As in dogfighting, flyer datasheets, flyer patterns, formations.
So they are part of the core rules.
Some people are calling it a supplement, which it is not listed as, then claim that supplements are optional, which it is stated as replacing the rules in the brb within its pages.
Angels of Death is a supplement, the Kauyon campaign book is a supplement, and those are not optional.
DFTS is not even a supplement.
Not sure why people think these rules are optional.
Its just like stronghold and escalation, none of those rules were optional and people acted like they were. GW then published a new edition and put them in the rulebook so somehow the rules which were never optional were now seen as being core rules by whining people. Basically its is codex:flyers.
blaktoof wrote: Many of the rules are not listed as optional.
As in dogfighting, flyer datasheets, flyer patterns, formations.
So they are part of the core rules.
Some people are calling it a supplement, which it is not listed as, then claim that supplements are optional, which it is stated as replacing the rules in the brb within its pages.
Angels of Death is a supplement, the Kauyon campaign book is a supplement, and those are not optional.
DFTS is not even a supplement.
Not sure why people think these rules are optional.
Its just like stronghold and escalation, none of those rules were optional and people acted like they were. GW then published a new edition and put them in the rulebook so somehow the rules which were never optional were now seen as being core rules by whining people. Basically its is codex:flyers.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Noted. I guess I am retiring my Stormtalons then. I guess my Blood Angels will have no options for Skyfire either.
Not currently buying new GW books until I actually start playing again so I have no idea what changes were made. Does this supplement (or whatever term would be more appropriate) really change that much about flyers purchased normally in armies? Is it the end of the world for folks that use a Stormwolf or just something that takes some adjusting and planning ahead? Is this a 100% must buy book if I plan on having any Flyers/FMCs in my lists when I get an occasional game in?
casvalremdeikun wrote: Noted. I guess I am retiring my Stormtalons then. I guess my Blood Angels will have no options for Skyfire either.
Not currently buying new GW books until I actually start playing again so I have no idea what changes were made. Does this supplement (or whatever term would be more appropriate) really change that much about flyers purchased normally in armies? Is it the end of the world for folks that use a Stormwolf or just something that takes some adjusting and planning ahead? Is this a 100% must buy book if I plan on having any Flyers/FMCs in my lists when I get an occasional game in?
Attack Flyers (which the Stormtalon and Stormraven are) no longer have the Skyfire rule with their weapons AND take a -1 to BS for shooting ground targets. So, in short, this fething slowed book nerfed the gak out of them.
Only Fighters (which Stormtalons aren't) have it natively.
Also BA do have a source of Skyfire. They're called Flakk Missiles. A terrible source, but still a source all the same.
Also I believe Attack fliers don't have -1BS vs Ground Targets casvalremdeikun. Fighters get that debuff. I could be wrong though, I haven't actually bought the book.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Noted. I guess I am retiring my Stormtalons then. I guess my Blood Angels will have no options for Skyfire either.
Not currently buying new GW books until I actually start playing again so I have no idea what changes were made. Does this supplement (or whatever term would be more appropriate) really change that much about flyers purchased normally in armies? Is it the end of the world for folks that use a Stormwolf or just something that takes some adjusting and planning ahead? Is this a 100% must buy book if I plan on having any Flyers/FMCs in my lists when I get an occasional game in?
Attack Flyers (which the Stormtalon and Stormraven are) no longer have the Skyfire rule with their weapons AND take a -1 to BS for shooting ground targets. So, in short, this fething slowed book nerfed the gak out of them.
What is the "Attack" in their designation referring to if they suck at engaging everything?
casvalremdeikun wrote: Noted. I guess I am retiring my Stormtalons then. I guess my Blood Angels will have no options for Skyfire either.
Not currently buying new GW books until I actually start playing again so I have no idea what changes were made. Does this supplement (or whatever term would be more appropriate) really change that much about flyers purchased normally in armies? Is it the end of the world for folks that use a Stormwolf or just something that takes some adjusting and planning ahead? Is this a 100% must buy book if I plan on having any Flyers/FMCs in my lists when I get an occasional game in?
