wrote: ^You can shoot them to deal some casualties and then get a foothold up there.
Riiight. All armies shoot well after all..wait no.
Oh and indeed no -2 to hit or worse units exists in the game...wait they do.
Hello tneva82, you may have noticed that I was responding to a post about Guardsmen. I'm of the opinion that if your army cannot shoot a few guardsmen out of cover, you've got a build weird enough not to care too much about. Which army/s were you thinking of, in particular? Perhaps I can help you out.
Yea I think people are over-reading these updates looking for nuggets and it's gonna drive me bonkers.
Same story every FAQ. 99% of the playerbase reads it and says. Okay. This makes sense. Then that last 1% comes in with "but if you squint really hard at this one specific example and use this obscure (mis)interpretation of the word 'shoe', clearly I'm allowed to break this rule that the FAQ specifically forbids me from breaking."
I see you too have been to YMDK.
Seriously though, I feel like most changes GW made here were to eliminate unintended rules interactions and make the RAW more like RAI. It meant kicking the Grey Knights again, but it's ultimately for a better game so I can live with that.
That said, I am willing to bet some stupid stuff is going to pop up in the meta after this FAQ.
Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.
Problem is that lootas have to be fed 2 or 4 CP each turn to be worthwhile. Reducing their max squad size by 40% makes those CP much less efficient.
make sure that when you play against lootas you point out that Gretchen are slain when they intercept. So they don' get FNPs or invun saves. So basically it becomes a game of how many shots you can put on target. If you can shoot 100+ shots at them. Youll still kill a lot of lootas and all the grots will be dead too. Lootas are more of a trap IMO. Then again I run a very anti infantry based force that doesn't really fear AP-1.
The stuff that really makes orks hard to deal with is DAjump and their artillery which is very resilient and lucky rolls just obliterate you.
So, asking for myself, because I am trying to find out where it specifically mentions them, my assasins can't farm CPs now, or more than 2? Not that this is a major problem, I've only really ever gotten it to work once where the enemy left three psykers alone in his backfield.
But I read the notes over lunch and I thought it said there were certain "exceptions". So it only benefits me to kill one character per turn with an assasin basically. That sucks. My Custodes are le sad.
Speaking of sad custodes, kinda pissed they don' get exemption from the deep strike rules anymore. But as long as everyone is playing the same way.
The Newman wrote: Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. Scout Shotguns should be addressed as well, although that needed done anyway since they were kind of ----- compared to a Bolt Gun even before Bolter Drill.
* Reivers get the Carbide. It's exactly the same profile as an Autobolter. I imagine future-proofing was at play there.
I am pretty sure GSC are the only army using carbide weapons
But yeah, these need addressing, as well as weapons everyone forgot about, stalker bolters used by DW (no relation to primaris stalker rifles, also DW stalkers actually have profile rifles should have had from the start), infernus bolters, and astartes shotguns (the SM ones, incidentally one of the worst weapons in the game), all of which are in urgent need of a buff...
But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.
And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad
A small change to virtual line of sight makes 8th edition infinitely more playable.
But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.
And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad
A small change to virtual line of sight makes 8th edition infinitely more playable.
Or some kind of alternative terrain ruleset whereby seeing thru a terrain piece gave you -1 to hit, and maybe with some special stratagems that let you ignore vertical distance in the charge phase.
THat kind of ruleset would make ruins far more playable!
But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.
And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad
A small change to virtual line of sight makes 8th edition infinitely more playable.
Or some kind of alternative terrain ruleset whereby seeing thru a terrain piece gave you -1 to hit, and maybe with some special stratagems that let you ignore vertical distance in the charge phase.
THat kind of ruleset would make ruins far more playable!
Maybe we can also add things like height advantage, roads giving movement bonus, and such.
Ok, so the way these changes will affect the meta are as follows –
Crusaders and Gallants will become more popular and likely taken in “3 big Knight” detachments. As a result, the Castellan will still see a fair amount of play as a screened Castellan still beats the other Knights. 100 points is 100 points most Guard plays can find in their lists.
Flyer spam will still be a thing. Sure, it’ll be a little harder to move block things, but, this certainly hasn’t removed move blocking. The only things that can reliably move under a flyer on a 120mm oval base are things with a 7”+ move, or lone models/small squads advancing. Even then, the flyer can just be placed 4” away from the front of the Knight and it still can’t get past unless it advances.
Chaos got a nice quality of life buff with all Characters now getting legion traits. I predict we’ll start seeing more and more Discordants.
T’au will continue to do well, and Ork lists will likely have to change slightly but still might be ok.
Druhkari will likely drop off a little. Not having Doom hurts them – especially Covens.
Ynnari will likely also drop off, but, pure Craftworld Ynnari lists could still do reasonably well as they can often do well vs most armies, even 132 points down. This will likely only exist as an ITC Best in Faction attempt though and then next year will see it disappear altogether depending on FAQ4 and CA.
From a “pure” list point of view, I’d expect T’au, Craftworlds and Guard, maybe Orks and maybe single God Chaos to do reasonably well.
As for the debate about fly and wobbly model.
This only exists because
a) GW’s terrain kits and rules are inadequate for the game, and,
b) FLG didn’t think through the consequences of selling and designing enclosed buildings, and, as such are now stuck with jamming them into the ruleset.
GW could solve the issues themselves by just making sure sections of their terrain pieces are actually true LoS blocking and by updating their rules regarding things like Woods
Kdash wrote:
As for the debate about fly and wobbly model.
This only exists because
a) GW’s terrain kits and rules are inadequate for the game, and,
b) FLG didn’t think through the consequences of selling and designing enclosed buildings, and, as such are now stuck with jamming them into the ruleset.
GW could solve the issues themselves by just making sure sections of their terrain pieces are actually true LoS blocking and by updating their rules regarding things like Woods
If you want a good-looking battlefield, and not something that may as well be counters, wobbly model syndrome is a possibility. Bombarded or natural terrain is never going to be all flat areas, and making structural concessions for gaming looks bizarre after a point.
A significant part of Warhammer is the spectacle of seeing two awesome armies duking it out over a blasted warscape. As much as I love the videogame, I don't want to play my 40k over a Minecraft battlefield where everything is neatly flat for models. I am not alone in this- as such, the rules need to include provisions for wobbly models.
The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.
Its headed to the shelves.
If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.
Reemule wrote: The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.
Its headed to the shelves.
If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.
What was the question according to you?
Because to me Knights, Monsters and Tanks will still be very much present and few things are as easily slotted into an army and do the same kind of damage as a Castellan.
I think the question was can you oneround something with 20+ wounds, a 3++ invulnerable that can put out enough firepower in one turn to invalidate any vehicle/walker other than itself. Which, all things considered, is a terrible thing for a game anyway when the presence of one model renders anything else in that same category (i..e all vehicles and things not a Castellan) nonviable.
So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks. There aren't any real good options for dealing with Superheavies now in pure Custodes, without going soup or Playing my contemptors as Telemons. which is fine, I don't see anyone having a problem with that, it's just a pain in the ass to be forced to play the totally broken model in your army.
I expect now that Castellans are off the table, we'll start to see lesser costing Superheavies take the field....Stormlords, Baneblades, Shadowswords....
Reemule wrote: The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.
Its headed to the shelves.
If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.
I’d argue that most forces don’t have a reliable way of killing a 4++ Knight – much less for under 700 points.
I’m sure there are options out there, but relying on a charge from deep strike also doesn’t fit the “reliable” category.
The Newman wrote: Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. Scout Shotguns should be addressed as well, although that needed done anyway since they were kind of ----- compared to a Bolt Gun even before Bolter Drill.
* Reivers get the Carbide. It's exactly the same profile as an Autobolter. I imagine future-proofing was at play there.
I am pretty sure GSC are the only army using carbide weapons
But yeah, these need addressing, as well as weapons everyone forgot about, stalker bolters used by DW (no relation to primaris stalker rifles, also DW stalkers actually have profile rifles should have had from the start), infernus bolters, and astartes shotguns (the SM ones, incidentally one of the worst weapons in the game), all of which are in urgent need of a buff...
I literally mentioned shotguns in the post you were responding to. You are right about Reivers though, it's a Bolt Carbine, not a Bolt Carbide
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks. There aren't any real good options for dealing with Superheavies now in pure Custodes, without going soup or Playing my contemptors as Telemons. which is fine, I don't see anyone having a problem with that, it's just a pain in the ass to be forced to play the totally broken model in your army.
I expect now that Castellans are off the table, we'll start to see lesser costing Superheavies take the field....Stormlords, Baneblades, Shadowswords....
You know whats really good at killing other Super-heavies while being survivable enough in return?
A Castellan.
T’au will continue to do well, and Ork lists will likely have to change slightly but still might be ok.
Druhkari will likely drop off a little. Not having Doom hurts them – especially Covens.
Ynnari will likely also drop off, but, pure Craftworld Ynnari lists could still do reasonably well as they can often do well vs most armies, even 132 points down. This will likely only exist as an ITC Best in Faction attempt though and then next year will see it disappear altogether depending on FAQ4 and CA.
I disagree with you on Drukhari, Covens have a re-roll wounds strat for combat already which is generally where you want to be with them, it's the likes of Haywire and Dissintegrators that will lose out from the lack of Doom which may push people further into the 9 Talos list.
Pure Craftworld Ynnari will suck, their combat isn't that good and they no longer have Jinx or Doom, I strongly suspect Ynnari will die a quick death on the competitive scene.
T’au will continue to do well, and Ork lists will likely have to change slightly but still might be ok.
Druhkari will likely drop off a little. Not having Doom hurts them – especially Covens.
Ynnari will likely also drop off, but, pure Craftworld Ynnari lists could still do reasonably well as they can often do well vs most armies, even 132 points down. This will likely only exist as an ITC Best in Faction attempt though and then next year will see it disappear altogether depending on FAQ4 and CA.
I disagree with you on Drukhari, Covens have a re-roll wounds strat for combat already which is generally where you want to be with them, it's the likes of Haywire and Dissintegrators that will lose out from the lack of Doom which may push people further into the 9 Talos list.
Pure Craftworld Ynnari will suck, their combat isn't that good and they no longer have Jinx or Doom, I strongly suspect Ynnari will die a quick death on the competitive scene.
Tau may well have come out the best from this.
No Doom also means Venom spam will take a hit, vs Orks and Tau it was insanely good with Doom and Jinx, 9-10 Venoms Flawed Skull (ignore cover +3" movement) with those 2 powers meant everything but vehicles died.
I am pretty sure DE are still going to be top players in the meta, Venoms and Talos are still very good, we might see Venom spam and Talos spam more so for sure and less Ravagers/RWJF spam.
The Vex Mask nerf only hurts attacking DE, not defensive DE, (You charge vs let them charge you).
Doom was almost always used to increase ANTI vehical power of weapons. RR wounds on 1 infantry unit isn't that strong and probably not even worth it's points in that match up.
To kill vehicals you can still include spear head of eldar with aliotoc fireprisms (also very strong and hard to kill).
Or spamming crimson hunters should also be effective.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks. There aren't any real good options for dealing with Superheavies now in pure Custodes, without going soup or Playing my contemptors as Telemons. which is fine, I don't see anyone having a problem with that, it's just a pain in the ass to be forced to play the totally broken model in your army.
I expect now that Castellans are off the table, we'll start to see lesser costing Superheavies take the field....Stormlords, Baneblades, Shadowswords....
You know whats really good at killing other Super-heavies while being survivable enough in return?
A Castellan.
You know what's really hard to fit into a pure Custodes list that isn't trying to be flavor of the month? A 700pt unit that literally everyone agrees is overpowered. I would rather take the Orion Drop Ship than a Castellan, and for a little north of half the points, and 4x the actual cost, I can get a roughly better model.
You know what's really hard to fit into a pure Custodes list that isn't trying to be flavor of the month? A 700pt unit that literally everyone agrees is overpowered. I would rather take the Orion Drop Ship than a Castellan, and for a little north of half the points, and 4x the actual cost, I can get a roughly better model.
You have Telemons and Caladii at your disposal and you're kvetching about AT capacity?
Xenomancers wrote: Doom was almost always used to increase ANTI vehical power of weapons. RR wounds on 1 infantry unit isn't that strong and probably not even worth it's points in that match up.
To kill vehicals you can still include spear head of eldar with aliotoc fireprisms (also very strong and hard to kill).
Or spamming crimson hunters should also be effective.
Fire Prisms, Hemlock and Crimson hunters have been my go-to for anti-tank. Prisms don't actually need Doom because of Linked Fire.
I use Doom primarily to get the most out of Shuriken weapons.
You know what's really hard to fit into a pure Custodes list that isn't trying to be flavor of the month? A 700pt unit that literally everyone agrees is overpowered. I would rather take the Orion Drop Ship than a Castellan, and for a little north of half the points, and 4x the actual cost, I can get a roughly better model.
You have Telemons and Caladii at your disposal and you're kvetching about AT capacity?
Oi.
Not gonna lie. Those are both awesome units that I am looking into ways to self build. I am thinking of strapping two Jetbikes together and mounting a Exterminator turret to it. I have no idea how to make a Telemon. But realistically, those still haven't been confirmed golden yet. Still Beta. Not even sure they will make it, as both are far undercosted for their abilities.
Turn 2 deepstriking 14 wound Death tanks for only 210pts? Or the Telemon for only 240pts? And toss in a Vexhilla and a Tryhard Valorous. Three murder bots hitting on 2s with strength 9/7 weapons, then charging, with reroll all misses, -1 to hit, that can heroically intervene, with Tryhard and his S10 attacks, all DSing 9" on turn 2? Yeah, that's not gonna make it past the rules committee. and if it does, I give up trying to understand what is broken v. not broken.
On the one hand, Wraith Form works properly again, and MWBD is confirmed not to fizzle when you use the Veil of Darkness. On the other hand, Monoliths and Night Scythes are confirmed lumps of suck. I'd consider that about even. More generally, Eldar and the Castellan get the boot but Imperial Soup has so many facets that I'm not sure if a Guard Brigade feeding into a Smash Captain or a pack of Custard Creams is going to be a meaningful downgrade against the armies that are struggling.
Xenomancers wrote: Doom was almost always used to increase ANTI vehical power of weapons. RR wounds on 1 infantry unit isn't that strong and probably not even worth it's points in that match up.
To kill vehicals you can still include spear head of eldar with aliotoc fireprisms (also very strong and hard to kill).
Or spamming crimson hunters should also be effective.
Fire Prisms, Hemlock and Crimson hunters have been my go-to for anti-tank. Prisms don't actually need Doom because of Linked Fire.
I use Doom primarily to get the most out of Shuriken weapons.
-
Yeah it's great for that too.
Linked fire is a sure way to destroy almost any unit. Hit with Jinx and just pick up models/tanks. I see almost no use for the 2 shot version though. 2d3 shots is best vs vehicles and 2d6 best for infantry.
I am pretty sure DE are still going to be top players in the meta, Venoms and Talos are still very good, we might see Venom spam and Talos spam more so for sure and less Ravagers/RWJF spam.
Just had an interesting chat about whether Reborn Drukhari might still be worth a look. More flexibility in list building (no real cabal/cult division) and different sets of stratagems/traits etc. I think our conclusion was it needs testing out on the table. It would play very MSU and be very "death by a thousand cuts" but that seems very thematic.
I am pretty sure DE are still going to be top players in the meta, Venoms and Talos are still very good, we might see Venom spam and Talos spam more so for sure and less Ravagers/RWJF spam.
Just had an interesting chat about whether Reborn Drukhari might still be worth a look. More flexibility in list building (no real cabal/cult division) and different sets of stratagems/traits etc. I think our conclusion was it needs testing out on the table. It would play very MSU and be very "death by a thousand cuts" but that seems very thematic.
I don't have any doubts that that combination would be a list. It'd probably be a good list too. But it's be a far cry from an optimal take on it.
At the end of the day, Ynnari just give some of the same bonuses with different conditions. And I don't think that's going to be worth giving up an extra attack and double activation for Wyches. Or Reroll 1's to hit, extra movement, and ignore cover for Kabals.
At the end of the day, Ynnari just give some of the same bonuses with different conditions. And I don't think that's going to be worth giving up an extra attack and double activation for Wyches. Or Reroll 1's to hit, extra movement, and ignore cover for Kabals.
Fundamentally, the new Ynnari rules wants a faction(s) to give up all of its codex benefits for a bunch of index benefits, plus (mandatory) access to a few models of "questionable" worth. The previous rules asked too little of the Aeldari, and now the current rules ask for too much. It's a fine balance, but to be fair it seems that GW intentionally chose the sledgehammer.
At the end of the day, Ynnari just give some of the same bonuses with different conditions. And I don't think that's going to be worth giving up an extra attack and double activation for Wyches. Or Reroll 1's to hit, extra movement, and ignore cover for Kabals.
Fundamentally, the new Ynnari rules wants a faction(s) to give up all of its codex benefits for a bunch of index benefits, plus (mandatory) access to a few models of "questionable" worth. The previous rules asked too little of the Aeldari, and now the current rules ask for too much. It's a fine balance, but to be fair it seems that GW intentionally chose the sledgehammer.
I am having a hard time parsing what it is you're trying to say here. Help me out here?
The old Ynnari rules were the contents of an Index ADDED to an already top-tier faction.
The new Ynnari rules are the contents of an Index which REPLACES the codex(es) of a top-tier faction.
The gulf is massive, and I'm almost certain that it's intentional.
At the end of the day, Ynnari just give some of the same bonuses with different conditions. And I don't think that's going to be worth giving up an extra attack and double activation for Wyches. Or Reroll 1's to hit, extra movement, and ignore cover for Kabals.
Fundamentally, the new Ynnari rules wants a faction(s) to give up all of its codex benefits for a bunch of index benefits, plus (mandatory) access to a few models of "questionable" worth. The previous rules asked too little of the Aeldari, and now the current rules ask for too much. It's a fine balance, but to be fair it seems that GW intentionally chose the sledgehammer.
I am having a hard time parsing what it is you're trying to say here. Help me out here?
Ynnari is its own army faction now, NOT like how Ultramarines and Salamandars are a subfaction of Marines, but how Blood Angels and Space wolves are, think of Ynnari as the Space Wolves of Aeldari now.
You get your own 1 faction <trait> you get your 12 stratagems, 6 relics, and 6 WL traits, with its own powers, if you take a Detachment of Ynnari you play with Ynnari rules, but you still get your datasheet rules, like Drugs, Power for Pain, Flip Belt, Rising Crescendo, as those on the datasheets for the units.
The question is, is Ynnari "powers, Relics, WL traits, SfD trait, and stratagems" worth it over CWE/DE/Harlequins ones. For some units that answer is a strong, YES for other units its a NO, and for some it doesnt matter.
Reemule wrote: The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.
Its headed to the shelves.
If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.
What was the question according to you?
Because to me Knights, Monsters and Tanks will still be very much present and few things are as easily slotted into an army and do the same kind of damage as a Castellan.
The problem with the CAstellan now is that another Castellan can actually kill it in a single turn with some luck and a little bit of supporting fire. Which makes the Castellan vs Castellan matchup so swingy that a lot of players will just do something less 'eggs in one basket'-y.
Reemule wrote: The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.
Its headed to the shelves.
If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.
I’d argue that most forces don’t have a reliable way of killing a 4++ Knight – much less for under 700 points.
I’m sure there are options out there, but relying on a charge from deep strike also doesn’t fit the “reliable” category.
The Castellan will still see play.
Killing a 4++ knight is a joke. Plenty of armies were capable of killing a 3++ knight, it just required a huge investment and hot damage rolls so it wasn't as practical as forcing rotate ion shields and nuking its support units.
The biggest issue for a Castellan to continue to be a meta pick would be if the Castellan continued to be a meta pick. Because you'll have a lot of games where player one wipes player two's castellan with their castellan and the game is basically over right there.
So, let me get this right the Caste won't be a meta pick because if the other player has one it'll nuke it before the other one goes.
Which would make it not reliable. So wouldn't it make sense then after a bit of time other players will stop taking it, then you'll be safe to take it again as you won't run into mirror matches as often as its a risky pick ?
I mean it was in fact a bit too cheap, at least the imperial version for what it did so now that you're paying a good amount and it's no longer an auto include, it's a never pick ?
This all might be why I never enjoy to chase the meta, unless a pick is a no brainer broke choice, it's awful trash and once it's made fair, it's garbage and should be sold off as utter rubbish. Just seems like such an odd way to play the game. Especially when it can still smash, it's just a smash you pay a proper amount for.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So, let me get this right the Caste won't be a meta pick because if the other player has one it'll nuke it before the other one goes.
Which would make it not reliable. So wouldn't it make sense then after a bit of time other players will stop taking it, then you'll be safe to take it again as you won't run into mirror matches as often as its a risky pick ?
I mean it was in fact a bit too cheap, at least the imperial version for what it did so now that you're paying a good amount and it's no longer an auto include, it's a never pick ?
This all might be why I never enjoy to chase the meta, unless a pick is a no brainer broke choice, it's awful trash and once it's made fair, it's garbage and should be sold off as utter rubbish. Just seems like such an odd way to play the game. Especially when it can still smash, it's just a smash you pay a proper amount for.
Your also forgetting Slamguinius is coming in hot back from his timeout.
Choas now have some MW spamming version aswell as finding some thunder hammers at the back of Failbadon's wardrobe.
And 40 points of chumps no longer provide 100% immunity to charging ever.
Skawt wrote: So many people butt hurt over a titan model losing a 1cp 3+ invul.
3CP but who cares about little facts ;-)
Not to mention little in the way of "butt hurt" in here - most people seem to be saying they think it was a good change.
Yeah. Maybe bit overkill to up the castellan by 100 pts as well with it(maybe some point increase but 100 pts + this seems somewhat heavy handed). Pretty much kills it from pure knight armies. But butthurt is "bit" overexaggeration.
Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot. No need for raven stratagem either so you are saving 3CP per turn.
5++ only except as warlord(so need 2+ knights along) bit of a bummer though. Well unless you can use RIS on it(did it specify questor/dominus only?).
And 40 points of chumps no longer provide 100% immunity to charging ever.
They do if there's no physical space for the charging model between the chumps and the target. You still need to place the charger somewhere!