Attack Flyers (which the Stormtalon and Stormraven are) no longer have the Skyfire rule with their weapons AND take a -1 to BS for shooting ground targets. So, in short, this fething slowed book nerfed the gak out of them.
What is the "Attack" in their designation referring to if they suck at engaging everything?
I think it must be a reference to them BEING attacked, because they sure as hell aren't going to be attacking anything themselves.
blaktoof wrote: Many of the rules are not listed as optional.
As in dogfighting, flyer datasheets, flyer patterns, formations.
So they are part of the core rules.
I disagree. Just because it is not listed as optional does not mean it is required when not found in the core book, especially if you never use them.
blaktoof wrote: Some people are calling it a supplement, which it is not listed as, then claim that supplements are optional, which it is stated as replacing the rules in the brb within its pages.
Angels of Death is a supplement, the Kauyon campaign book is a supplement, and those are not optional.
DFTS is not even a supplement.
Not sure why people think these rules are optional.
Its just like stronghold and escalation, none of those rules were optional and people acted like they were. GW then published a new edition and put them in the rulebook so somehow the rules which were never optional were now seen as being core rules by whining people. Basically its is codex:flyers.
They are optional if you do not use any of those systems that they incorporate. Interestingly enough, Codices were classed as supplements to the book till relatively recently.
I do not need Escalation if I do not run any Super-Heavies. In fact, since I run Necrons, all my Super-Heavies are in codex and their unit typse are covered in core rules.
Stronghold, you do have a point, as you may want their datasheets. However, if you do not run those Fortifications, then there is no need to purchase this.
Codices are not noted as supplements, does that make them core rules? Yet, I only need the ones for the Factions I use in my army. The only time I need any other army's codices is for places like this.
Just remember, ALL source material is optional depending on where/who you're playing. I dont yet know if my local meta is going play the new rules. my small gaming group probably wont
If you and your opponent (or even a TO) want to use the brb rules for flyers, then so be it
I just read an FAQ on B&C, and it looks like ONLY Fighters get -1 BS against ground targets, and Flyers only lose Skyfire when they are in the Dogfight phase. On the table behavior does not change, so Attack Flyers and Bombers shoot at their normal BSand get Skyfire when they are on the table. Nevermind on the second part. Only Fighters get the Skyfire rule. So Stormtalons and Stormravens are still nerfed into oblivion.
I guess I will need to get a Deredeo Dreadnought for my Blood Angels (if they can even take the frickin' thing...) and a few Stalkers for my Crimson Fists. I suppose I would save a few points on my Fists, so there is that.
*The following thoughts are not depicted at someone specific in this topic.*
If you and your opponent want to play with the BRB flyer rules just do it.
What's the issue?
If people tell you that you have to play their Revenant Titan because it says so in the rules (which it does they are not optional) then politely refuse to play with them. Warhammer 40k is about enjoying a game together.
If you dislike something (which means it is your personal preference) try to find a solution with your opponent first, if it's not successful look for other players who enjoy playing a battle like you do.
Does this always have to be discussed to death? Isn't the concept of something being optional that you have more to choose from? Which is the opposite of finding arguments in the books wording to create a basis for banning it!
Like every rule in a GW publication and FAQ you have the freedom to ignore and/or change it. It is your battle after all.
But people should really stop trying to force their preferences onto others.
*The following thoughts are not depicted at someone specific in this topic.*
If you and your opponent want to play with the BRB flyer rules just do it.
What's the issue?
If people tell you that you have to play their Revenant Titan because it says so in the rules (which it does they are not optional) then politely refuse to play with them. Warhammer 40k is about enjoying a game together.
If you dislike something (which means it is your personal preference) try to find a solution with your opponent first, if it's not successful look for other players who enjoy playing a battle like you do.