If you can't shoot a hole big enough for 1 model in 10 guardsmen you don't know how to play 40k. we aren't talking multilayered screens here, we're talking about needing a 1 model sized gap in a 10 man unit wrapping the base.
Reemule wrote: The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.
Its headed to the shelves.
If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.
I’d argue that most forces don’t have a reliable way of killing a 4++ Knight – much less for under 700 points.
I’m sure there are options out there, but relying on a charge from deep strike also doesn’t fit the “reliable” category.
The Castellan will still see play.
Killing a 4++ knight is a joke. Plenty of armies were capable of killing a 3++ knight, it just required a huge investment and hot damage rolls so it wasn't as practical as forcing rotate ion shields and nuking its support units.
The biggest issue for a Castellan to continue to be a meta pick would be if the Castellan continued to be a meta pick. Because you'll have a lot of games where player one wipes player two's castellan with their castellan and the game is basically over right there.
Yes, most armies have the ability to deal with a Knight in 1 turn, but, the point was that very few of them (if any) have the ability to do so for less than 700 points.
Knights aren’t going to disappear and so effective counters to them, and the other 1300 points of the army are still required. Take Craftworlds as an example. 3 Fire Prisms and 3 Starcannon CHE, along with Doom and Jinx sets you back 1,153 points (psykers on bikes for the range). Those points, at the cost of 2 psychic powers and likely 2CP, you do 19.915 wounds to the Knight. Slightly less if you also need to move 1 of the Prisms. You could then throw in a unit of 7 Scatter Laser bikes with guide to take off the remaining wounds, or 6 Dark Reapers for another 161-205 points. But then, you’d need a Wave Serpent for the Dark Reapers, or a 2nd unit of Scatter bikes just in case you don’t go first. Add in 3 units of Rangers for troops for the battalion and another Warlock as a cheap HQ for the Spearhead, then you’re looking at 85-87% of your army. Brought for the sole reason to kill a 24 wound 4++ Knight. AND you then have to have first turn, because if you don’t have first turn a chunk of your firepower is going to get blown off the table.
Smash Captains are likely going to make a bit of a comeback, likely alongside Shield Captains. But, Smash Captains can still be screened out and Shield Captains aren’t getting there first turn. The Castellan is still a huge threat to armies, even at +100 points.
The main counter for the Castellan is going to remain T’au and things like Plaguebearer spam, alongside mirrior matchups. And let’s face it, what are Soup lists going to need to drop in order to kill the Knight? Maybe 2 bullgryn and 20 other points, or just a Basilisk.
They’ll probably drop in number initially, before people realise they are still very very good units.
And 40 points of chumps no longer provide 100% immunity to charging ever.
They do if there's no physical space for the charging model between the chumps and the target. You still need to place the charger somewhere!
If you can't shoot a hole big enough for 1 model in 10 guardsmen you don't know how to play 40k. we aren't talking multilayered screens here, we're talking about needing a 1 model sized gap in a 10 man unit wrapping the base.
Personally, I’d just deploy the Guard squads 4” in front of the Knight so when the Smash Captain drops down he can’t even declare a charge vs the Knight due to being over 12” away.
tneva82 wrote: Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage?
No particular reason for chaos players not to take the Knight Pomponius over the Castellan. The magnalas is similar to a volcano cannon while the regular plasma decimator is barely a rapid fire battlecannon.
At over 800 points you still get a bit of a discount with a cawls wraith knight though. Or two whole shadowswords...
Skawt wrote: So many people butt hurt over a titan model losing a 1cp 3+ invul.
3CP but who cares about little facts ;-)
Not to mention little in the way of "butt hurt" in here - most people seem to be saying they think it was a good change.
Yeah. Maybe bit overkill to up the castellan by 100 pts as well with it(maybe some point increase but 100 pts + this seems somewhat heavy handed). Pretty much kills it from pure knight armies. But butthurt is "bit" overexaggeration.
Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot. No need for raven stratagem either so you are saving 3CP per turn.
5++ only except as warlord(so need 2+ knights along) bit of a bummer though. Well unless you can use RIS on it(did it specify questor/dominus only?).
But the (and correct me if I'm wrong) 2d3 average is 4 and d6 average is 3.5.
Skawt wrote: So many people butt hurt over a titan model losing a 1cp 3+ invul.
3CP but who cares about little facts ;-)
Not to mention little in the way of "butt hurt" in here - most people seem to be saying they think it was a good change.
Yeah. Maybe bit overkill to up the castellan by 100 pts as well with it(maybe some point increase but 100 pts + this seems somewhat heavy handed). Pretty much kills it from pure knight armies. But butthurt is "bit" overexaggeration.
Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot. No need for raven stratagem either so you are saving 3CP per turn.
5++ only except as warlord(so need 2+ knights along) bit of a bummer though. Well unless you can use RIS on it(did it specify questor/dominus only?).
But the (and correct me if I'm wrong) 2d3 average is 4 and d6 average is 3.5.
Yes, but it's also a lot more consistent. Very reliably getting 3 to 5 damage is a lot better than the linear distribution of a d6. Not to mention you can never only have 1 shot.
Skawt wrote: So many people butt hurt over a titan model losing a 1cp 3+ invul.
3CP but who cares about little facts ;-)
Not to mention little in the way of "butt hurt" in here - most people seem to be saying they think it was a good change.
Yeah. Maybe bit overkill to up the castellan by 100 pts as well with it(maybe some point increase but 100 pts + this seems somewhat heavy handed). Pretty much kills it from pure knight armies. But butthurt is "bit" overexaggeration.
Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot. No need for raven stratagem either so you are saving 3CP per turn.
5++ only except as warlord(so need 2+ knights along) bit of a bummer though. Well unless you can use RIS on it(did it specify questor/dominus only?).
But the (and correct me if I'm wrong) 2d3 average is 4 and d6 average is 3.5.
Yes. But minimums are 1 vs 2. And odds of 1 shot is 1/6 vs 1/9...
It's not the average # of shots but also reliability. Don't just look at the average but also look at the probabilities. If average is same but probability is better which one will you take?
Same reason btw why flat 2 is better than d3 in almost all the cases. Average is same, one gets average 100% times. The times you MUST have that 3 as option are far less than when rolling that 1 hurts. Sometimes rolling 3 doesn't even compensate for rolling 1(vs say 2 wound models...) where d3 average is in fact less than 2...
Same reason btw why flat 6 there beats 3d3 for damage. Average is same yes but flat 6 is more reliable. Albeit this is bit less important than the shots.
And of course this has 2 of those rather than the plasma weapon for other arm so you have 2 super good. Cawl's wrath compensates but that requires CP, takes up relic slot and then you also need the raven strategem for reliability=3CP per turn. This one has built in reliability so no need to feed 3 CP per turn.
Am I the only one who agrees that vehicles shouldn't get Bolter Discipline? Also, I think it's a little unfair to say that they lost it, when in fact, they never officially had it to begin with.
Ginjitzu wrote: Am I the only one who agrees that vehicles shouldn't get Bolter Discipline? Also, I think it's a little unfair to say that they lost it, when in fact, they never officially had it to begin with.
Semantics. They had it in a very real sense for many people, in that they were using the rule as it was. The fact it was beta doesn't change that.
I think they should have just said that Hurricane Bolters didn't get it, rather than all Bolters on vehicles. But it's fine.
Ginjitzu wrote: Am I the only one who agrees that vehicles shouldn't get Bolter Discipline? Also, I think it's a little unfair to say that they lost it, when in fact, they never officially had it to begin with.
Semantics. They had it in a very real sense for many people, in that they were using the rule as it was. The fact it was beta doesn't change that.
I think they should have just said that Hurricane Bolters didn't get it, rather than all Bolters on vehicles. But it's fine.
Yeah, you definitely wouldn't just have sarcastic "oH sO cEnTuRiOnS wErE sO oP???" posts then.
Ginjitzu wrote: Am I the only one who agrees that vehicles shouldn't get Bolter Discipline? Also, I think it's a little unfair to say that they lost it, when in fact, they never officially had it to begin with.
Semantics. They had it in a very real sense for many people, in that they were using the rule as it was. The fact it was beta doesn't change that.
I think they should have just said that Hurricane Bolters didn't get it, rather than all Bolters on vehicles. But it's fine.
Yeah, you definitely wouldn't just have sarcastic "oH sO cEnTuRiOnS wErE sO oP???" posts then.
Well, we all know that it's impossible to win with these things! Whatever change you make it will piss off someone haha
Ginjitzu wrote: Am I the only one who agrees that vehicles shouldn't get Bolter Discipline? Also, I think it's a little unfair to say that they lost it, when in fact, they never officially had it to begin with.
Semantics. They had it in a very real sense for many people, in that they were using the rule as it was. The fact it was beta doesn't change that.
I think they should have just said that Hurricane Bolters didn't get it, rather than all Bolters on vehicles. But it's fine.
I like that they don't have it, but don't think it's a big deal. Having it on vehicles was just an oddity. Marine vehicles are mainly logistics or support, and I'd rather Marines were balanced with their vehicles being logistics or support than gunboats.
I (and just about everyone else) still think Marines are in a bad place. But I don't think leaving it as impacting vehicles would get them balanced - it just further threw off the identity of the book.
happy_inquisitor wrote: Just had an interesting chat about whether Reborn Drukhari might still be worth a look. More flexibility in list building (no real cabal/cult division) and different sets of stratagems/traits etc.
I think the issue is that it removes at least as much flexibility as it adds.
Yes, you can mix detachments . . . but why would you want to?
The only detachment really worth mixing to unlock is the Brigade (anything else and you're probably better off splitting up your army for extra CPs). However, with Coven and Mandrakes being removed entirely (and Incubi as crap as ever), you'll seriously struggle to find anything meaningful to fill the Elite slots with. This also means that the only half-decent HQ choice is gone, leaving you with just the Archon and Succubus. On the plus side their buffs work on both Kabal and Cult units. On the minus side, their bonuses are crap. I guess it gives you the option of taking a Succubus over an Archon for reasons of cheapness but then you're left with a "melee HQ" who is absolutely worthless in melee.
Furthermore, you're losing out on a good deal of DE stratagems in favour of a smaller pool - including some that are outright worse (e.g. the Ynnari Fire and Fade costs twice as many CPs as the DE one). Not to mention the fact that the Ynnari trait is a melee ability on an army that is banned from using its best melee units (Grotesques and Talos).
AngryAngel80 wrote: So, let me get this right the Caste won't be a meta pick because if the other player has one it'll nuke it before the other one goes.
Which would make it not reliable. So wouldn't it make sense then after a bit of time other players will stop taking it, then you'll be safe to take it again as you won't run into mirror matches as often as its a risky pick ?
I mean it was in fact a bit too cheap, at least the imperial version for what it did so now that you're paying a good amount and it's no longer an auto include, it's a never pick ?
This all might be why I never enjoy to chase the meta, unless a pick is a no brainer broke choice, it's awful trash and once it's made fair, it's garbage and should be sold off as utter rubbish. Just seems like such an odd way to play the game. Especially when it can still smash, it's just a smash you pay a proper amount for.
Your also forgetting Slamguinius is coming in hot back from his timeout.
Choas now have some MW spamming version aswell as finding some thunder hammers at the back of Failbadon's wardrobe.
And 40 points of chumps no longer provide 100% immunity to charging ever.
Yes, but there is this huge interplay of smash captains, bananas, assassins, ogryns, and castellans. I'm pretty sure a callidus or eversor can guard the castellan from captain smash.
Another factor in the Castellan debate should be that your kind of locked into Cawl's Wrath as your Heirloom.
A Crusader see's a Smash Captain, it can take Sanctuary as the Heirloom, and Rotate in the combat phase and now has a 4++ in hth. That really blunts a Smash Captain.
Reemule wrote: Another factor in the Castellan debate should be that your kind of locked into Cawl's Wrath as your Heirloom.
A Crusader see's a Smash Captain, it can take Sanctuary as the Heirloom, and Rotate in the combat phase and now has a 4++ in hth. That really blunts a Smash Captain.
If the opponent has a smash and nothing the Castellan needs Cawl's to kill then why wouldn't it take Sanc as well?
Reemule wrote: Another factor in the Castellan debate should be that your kind of locked into Cawl's Wrath as your Heirloom.
A Crusader see's a Smash Captain, it can take Sanctuary as the Heirloom, and Rotate in the combat phase and now has a 4++ in hth. That really blunts a Smash Captain.
If the opponent has a smash and nothing the Castellan needs Cawl's to kill then why wouldn't it take Sanc as well?
The could... of course is 1CP for a Crusader to Rotate. Its 3CP for the Castellan.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mandrakes seem like fine elite-slot fillers. Beastmaster in a pinch?
Trueborn with Shredders, they're amazing anti infantry. However, this brings us back to the main quandry of why bother, they're strictly better as Flayed Skull or Obsidian Rose.
2 Crusaders, or even 2 of the melee weapon/main gun variant of Questorus Knights, with 4++ (1 from WL trait, the other from Rotate Ion Shields) is actually a bit scarier to me than 1 Castallen even with the 3++ from before. That's 48 T8 4++ wounds to get through over 28 T8 3++ wound. And the former is only 1CP, not 3 so less of a drain for the Knight player.
It costs a bit more in points and if you kill one of them, that's half the fire power, but as an Eldar player that doesn't run Skyweavers, I only have 1 trick to down a Knight per turn: Linked Fire Prisms against a Jinxed target. So I'll kill one of those Knights for sure now, but it won't leave me enough to down the other. But this is GOOD for the game. Less eggs in one basket for the Knight/ImpSoup player allowing them to keep up the threat level on multiple turns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mandrakes seem like fine elite-slot fillers. Beastmaster in a pinch?
Trueborn with Shredders, they're amazing anti infantry. However, this brings us back to the main quandry of why bother, they're strictly better as Flayed Skull or Obsidian Rose.
I've got a mixed Ynarri detachment in a list I'm trying out tonight. It's a battalion, the units I want are a unit of Reavers ,a Hypex succubus and Yvraine (to cast spells that buff the Reavers, mainly). I can fit that in a patrol, sure but +60 points in Kabalites to get 5CP instead seems better. I also already have Flayed Skull venoms in my force, 2 with no occupants and, sure, the opportunity cost of 2 of my Kabalites not being Flayed SKull exists, but its only 20 shots (out of >100) and in return I get extra resilient, super killy Reavers.
Just to quickly justify the super killy reavers comment: They have +1A drug and can (if necessary) use an Advance and Charge strat, making them capable of moving at Red Grief speed. They also get Reroll Wounds (strat or power) and +1 to hit early on, plus reroll 1s to hit even outside of Succubus Range (psy power). This gives them 3 attacks each hitting on 2s reroll 1s, S4 AP-1 reroll to wound. This is better against all targets than even another +1 Attack, so they are killier than any reavers DE can produce and are a good target for the Doom Lite that Yvraine is packing.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Crusaders generally point up to about 500. So yes, 1k points.
The argument holds though. The Castellan's new price is exactly the cost of 2 Gallants. 48 wounds, T8, and the same save.
As a Knight player my lists are generally something like 3x Crusaders, 2x Helverins, 1 Warglaive. Or Porphyrion, 2x Crusaders, Helverin. Or Stryrix, 2x Crusaders, Warden, Assassin.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Unless you put all the bells and whistles on them (carapace weapons, etc), I think it comes in just over 800pts. So only 100-200pts more than the Castellan now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mandrakes seem like fine elite-slot fillers. Beastmaster in a pinch?
Trueborn with Shredders, they're amazing anti infantry. However, this brings us back to the main quandry of why bother, they're strictly better as Flayed Skull or Obsidian Rose.
I've got a mixed Ynarri detachment in a list I'm trying out tonight. It's a battalion, the units I want are a unit of Reavers ,a Hypex succubus and Yvraine (to cast spells that buff the Reavers, mainly). I can fit that in a patrol, sure but +60 points in Kabalites to get 5CP instead seems better. I also already have Flayed Skull venoms in my force, 2 with no occupants and, sure, the opportunity cost of 2 of my Kabalites not being Flayed SKull exists, but its only 20 shots (out of >100) and in return I get extra resilient, super killy Reavers.
Just to quickly justify the super killy reavers comment: They have +1A drug and can (if necessary) use an Advance and Charge strat, making them capable of moving at Red Grief speed. They also get Reroll Wounds (strat or power) and +1 to hit early on, plus reroll 1s to hit even outside of Succubus Range (psy power). This gives them 3 attacks each hitting on 2s reroll 1s, S4 AP-1 reroll to wound. This is better against all targets than even another +1 Attack, so they are killier than any reavers DE can produce and are a good target for the Doom Lite that Yvraine is packing.
My comment was specifically towards what you'd run in a Brigaid for the elite slot, but I think your way of doing it in using 30pt Kabalite units as a very cheap troops tax is the better way. My problem with your list is the Reavers themselves, even with all of those buffs thats still only 9 S4, AP -1 D1 attacks for about 60pts on every 3 Reavers you take and they are going to be very easy to kill. For me Reavers are one of the few actually bad units in the Drukhari codex.
Personally I'm going to be running an Ynnari Patrol tomorrow with Yvraine, Troope Master and a squad of 12 Troopes, 5 with Caresses, deep striking. Yvraine has Ancestors Grace to effectively give them re-roll hits and Word of the Phoenix to bring the ablative wounds back to life whilst the Troope Master gives them the re-roll wounds.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Unless you put all the bells and whistles on them (carapace weapons, etc), I think it comes in just over 800pts. So only 100-200pts more than the Castellan now.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Unless you put all the bells and whistles on them (carapace weapons, etc), I think it comes in just over 800pts. So only 100-200pts more than the Castellan now.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Unless you put all the bells and whistles on them (carapace weapons, etc), I think it comes in just over 800pts. So only 100-200pts more than the Castellan now.
-
Absolute bare bones is 904 for 2 Crusaders.
Ah, I was thinking Wardens/Paladins/Errants then.
-
I don't know if I can see that becoming a new standard? It might, but a loyal 32 + 2 Crusaders + a smash captain is a lot of points, and that doesn't leave all that much room. You'd be basically saying I will table you or lose, and there's a lot of armies who could just get too many wounds on the board for that to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mandrakes seem like fine elite-slot fillers. Beastmaster in a pinch?
Trueborn with Shredders, they're amazing anti infantry. However, this brings us back to the main quandry of why bother, they're strictly better as Flayed Skull or Obsidian Rose.
I've got a mixed Ynarri detachment in a list I'm trying out tonight. It's a battalion, the units I want are a unit of Reavers ,a Hypex succubus and Yvraine (to cast spells that buff the Reavers, mainly). I can fit that in a patrol, sure but +60 points in Kabalites to get 5CP instead seems better. I also already have Flayed Skull venoms in my force, 2 with no occupants and, sure, the opportunity cost of 2 of my Kabalites not being Flayed SKull exists, but its only 20 shots (out of >100) and in return I get extra resilient, super killy Reavers.
Just to quickly justify the super killy reavers comment: They have +1A drug and can (if necessary) use an Advance and Charge strat, making them capable of moving at Red Grief speed. They also get Reroll Wounds (strat or power) and +1 to hit early on, plus reroll 1s to hit even outside of Succubus Range (psy power). This gives them 3 attacks each hitting on 2s reroll 1s, S4 AP-1 reroll to wound. This is better against all targets than even another +1 Attack, so they are killier than any reavers DE can produce and are a good target for the Doom Lite that Yvraine is packing.
My comment was specifically towards what you'd run in a Brigaid for the elite slot, but I think your way of doing it in using 30pt Kabalite units as a very cheap troops tax is the better way. My problem with your list is the Reavers themselves, even with all of those buffs thats still only 9 S4, AP -1 D1 attacks for about 60pts on every 3 Reavers you take and they are going to be very easy to kill. For me Reavers are one of the few actually bad units in the Drukhari codex.
Personally I'm going to be running an Ynnari Patrol tomorrow with Yvraine, Troope Master and a squad of 12 Troopes, 5 with Caresses, deep striking. Yvraine has Ancestors Grace to effectively give them re-roll hits and Word of the Phoenix to bring the ablative wounds back to life whilst the Troope Master gives them the re-roll wounds.
It's 60 points for 3 if they also do mortal wounds sometimes, which is a nice perk of the unit. 9 S4 AP -1 attacks for 60 points is not bad combined with the movement to get wherever. As I said, they have the attacks they need to kill Eldar Fliers or entire Ork Boy mobs, for 200-250 points and have the ability to keep being relevant if even one is alive. They have alot going for them.
Agreed, and Loyal 32 + 2 Crusaders is already 3 detachments, so it leaves no room for Smash Captains at all for a 3 detachment limit.
Although I could see some players leaning more into 3 Knights (6CPs) + Loyal 32 lists with added tanks or whatever
Possibly 2 Crusaders (1 as WL and 1 for Rotate Ion shield) and 1 Gallant to run up the field as a distraction.
Or many might still take the Castellan and basically pay the extra points but get CPs as a consolation (because you aren't spending 3CPs per turn for the 3++ anymore)
tneva82 wrote: Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot.
Main reasons for not taking Porphyrion would be that it cost a lot of money and is a giant unwieldy lump of resin.
tneva82 wrote: Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot.
Main reasons for not taking Porphyrion would be that it cost a lot of money and is a giant unwieldy lump of resin.
Not to mention that moving from d6 volcano shots + 2d6 Cawl's Wrath shots to 4d3 magna-lascannon shots cuts down on your versatility and ability to casually RFP multi-wound infantry a lot, and the Castellan's secondary armament (four meltaguns, two of the gun turrets, and the shieldbreaker missiles) are a heck of a lot more effective than the Porphyrion's two lascannon or autocannons and one missile pod, and Exalted Court specifically works on Dominus and Questoris-class Knights so you can't put Ion Bulwark on an Acastus or Cerastus Knight...
tneva82 wrote: Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot.
Main reasons for not taking Porphyrion would be that it cost a lot of money and is a giant unwieldy lump of resin.
It's also terrible at killing armies that have no big models. It could kill maybe 6 to 8 infantry models a turn with a pile of useless super lascannon shots.
tneva82 wrote: Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot.
Main reasons for not taking Porphyrion would be that it cost a lot of money and is a giant unwieldy lump of resin.
The porphy is kind of a pain. I've never successfully finished a game without breaking something off it, be it a hose or a piece of the back armor.
It is pretty effective on the table though. Easily guns down Knights, and is pretty resistant to damage in turn.
tneva82 wrote: Now castellan gets into point where rather than it why not take porypho...whatever the thing is called. T9, more wounds, hits on 2+ and guns that makes castellan go green with envy. 2d3 shots vs d6 which is lot better and flat 6 damage? Oolalaa reliability goes up a lot.
Main reasons for not taking Porphyrion would be that it cost a lot of money and is a giant unwieldy lump of resin.
It's also terrible at killing armies that have no big models. It could kill maybe 6 to 8 infantry models a turn with a pile of useless super lascannon shots.
Mine does better than that. Average is 8 Magna laser, 4 Autocannon, and 3.5 from the Ironstorm, hits on a 2+, it will slag 10-12 models. Also 9 Str8 melee attacks isn't something to discount.
And its not like it fights alone. With it easily able to handle all anti armor, your other options should be much more anti horde orientated.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Crusaders generally point up to about 500. So yes, 1k points.
The argument holds though. The Castellan's new price is exactly the cost of 2 Gallants. 48 wounds, T8, and the same save.
As a Knight player my lists are generally something like 3x Crusaders, 2x Helverins, 1 Warglaive. Or Porphyrion, 2x Crusaders, Helverin. Or Stryrix, 2x Crusaders, Warden, Assassin.
How does you list with big P perform in events? I've been pondering getting one for a while, and with the new changes to castellan now might be an appropriate time.
Mine does better than that. Average is 8 Magna laser, 4 Autocannon, and 3.5 from the Ironstorm, hits on a 2+, it will slag 10-12 models. Also 9 Str8 melee attacks isn't something to discount.
And its not like it fights alone. With it easily able to handle all anti armor, your other options should be much more anti horde orientated.
Yea, but that's the same situation as the Castellan would have faced with tons of IS on hand.
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Crusaders generally point up to about 500. So yes, 1k points.
The argument holds though. The Castellan's new price is exactly the cost of 2 Gallants. 48 wounds, T8, and the same save.
As a Knight player my lists are generally something like 3x Crusaders, 2x Helverins, 1 Warglaive. Or Porphyrion, 2x Crusaders, Helverin. Or Stryrix, 2x Crusaders, Warden, Assassin.
How does you list with big P perform in events? I've been pondering getting one for a while, and with the new changes to castellan now might be an appropriate time.
I've only used it on game knights. I plan to take it to events. Infact I was hoping that GW would do something in the faq for soup, and I was wondering if that would have driven people to bring their own bigger armor. Waiting to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mandrakes seem like fine elite-slot fillers. Beastmaster in a pinch?
Trueborn with Shredders, they're amazing anti infantry. However, this brings us back to the main quandry of why bother, they're strictly better as Flayed Skull or Obsidian Rose.
I've got a mixed Ynarri detachment in a list I'm trying out tonight. It's a battalion, the units I want are a unit of Reavers ,a Hypex succubus and Yvraine (to cast spells that buff the Reavers, mainly). I can fit that in a patrol, sure but +60 points in Kabalites to get 5CP instead seems better. I also already have Flayed Skull venoms in my force, 2 with no occupants and, sure, the opportunity cost of 2 of my Kabalites not being Flayed SKull exists, but its only 20 shots (out of >100) and in return I get extra resilient, super killy Reavers.
Just to quickly justify the super killy reavers comment: They have +1A drug and can (if necessary) use an Advance and Charge strat, making them capable of moving at Red Grief speed. They also get Reroll Wounds (strat or power) and +1 to hit early on, plus reroll 1s to hit even outside of Succubus Range (psy power). This gives them 3 attacks each hitting on 2s reroll 1s, S4 AP-1 reroll to wound. This is better against all targets than even another +1 Attack, so they are killier than any reavers DE can produce and are a good target for the Doom Lite that Yvraine is packing.
My comment was specifically towards what you'd run in a Brigaid for the elite slot, but I think your way of doing it in using 30pt Kabalite units as a very cheap troops tax is the better way. My problem with your list is the Reavers themselves, even with all of those buffs thats still only 9 S4, AP -1 D1 attacks for about 60pts on every 3 Reavers you take and they are going to be very easy to kill. For me Reavers are one of the few actually bad units in the Drukhari codex.
Personally I'm going to be running an Ynnari Patrol tomorrow with Yvraine, Troope Master and a squad of 12 Troopes, 5 with Caresses, deep striking. Yvraine has Ancestors Grace to effectively give them re-roll hits and Word of the Phoenix to bring the ablative wounds back to life whilst the Troope Master gives them the re-roll wounds.
It's 60 points for 3 if they also do mortal wounds sometimes, which is a nice perk of the unit. 9 S4 AP -1 attacks for 60 points is not bad combined with the movement to get wherever. As I said, they have the attacks they need to kill Eldar Fliers or entire Ork Boy mobs, for 200-250 points and have the ability to keep being relevant if even one is alive. They have alot going for them.
12 Reavers re-rolling everything only just kills a flyer and if it's got FnP then it'll probably survive, and 20 Wyches without re-rolls kills an entire ork mob for less than 180pts and no support. Have fun, but I maintain that there are considerably better ways to do what those Reavers are doing without the massive need for CP and psychic support.
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
The "no" does not matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
In reality this changes very little, you shouldn't be assaulting Dark Reapers in a real game state (ergo shoot/mortal wound death them off the board). This only improves the value of "x unit can not overwatch rules."
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
It's not actually either it's a non determined state and hence Reapers should just be banned from all Events by TO's as clearlt some players are going to cause a punch up and TO's definataly need to prevent that.
Is GW bad at rules, yes they always have been but that doesn't mean that threads need to be derailed over but my twisting of RAW for RAW sack ever needs to level the confines of YMDC.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state.
Black text is still part of the FAQs published this week. The color coding is only to help people find the newest rules. In cases where "black text" rules are no longer relevant or conflict, they are updated.
It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase.
GW's "FAQs" are FAQs and Errata. Their reasonings aren't binding, but their rules are. It may well be that the reasoning behind their ruling is flawed, but that doesn't change their ruling. They are "final" and therefore "infallable" after all (to paraphrase a SCOTUS quote).
This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
The most up to date rules is the latest FAQ. That question is *in* said FAQ. It's not a new rule, but was published with it.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Permission certainly does. IA grants permission to hit on a 3+ under conditions. The first condition is that Reapers are shooting. The FAQ adds a second condition - not while overwatching. The FAQ either adds rationale for that decision, or a second rule - neither of which provide permission for ignoring the 'No' restriction.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Only if "your" reasoning is intended to supercede GW's reasoning. The point of an FAQ/Errata is to establish the accepted reasoning. In this case, it seems their reasoning is wholly off-base - but that doesn't preempt the rule.
Similarly, GW decided it was fair for Marines to be 13ppm and Guardsmen to be 4ppm. It is widely agreed that GW was wrong in this case. But that doesn't invalidate the rules that set those points.
When an authoritative rule is given, the reasoning being flawed does not negate the rule.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs.
"Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Look, there's no age requirement on the game, or GPA check, or anything like that. If the guy can breathe (we assume) he's allowed to play the game.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Look, there's no age requirement on the game, or GPA check, or anything like that. If the guy can breathe (we assume) he's allowed to play the game.
It used to have an age limit maybe it's what's needed, then again I've seen kids who have a better understanding of the rules than some of these "But RAW says, if you ignore this bit that doesn't support my twisting of the rules for my own benifit." Pedants.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Give this man the key to the Internets. He's earned it.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
I’m not sure how you think this is possible, the FAQ states that they shoot on 3+ in ONLY in the shooting phase. If you’re in the assault phase, then you can’t shoot on 3+, because it’s also the Assault phase, and the FAQ says ONLY the shooting phase. Not both assault and shooting. Right? I think that’s how words work, I can feel my brain starting to melt trying to rationalize the mental gymnastics here.
I’d also like to add that you can rationalize and say this and that however you want to get to your 3+, but outside of an organized event, I would be more inclined to just pick up my models at this point and find a different opponent, as I’m sure many others would.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+? A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
So again if the question is:
Q: Does this mean that Dark Reapers can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
The problem with your rather failed assumption here is that only the newest parts of the FAQ are relevant. As the part that says No to shooting on a 3+ in Overwatch is part of a current FAQ then no, you can't shoot on a 3+ in overwatch and any attempt to do so is flat out cheating.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
Yeah and they removed one FAQ and then there was only one.
It doesn't matter, as long as something is on the official FAQ in the website, it is valid.
happy_inquisitor wrote: Just had an interesting chat about whether Reborn Drukhari might still be worth a look. More flexibility in list building (no real cabal/cult division) and different sets of stratagems/traits etc.
I think the issue is that it removes at least as much flexibility as it adds.
Yes, you can mix detachments . . . but why would you want to?
The only detachment really worth mixing to unlock is the Brigade (anything else and you're probably better off splitting up your army for extra CPs). However, with Coven and Mandrakes being removed entirely (and Incubi as crap as ever), you'll seriously struggle to find anything meaningful to fill the Elite slots with. This also means that the only half-decent HQ choice is gone, leaving you with just the Archon and Succubus. On the plus side their buffs work on both Kabal and Cult units. On the minus side, their bonuses are crap. I guess it gives you the option of taking a Succubus over an Archon for reasons of cheapness but then you're left with a "melee HQ" who is absolutely worthless in melee.
Furthermore, you're losing out on a good deal of DE stratagems in favour of a smaller pool - including some that are outright worse (e.g. the Ynnari Fire and Fade costs twice as many CPs as the DE one). Not to mention the fact that the Ynnari trait is a melee ability on an army that is banned from using its best melee units (Grotesques and Talos).
If he keeps the Kabal and Cult units in their own detachments then he just runs out of detachments for the models he wants to take. He firmly wants a detachment of Harlequins and he really does not want to give up a few of the best bits of his Alaitoc CWE. He neither has nor currently wants Coven units so that is not an issue for him at the moment. Putting the Kabal and Cult units together he can have his harlequin and CWE detachments - at the potential "cost" of making the DE be Ynnari but it is not a total loss as there are some benefits to being Ynnari for the sorts of units he likes.
Either way he does it there are compromises, we could not theory-hammer it out so the options get played out on the table against some proxy opposition to see which one feels more workable. We have been working this way for a few years and it works for us.
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
The "no" does not matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
In reality this changes very little, you shouldn't be assaulting Dark Reapers in a real game state (ergo shoot/mortal wound death them off the board). This only improves the value of "x unit can not overwatch rules."
No. We have flat out saying NO in the most up to date FAQ.
You don't go cherry picking answers from FAQ saying "this is valid, this is not valid". all are valid.
Dark reapers are specifically excluded. End of story.
If not I'm going to go cherry picking that the mob up nerf is not valid. And that commissar nerf isn't valid.
Does an aegis defence line have the <Building> key word? Just wondering if that would make a cheap way to screen my knights from smash captains, by basically costing them an extra 2" of movement and preventing their fly move.
ewar wrote: Does an aegis defence line have the <Building> key word? Just wondering if that would make a cheap way to screen my knights from smash captains, by basically costing them an extra 2" of movement and preventing their fly move.
Thoughts?
Defense Lines don't have the Building keyword, I think the cheapest thing that does is a Bunker but it doesn't have particularly big dimensions for blocking movement.
Eihnlazer wrote: nobody hits in overwatch on anything better than a 5+.
The only units that do that are the ones that specifically state they hit on a 5+ in overwatch.
If they don't mention overwatch specifically, they only hit on a 6+.
NOTHING IN THE FAQ changes that.
Wrong. Custodes unit with the Gatekeeper relic hits on 3+
No, not "Wrong", just inaccurate. The spirit of Eihnlazer's post is correct: The only units that can Overwatch better than 6s specifically state so in their rules. So Custodes with the Gatekeeper relic hit on 3+ because that relic says so and only for the model with it. But 90% of all other units that get a boost to Overwatch rolls are typically just 5+
Seriously, Maugan Ra doesn't have inescapable accuracy. he has Inescapable death. In the shooting phase. Now in the Orverwatch Phase. And it doesn't have the FAQ entry saying no.
Maugan Ra does now hit on a 2+, rerolling 1s in OW. It's an ability that functions in the shooting phase, so now works with OW.
Dark Reapers got a special nerf so that they wouldn't be even more insane, but it only applies to them. It's not like his pot shots are going to be doing much, anyway. Let the poor elf have this one.
Trimarius wrote: Maugan Ra does now hit on a 2+, rerolling 1s in OW. It's an ability that functions in the shooting phase, so now works with OW.
Dark Reapers got a special nerf so that they wouldn't be even more insane, but it only applies to them. It's not like his pot shots are going to be doing much, anyway. Let the poor elf have this one.
Agreed. As silly as it is for his Inescapable Death rule to work in Overwatch and not the Reaper's Inescapable Accuracy, only the Reapers have a "No" in the FAQ
Eihnlazer wrote: you guys need to stop. The FAQ saying no is still there and nowhere in his ability does it mention overwatch so no it doesn work.
Get over it.
Faq has no just for reapers. Special exception. Like faq gave quantum shield boost strategem special exception to work vs d1 weapons despite needing to roll less than 1 and faq also says less than 1 counts as 1. So all others if you roll less than 1 you count as rolling 1. Not necrons in this usage
Raw it shouldn't work. But faq ignores raw time to time. Tough. Get over it.
There's a lot of silly in the FAQ if you specifically read past intent (I know, 40k players), as someone pointed out, the fact that Rubrics are considered a psyker unit could be interpreted as every time you remove a model from the unit as a result of perils, it blows up and does D6MW to the squad. We all know that's not the intent, it won't stop some pedantic scrub from trying to wrangle advantage from a completely disingenuous reading of the rule.
My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.
I believe the rulebook has a way of resolving simultaneous, conflicting fixed modifiers. I don't have mine to hand, can someone clarify? Is it decided by the player who's turn it is, or by a roll-off?
Haighus wrote: My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.
I'm thinking this is just a quick and dirty way of constructing a list of people you don't play against. You know the intent and as a result of interpretation, you know the intent of the person trying to exploit it, if you choose to play against that person or really engage with them in any way, well, that's on you.
Haighus wrote: My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.
I'm thinking this is just a quick and dirty way of constructing a list of people you don't play against. You know the intent and as a result of interpretation, you know the intent of the person trying to exploit it, if you choose to play against that person or really engage with them in any way, well, that's on you.
Eh, I'm never going to ever play it this way (even if I actually had an Aeldari army, nevermind one with Maugan Ra in it). But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to tease out the strict RAW reading of a particular rules interaction- for a start, working it out allows the community to give feedback to GW on how to correct it to RAI in the future, and hopefully helps them learn how to write less ambiguous rules.
Galas wrote: I have no problem with a special guy , and one small like a phoenix lord, hitting on overwatch on 2+.
I don't particularly think it's overwhelming or crazy to have 1 special character that can do that. However, what it tells me about the player attempting to do that speaks volumes and I want nothing to do with that person.
Galas wrote: I have no problem with a special guy , and one small like a phoenix lord, hitting on overwatch on 2+.
This is also true. In this specific example, I'd be fine with an opponent playing it this way. I wouldn't try it myself, mind, partly because I can't be bothered with the argument.
Honestly, I think the likely outcome is the rule gets added to the next FAQ/Chapter Approved and we can all forget about it, except that one person arguing "no" isn't a valid English word.
Specific overrides general, so I think that RAW the phoenix lord would hit on 2's, since he has a static buff that always applies in the shooting phase, and effects that would apply in the shooting phase now also apply during overwatch. Therefore, there's a general rule that says people hit on overwatch on 6's, and then there's a specific rule that says he hits on 2's that overrides that. If it was alternately interpreted, other benefits to hit in overwatch wouldn't work.
Dark Reapers have a specific callout, IIRC, that says they don't work.
Leman Russ Grinding Advance specifies the following shooting phase, so it doesn't work in overwatch
This is how you get gak like "can i move off the table" and "do I lose if I concede".
Internet TFG who think their own so clever and 'discuss' it for hours but won't ever do it in a real game because they know they will get laughed out of the store/tournament.
I am somewhat perplexed that "Unless a ballistic skill or hit roll modifier states otherwise, it does not apply to Overwatch rolls." isn't directly stated in the FAQ.
Reemule wrote: I wish GW spent a little more time working through the implications of the rules when they make some of these changes.
Does the Vindicare now hit on a 2+ in overwatch?
Does Maugan Ra shoot twice in overwatch?
Time for a USR discussion?
I think vindicare specifically states its doesn't not apply in overwatch in it's rule.
They just need to amend overwatch's wording. "Overwatch does not count as shooting in the shooting phase" or whatever they choose to do with it. It would be better than amending all the special cases.
There were actual people who refused to let you heal things with tech marines in the last edition....because their requirement to heal things was breaking the rules of the game.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Small note just to throw in for fun Mordian tanks can hit on a 4+ in overwatch I do believe.
And a variety of units can also hit on 4+ when using the Vigilus Defiant specialist detachment stratagems.
Honestly, I'm not certain where the confusion is. Aside from one specific example of a special character that has been collecting dust for ages, and basically just turns the weapon into a flamer for overwatch purposes, everything else seems to have a nice rule explanation to tie it all together.
Grinding Advance - following shooting phase means not in overwatch.
Dark Reapers - FAQ says no (no means no)
Vindicare - specifically says not in overwatch (no also means no here, too)
Not even sure what other crazy outliers there are.
Haighus wrote: My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.
I'm thinking this is just a quick and dirty way of constructing a list of people you don't play against. You know the intent and as a result of interpretation, you know the intent of the person trying to exploit it, if you choose to play against that person or really engage with them in any way, well, that's on you.
Eh, I'm never going to ever play it this way (even if I actually had an Aeldari army, nevermind one with Maugan Ra in it). But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to tease out the strict RAW reading of a particular rules interaction- for a start, working it out allows the community to give feedback to GW on how to correct it to RAI in the future, and hopefully helps them learn how to write less ambiguous rules.
I think if anyone is arguing over what BS he fires at in OW has bigger problems because he's actually getting charged. He should probably never be in a position to be charged anyway
Haighus wrote: My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.
I believe the rulebook has a way of resolving simultaneous, conflicting fixed modifiers. I don't have mine to hand, can someone clarify? Is it decided by the player who's turn it is, or by a roll-off?
We just had FAQ that states that when attacker has always hit X and defender has always hit on X the attacker trumps defender...
Why think it's same time when the DESIGNERS are telling order it is done? Attacker trumps defender. That's the official rule. If you want to house rule fine but official rule is attacker trumps defender.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I am somewhat perplexed that "Unless a ballistic skill or hit roll modifier states otherwise, it does not apply to Overwatch rolls." isn't directly stated in the FAQ.
Because GW still has faith that their fanbase doesn't need to be specifically told "don't be a jackwagon" and expects us to be capable of applying a modicum of common sense. It's obvious they don't read DakkaDakka. Seriously. The last three pages or so are a shining example of why we literally have an FAQ that says you lose if you forfeit the game.
Haighus wrote: My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.
I believe the rulebook has a way of resolving simultaneous, conflicting fixed modifiers. I don't have mine to hand, can someone clarify? Is it decided by the player who's turn it is, or by a roll-off?
We just had FAQ that states that when attacker has always hit X and defender has always hit on X the attacker trumps defender...
Why think it's same time when the DESIGNERS are telling order it is done? Attacker trumps defender. That's the official rule. If you want to house rule fine but official rule is attacker trumps defender.
You mean this?
Q: If a model whose attacks always hit on a specific roll (such as
a Vindicare Assassin or Dark Reaper’s ranged attacks) targets
a unit that can only be hit on a specific roll (such as a unit
under the effects of the Pathfinders Stratagem), which rule takes
precedent – the attacking model’s or the target unit’s?
A: The attacking model’s ability takes precedence.
My issue with that is that the Overwatch modifier is not an ability of the Defender, but a condition on the Attacker. The Attacker has two modifiers simultaneously, not a modifier competing with the Defender. Otherwise I would agree with you.
Galas wrote: The problem I see is... why did GW put this new FAQ that said that everything that happens in the shoting phase also happens in overwatch?
What where they trying to achieve.
Best guess? To prevent things like double tap stratagems in overwatch and potentially allow some other things to work.
Galas wrote: The problem I see is... why did GW put this new FAQ that said that everything that happens in the shoting phase also happens in overwatch?
What where they trying to achieve.
Best guess? To prevent things like double tap stratagems in overwatch and potentially allow some other things to work.
This change in the FAQ was just to specify that almost all shooting phase stratagems wouldn't work to deal with overwatch, while clarifying that aura buff's (re-rolls) still effect models in overwatch.
People are trying to take far more out of this than was intended.
Because GW still has faith that their fanbase doesn't need to be specifically told "don't be a jackwagon" and expects us to be capable of applying a modicum of common sense.
Then perhaps they should practise what they preach?
Seriously, if GW wants its players to use common sense then it should be using common sense in its rule writing and FAQs. instead, what we get is a load of contradictory nonsense where players might as well flip a coin over whether a given interaction is intended or not.
Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.
Problem is that lootas have to be fed 2 or 4 CP each turn to be worthwhile. Reducing their max squad size by 40% makes those CP much less efficient.
Exactly. 15 Lootas are a 255pt investment, if they aren't shooting from turn 1 you will not get your investment back, and if you have 2 squads now you simply are going to lose 1 of them on turn 1 unless you spend 2 CP to keep them in reserves. Even then, when they are on the field you need to spend 1 CP for grot shields, 2 cp to shoot twice and 2 cp to dakka on 5s so really its 5CP a turn, so at absolute MAX potential you will only get 3 turns of them being useful and they will be dead long before turn 3 unless you brought 100 grots to guard them.
This breaks down to 15 lootas = (on average) 30 shots, about 12 hits and against a T7 target 6 wounds at -1 AP so against most armies that is a grand total of 6 damage, if its against a Knight, Leman russ or other T8 target you are looking at 4 dmg. So when you spend 2 CP to shoot again that is 12 and 8 damage respectively, add on dakka on 5s and you were looking at about 2 more damage on average.
A SM Player can take a Dev squad with LC's and a cherub and a Captain for the same price which gives them 5 S9 shots. So 2 Shots hitting on 2s rerolling 1s and 3 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. that works out to the regular Devs hitting slightly less then 2.5 times and the Signum/Cherub hitting 2 times almost guaranteed. Against T7 and T8 it doesn't matter they all wound on 3s so 4.5 hits = 3 wounds on average with -3 AP so against 4+ saves it goes right through, against 3+ saves it goes through 2.5x. So 2.5 x 3.5 (average damage) = 8.75 damage on average, and all of that without spending a single CP. So now a Loota bomb is slightly ore effective then a Devestator squad for the same price but they have to spend 4 CP. And of course you could take 2 squads of Devestators and throw in a Lieutenant for less then the cost of 2 squads of Lootas and you now increase your damage per squad to 13.12, so those 2 squads are managing 26 damage on average to anything without an invuln save or a 2+ save.
Math aside, Loota bombs weren't nearly as effective as everyone made them out to be, what they did do was something orkz desperately needed. The ability to lay down a torrent of fire and damage light vehicles and elite infantry. The Mek Gunz people are now saying are amazing and should be brought instead are rather trash. T5 with a 5+ save and 6 wounds is delicate, squishy almost. worse, they rely on lucky rolls to get their damage to even work. The Smasha gun is the most popular and relies on you rolling 2D6 and getting higher then the targets Toughness to inflict wounds. That is ok since the smasha guns is priced correctly, but it isn't reliable. The Traktor Kannon is reliable but almost 50% more expensive then the Smasha gun and has a significantly lower top end damage, and the KMK is the best but is more then TWICE as expensive as a smasha gun and reliably strips itself of a wound almost every turn.
GW managed to give orkz 1 unit that required a huge CP investment to be competitive at the top tables and in their generosity allowed us to keep it for 6 months before hitting it with a 40% reduction in average damage output.
The writing for this is clear, yet somehow we have people in threads across this site literally arguing that because the rulebook was posted for them 30 minutes after the Craftworld one, it must mean it trumps everything.
It's this level of ridiculousness GW fights every freaking day. Likely makes these FAQs a thankless endeavour.
Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.
Problem is that lootas have to be fed 2 or 4 CP each turn to be worthwhile. Reducing their max squad size by 40% makes those CP much less efficient.
Exactly. 15 Lootas are a 255pt investment, if they aren't shooting from turn 1 you will not get your investment back, and if you have 2 squads now you simply are going to lose 1 of them on turn 1 unless you spend 2 CP to keep them in reserves. Even then, when they are on the field you need to spend 1 CP for grot shields, 2 cp to shoot twice and 2 cp to dakka on 5s so really its 5CP a turn, so at absolute MAX potential you will only get 3 turns of them being useful and they will be dead long before turn 3 unless you brought 100 grots to guard them.
This breaks down to 15 lootas = (on average) 30 shots, about 12 hits and against a T7 target 6 wounds at -1 AP so against most armies that is a grand total of 6 damage, if its against a Knight, Leman russ or other T8 target you are looking at 4 dmg. So when you spend 2 CP to shoot again that is 12 and 8 damage respectively, add on dakka on 5s and you were looking at about 2 more damage on average.
A SM Player can take a Dev squad with LC's and a cherub and a Captain for the same price which gives them 5 S9 shots. So 2 Shots hitting on 2s rerolling 1s and 3 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. that works out to the regular Devs hitting slightly less then 2.5 times and the Signum/Cherub hitting 2 times almost guaranteed. Against T7 and T8 it doesn't matter they all wound on 3s so 4.5 hits = 3 wounds on average with -3 AP so against 4+ saves it goes right through, against 3+ saves it goes through 2.5x. So 2.5 x 3.5 (average damage) = 8.75 damage on average, and all of that without spending a single CP. So now a Loota bomb is slightly ore effective then a Devestator squad for the same price but they have to spend 4 CP. And of course you could take 2 squads of Devestators and throw in a Lieutenant for less then the cost of 2 squads of Lootas and you now increase your damage per squad to 13.12, so those 2 squads are managing 26 damage on average to anything without an invuln save or a 2+ save.
Math aside, Loota bombs weren't nearly as effective as everyone made them out to be, what they did do was something orkz desperately needed. The ability to lay down a torrent of fire and damage light vehicles and elite infantry. The Mek Gunz people are now saying are amazing and should be brought instead are rather trash. T5 with a 5+ save and 6 wounds is delicate, squishy almost. worse, they rely on lucky rolls to get their damage to even work. The Smasha gun is the most popular and relies on you rolling 2D6 and getting higher then the targets Toughness to inflict wounds. That is ok since the smasha guns is priced correctly, but it isn't reliable. The Traktor Kannon is reliable but almost 50% more expensive then the Smasha gun and has a significantly lower top end damage, and the KMK is the best but is more then TWICE as expensive as a smasha gun and reliably strips itself of a wound almost every turn.
GW managed to give orkz 1 unit that required a huge CP investment to be competitive at the top tables and in their generosity allowed us to keep it for 6 months before hitting it with a 40% reduction in average damage output.
mobbed up lootah hitting on 5, exploding on 6, rerolling 1 were stupid powerful when they had 20+ ablative wounds.
Sure, I could see the argument that they cost a ton of CP to power, except Orks generated tons of CP, so powering them for the one or two turns wasn't ever a problem i saw.
As I understand it, the lootah bomb was an unintended consequence and wasn't supposed to take out 700 point models, let alone 400 point models in a single turn.
GW just needs to come out and say to stop reading into rules to exploit things. If it doesn't sound like it's intended, or sounds too strong, then assume it doesn't work this way. It would solve half the issues if people weren't trying to dissect every rule for potential loopholes to get an advantage
Wayniac wrote: GW just needs to come out and say to stop reading into rules to exploit things.
This is what they send back to you after you submit a question via email:
In the meantime, the following procedure should help you answer any rules questions you may have for yourself. Here’s what to do:
1. Read The Rule. This may seem obvious, but first of all, read the rule in question - it’s best not to rely on what you’ve been told, so we recommend you find the printed version of rule and read it word by word. Often this will resolve the question.
2. Go Upstream. If re-reading the rule doesn’t provide an answer, read any other rules that relate to the rule in question (we call this ‘following the question upstream’). For example, if the rule modifies to hit rolls, re-read the rules for modifiers and the rules for hit rolls. More often than not you will find the answer you seek upstream.
3. Check The Official Design Commentaries and Errata. If you are still stuck, read the official Design Commentary and Errata documents on the Games Workshop community website to see if the question has already been answered (see www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/).
4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has.
5. Roll a Dice. If the rule still remains unclear, roll a dice to resolve your question for the time being (1-3 = yes, 4-6 = no). However, you should also keep an eye on the official design commentaries and errata mentioned above - if you questions is one that comes up frequently and can only be resolved with a dice roll, it should be dealt with in our next update.
You can expect to see this year’s FAQs arrive in March and September - in the meantime, check out the current set of FAQs and errata on warhammer-community.com
It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.
Plus they have a strange way of dealing with things. If GW was not happy with double tap or other stratagems in overwatch, then why, if they can't properly write it down, write what they want. Put down a rule that says, can't use stratagams that work on shoting outside of the active players shoting phase.
But they do changes that are vogue or back fire all the time. They knew they had a problem with the 0" charge BA smashcpt. So instead of fixing how he works, they messed up fly for everyone for months.
mobbed up lootah hitting on 5, exploding on 6, rerolling 1 were stupid powerful when they had 20+ ablative wounds.
Sure, I could see the argument that they cost a ton of CP to power, except Orks generated tons of CP, so powering them for the one or two turns wasn't ever a problem i saw.
As I understand it, the lootah bomb was an unintended consequence and wasn't supposed to take out 700 point models, let alone 400 point models in a single turn.
Except the never had 20+ ablative wounds, they had 60-90 because killing grots is easy as hell. So what you really had was 2 mobs of lootas of 20 ish for 340pts and usually 90 Grots for another 270pts. So you had a 610pt unit that was capable of dishing out on average 40 shots a turn, which when you use Dakka on 5s (exploding 5s and 6s) and shoot twice you got 6 1s so another 2 hits and 13ish 5s and 6s which generate another shot so you had 13 hits out of 40 with 6 1s for another 2 exploding 5's 6's for a grand total of 15 rerolls which granted you another 5.6ish hits so basically 19 hits.
Against a 700pt model...which would be a knight Castellan that works out to 6 wounds which are resolved against its 4+ armor so 6 total damage, use that shoot twice strat and you got 12 damage on the knight. ANd it only cost you 610pts worth of models, 1 CP for Mob up,1 CP for rerolling # of shots, 1 CP for Grot shields, 2 CP for Dakka and 2 CP for showing off (Shoot twice). So 12 damage for 610pts and 7CP, I see now, totally broken.
And, Grot shields don't protect you 100%, you have to roll to kill a grot so you have 2 options. 1 Kill all the grots relatively easily because bolters are wounding grots on a 2+ or shoot all your shots at T4 lootas which then on a 2+ kill a grot, so for every 6 shots you kill a loota.
So how exactly were loota bombs killing a 700pt model? I mean it would take 3 turns of shooting to kill a Knight and it would be extremely CP intensive, basically draining all the CP for the entire army.
Karol wrote: It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.
I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.
I think the old mob up Lootah bomb was 15 lootas and 10 lootas to get a total of 25 IIRC right?
I also think you had to get the 3 shots to go off, which a command reroll really helps with, but obviously doesn't guarantee it. ( i use the word "think" a lot because I'm, not an Ork player, I'm just attempting to recall what I have seen happen on more than one occasion, forgive the crudeness of this post and if it's inaccurate, please accept that I'm not an Ork player by any stretch)
25 hits out of 75 shots
3 hits out of the 9 or 10 ones you will roll in that mess for rerolling ones.
that's 28 hits.
that will net you another 9 hits based on the exploding 5+ of those 9 hits for exploding dice.
1 or 2 ones will show up in that reroll process, netting you a few more chances to hit. likely getting one more (I think the math is two more, but I'm not 100 on that) hit in that mess for a total of 38 hits
getting about 13 or 14 wounds through.
that will result in 4 or 5 unsaved wounds going through, causing between 8 and 10 damage.
now, do all of that again.
so if we just go strictly by the rough numbers (and this is all head math and I've dropped any fraction or anything that didn't divide evenly, so forgive the really elementary version of it) but I don't think you have to spike much to kill one, and I think if you can get just a few wounds in with a shock relic or another ork cannon I think you can pretty reliably do it on one turn. As an aside note, i have seen this sequence take down a castellan without any help, and did it all on their own. with the 4++ now instead of the 3++ the number of wounds that translate to damage go up (i did this assuming only 1/3 of the wounds would translate into damage)
I've seen it happen on tables next to me in ITC. frankly, as an Aeldari player, there is nothing I am more scared of than lootahs, even 15 of them is scary as hell for hemlocks.
But, the point is, the firepower is there, and the only real "dicey" variable is the number of shots. I think it's easier than you think. Its not guaranteed in one turn, and my post made it sound like that and I shouldn't have spoken in that level of an absolute, as its not, but I think the other side of this is that it is WAY easier to do than your post is letting on, with the key, of course, being bad moons (I think) rerolling ones, and generating more exploding shots from that and with the shoot again stratagem (which I think is a bad moons stratagem, but again, im not sure on that)
Karol wrote: It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.
I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.
Well the "as if it was the shoting phase" thing is an example of such bad writing. Other one is hurrican bolters getting the drill on dreads and not getting it on tanks. Either all vehicles should be getting it, or non should, just for sake cohesion of rules.
Neither of those is a rule that "doesn't work". One just requires you to apply it in context with other rules, and the other is just something you don't agree with.
Karol wrote: It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.
I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.
Well the "as if it was the shoting phase" thing is an example of such bad writing. Other one is hurrican bolters getting the drill on dreads and not getting it on tanks. Either all vehicles should be getting it, or non should, just for sake cohesion of rules.
This is another example of selective ignorance. Not to mention a position that makes zero sense. Why must it be all or none? Talk about artificially limiting design space arbitrarily. I'm sorry to say, but that's really silly.
Oh, by the way, they told us why dreads get it:
"whilst technically vehicles, we feel these units wage war in a manner closer to their flesh and blood battle-brothers than their Chapter’s (or Legion’s) battle tanks)"
Feel free to disagree with that intent, but it's pretty clear here that they specifically addressed your exact complaint. Did you miss it or intentionally ignore it? Doesn't really matter which, because at the end of the day it isn't bad writing, it's bad readers.
Drager wrote: Lootas have to roll again for number of shots when they sit again now. And no CP reroll cause its the same phase. That kneecaps them.
but they didn't before the changes were enacted, meaning that before they could get pretty damn close if not outright just blow up a castellan. now they cannot because I don't think they were ever intended to play that way, and it was unintended from what I gather.
Feel free to disagree with that intent, but it's pretty clear here that they specifically addressed your exact complaint. Did you miss it or intentionally ignore it? Doesn't really matter which, because at the end of the day it isn't bad writing, it's bad readers.
For me this type of argument from GW is on the same level, as one we made GK rule suck, because we wanted them to suck, and now they suck, so deal with it.
Hurrican bolters on tanks or vehicles were not turning them in to castellans 2.0. They were on the other hand making bad units a bit more useful. Puting a change to them, the way GW did, is like breaking the cast of a broken army, because you don't like its colour.
How they think that a weapon mounted on a wobbly biped walker would be working more like on a human holding the weapon with two hands, then the steady mount of an almost super heavy tank breaks my suspencion of disbelief. Because if I were to think this was true. Then the only models who should have the bolter drill rules would be vehicles, and maybe bikes.
Neither of those is a rule that "doesn't work"
the same weapon works in two different ways depending on who carries it. When both use the exact same type of targeting mechanism, aka a nero linked space marine in a vehicle. I don't like it when patterns are broken up, it makes me feel uneasy. Technicly it shouldn't bother me at all as GK dreads can not take hurrican bolters anyway.
EnTyme wrote: I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.
The rules for Assault weapons literally don't work as written - an assault weapon can be fired even if a model advances, but you can't select a unit to fire if it has advanced, so you can never get into a position where you're able to advance and then choose to shoot with an assault weapon.
This was something which was picked up on day one of 8th edition, and still hasn't been fixed.
EnTyme wrote: I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.
The rules for Assault weapons literally don't work as written - an assault weapon can be fired even if a model advances, but you can't select a unit to fire if it has advanced, so you can never get into a position where you're able to advance and then choose to shoot with an assault weapon.
This was something which was picked up on day one of 8th edition, and still hasn't been fixed.
Really?
Shooting Phase:
Choose a unit to shoot with.
In your shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit which Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit which is within 1" of an enemy unit.
Weapon Types:
Assault
A model armed with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn. If it does so, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.
I guess you are going to say there is a difference between "selecting" and "firing".
This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.
They don't even understand their own rules.
This comes from a few things.
The rules writers aren't actively working together, they just do their own thing.
The editors are horrible (many typos make it through even though they price their books at a premium), and don't understand the rules they are editing.
The people up top are not worried about perfection from their employee's, as they make enough money to be perfectly happy with being the crappiest high end hobby studio.
GW is GW because its British. It would be nowhere like this if the company was based in any other country. Not saying this to offend British folks, just stating a fact. British companies do not mostly "Strive for Excellence". They just throw parties when they show profit.
Eihnlazer wrote: This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.
Because IRL on actual gaming tables there is no problem. I have never seen anyone have a problem with this rule in a game. Never.
12 year old kids pick this up immediately, it is obvious and they have zero problem with it.
I bet its not even frequently asked on their FAQ email - although for all I know they have a special bozo counter for all the times they get it sent in and the game designers run a monthly sweepstake for who can guess how many times it will happen next month. Either way it does not matter, nobody has ever had a problem with this outside of typing away on a keyboard.
Eihnlazer wrote: This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.
Because IRL on actual gaming tables there is no problem. I have never seen anyone have a problem with this rule in a game. Never .... nobody has ever had a problem with this outside of typing away on a keyboard.
This.
Technically, no you can't select the unit if it advanced, so you never get the chance to choose the weapon. But equally, you could say that the assault weapon rule overrides that and means you can select the unit even if it advanced. And of course that's what everyone does IRL. Sometimes I think people would rather argue about things like this on the internet than actually play the game.
Only the scummiest rules lawyer would try to argue that assault weapon thing, and everyone would ignore it anyway and tell them to stop being an ass. Even if RAW (clearly not intended to anyone with a brain) it's the sort of thing nobody would ever enforce because, unlike most other discussion, this one is obvious what they meant.
However, I notice that many RAW advocates are selective. They'll ignore certain RAW but vehemently argue others. I've seen this first hand recently. Things which read mean one thing are ignored because everyone chooses to ignore it.
You should always read the rules with the idea that they are supposed to work. That way, when you run into problems like Assault weapons, you have the mental flexibility to make them work.
Could GW write the rules better? Absolutely. Have you ever noticed how many different meaning Wound has in the ruleset? Still, the game is very playable if you just read the rules thinking, "these are supposed to work".
Wayniac wrote: Only the scummiest rules lawyer would try to argue that assault weapon thing, and everyone would ignore it anyway and tell them to stop being an ass. Even if RAW (clearly not intended to anyone with a brain) it's the sort of thing nobody would ever enforce because, unlike most other discussion, this one is obvious what they meant.
I take the view that it is one to keep in your back pocket for if you find yourself playing against TFG - or a try-hard in a tournament...
I'm invested and I can get a game. Does that count as liking?
GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous. I do wish another system had won in the early days around 2nd, back when it was possible.
Martel732 wrote: GW is fairly abusive towards its customers and frequently writes rules that even with a cursory reading are ambiguous. I do wish another system had won in the early days around 2nd, back when it was possible.
I think writing armies out of the game, either through squatting or nerfing, could be seen as abusive, but rules ambiguity is surely a fairly minor gripe in the scheme of things? I mean apart from the fact that there are way too many errata and FAQ documents, in IRL, how many problems does it actually cause in the games you play?
Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.
I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.
Martel732 wrote: Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.
I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think so, either. But BA, DA, and SW need to go, imo. They are useless factions.
I'm not sure they're useless but they could have been included in the main SM codex instead of the new Primaris units. I think players who have invested in those factions deserve to keep playing with them (I also expect that BA, DA, and SW players rather like having their own codexes too).
Martel732 wrote: I don't think so, either. But BA, DA, and SW need to go, imo. They are useless factions.
I'm not sure they're useless but they could have been included in the main SM codex instead of the new Primaris units. I think players who have invested in those factions deserve to keep playing with them (I also expect that BA, DA, and SW players rather like having their own codexes too).
Playing those three factions is bit like the abuse I was talking about earlier. That's my view, anyway. I'm not really GW's target audience, I guess. I'm still using models from 3rd, and I won't buy another army.
Martel732 wrote: Playing those three factions is bit like the abuse I was talking about earlier. That's my view, anyway. I'm not really GW's target audience, I guess. I'm still using models from 3rd, and I won't buy another army.
Martel732 wrote: Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.
You singled out those factions specifically. Do you think they're worse this edition than other SM armies?
Martel732 wrote: Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.
Can't you just pretend that they have been squatted and stop playing them? The end result is the same regardless.
Martel732 wrote: Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.
Can't you just pretend that they have been squatted and stop playing them? The end result is the same regardless.
Martel732 wrote: Blood Angels. So yeah, I'm volunteering my own army to be squatted. Because they are mostly useless anyway, and GW won't admit it or fix it.
You singled out those factions specifically. Do you think they're worse this edition than other SM armies?
Martel732 wrote: I'm invested and I can get a game. Does that count as liking?
No. Continuing to invest your time and energy into to something you don't enjoy is frankly stupid.
I can't think of a reason why I would continue to hang around in a game system that I didn't seem to like, ran by people in a company I despise. I can understand hanging around to leave your parting shots, as it were, many people do that, but after a while, people just give up and move on. So there has to be something you like about the game. If I were in that position, I would try to focus on the things I like or move on. That's just me. I hope you find what you like about the game Martel732, because staying in a game for no other reason than your own stuff for it but don't enjoy it feels like a waste of time from my perspective. YMMV.
Martel732 wrote: Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.
I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.
I play in a community that gets folks coming in from at least three major cities (we are two hours from three major metropolitan areas - at least major in a Canadian sense). Rules debates are extremely rare. If they do happen its usually when a new Codex comes out and we see how the various Stratagems interact. Nothing major. That's just my experience, but your assertion is also just based on your own experience.
Regarding your second point (which seems like an attempt at thread derailment instead of an actual point), you are free to stop playing your Blood Angels. You could sell them and buy some Ravagers. Just because you no longer enjoy Blood Angels doesn't mean that other folks should have to go without.
Martel732 wrote: Quite a few, actually. There are interpretation issues between the three cities I typically play in. Another reason I prefer ITC.
I actually wish GW would write out BA, DA, and SW. The game needs less power armor, and those three armies contribute NOTHING to the meta or the game. They are pointless armies that serve as punching bags for the Xenos and IG/IK. GW missed their chance to have the Nids just eat the BA out of the game. Would have been a glorious end instead of lingering on to get owned by Drukhari and Castellans.
That's a bold opinion that makes zero sense.
Pretty stupid to continue doing something you despise, but who am I to get in the way of a masochist.
Martel732 wrote: By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.
40% win rate for the worst factions seem pretty acceptable balancing to me. Granted, 34% is starting to get pretty bad. Still, winning one in three games is not a terrible play experience.
If your argument is that these faction should be just rolled into vanilla marine codex, I agree. But then again, nothing is stopping you from using you BA with vanilla rules right now if you want.
You can roll them in, but why have so many different power armor kits in the game? Very little differentiates the armies, and the results are no different, either. There's just no reason to have these different chapters/factions from a game play standpoint. They don't add anything.
Martel732 wrote: You can roll them in, but why have so many different power armor kits in the game? Very little differentiates the armies, and the results are no different, either. There's just no reason to have these different chapters/factions from a game play standpoint. They don't add anything.
Why have so many Eldar kits either? Just remove everything except Dark Reapers. /s