Does this always have to be discussed to death? Isn't the concept of something being optional that you have more to choose from? Which is the opposite of finding arguments in the books wording to create a basis for banning it!
Like every rule in a GW publication and FAQ you have the freedom to ignore and/or change it. It is your battle after all.
But people should really stop trying to force their preferences onto others.
Given that with the new rules, I have absolutely no effective way to deal with my brother's Flyrants when using my Blood Angels (no, Flakk missiles do not count), and many other armies suffer the same problem, this is not me forcing my preferences anyone. This is me not thinking an across-the-board nerf to several factions is unacceptable.
Warhams-77 wrote: I did not mean you, and I was commenting on a general approach of keeping the DftS rules out of the game because they create disadvantages.
I agree with you.
So how about the Stormraven possibilities in the book. What about the Wingleaders and other rules? Have they been leaked?
Could you please post an army list you play? And which flyer and fortification models you have?
My first suggestion is with the new FAQ psykers can Psychic Shriek FMC out of the skies. But there are most likely more concepts how to kill them.
I haven't made a list for my Blood Angels in over a year, but my Crimson Fists are as follows:
Pedro Kantor
Librarian (ML2, Bones of Osrak relic, Force Sword) - Probably going to go Telepathy on him hoping for Invisibility (in spite of the nerf) and probably use Shriek on turns where I have enough Warp Charges (I reroll failed tests and get an extra warp charge due to the relic)
Honour Guard (7 of them, go with Pedro and the Librarian in a pod)
2x Sternguard Squads in Drop Pods
2x Scout Squads in Land Speeder Storms (:( the Jinking Transport ruling makes me sad)
Lascannon Devastators
Raptor Wing (2x Stormtalons, 1x Land Speeder Typhoon)
Aegis Defense Line (I had points leftover that I couldn't really make use of otherwise)
The hit to the Stormtalons is pretty significant since that was my only source of AA fire. The formation runs pretty well 300 pts on the dot (give or take depending on Land Speeder loadout). I could easily run an Anti-Air formation with three Stalkers and one Hunter for that number of points, but I would be sacrificing my ground capabilities to do so. Another option would be to lose the Land Speeder and give the Aegis a Quadgun. I could also just say Feth it and get an Imperial Bunker, give it the Quadgun, and give it a Void Shield.
I will first copy in all the leaks I found to get a better picture. It is sadly true that several models have lost a few of their strengths.
Stormhawk datasheet (leaked by Miniwars.eu a few minutes ago)
From a first glance I guess you should replace the LS with a Stormhawk and play these three as an air unit. They can change attack patterns and will be efficient with the correct one from how I understand the rules. They do not have to attack the same targets. The Hawk takes care if air units, the Talons attack ground units. They each profit from the attack pattern in their role.
I am definitely thinking of getting a Stormhawk (I would give it the Icarus Stormcannon and Skyhammer Missile Launchers). Swapping out the Aegis and the Land Speeder would generate enough points for one. I still am not at all happy about my Stormtalons being nerfed severely. If Fighters get Skyfire against Flyers and -1 BS to non-flying targets, it seems like they could have given Attack Flyers Skyfire, but at -1 BS and normal ground fire. If I do get one, I will probably run the Intolerance Attack Pattern to make my brother's Ravenwing extra sad. Nevermind, they can't be used in the same attack pattern due to not being from the same datasheet. Otherwise I will run the Vigilance Attack Pattern if I decide against the Stormhawk.
Flyer wings all have to be the same flyer, so you can't have a pair of talons with a hawk as an attack pattern, since they all need to be from the same wing.
Honestly, the Stormhawk is probably the best flyer in the marine book now, since even -1BS vs ground targets is a small price to pay, considering its 15 more points than a talon to keep Skyfire and have a two shot Lascannon.
Edit: though a stormtalon with typhoons might be worth it in a attack pattern that gets ignore cover. But still probably not...
Crazyterran wrote: Flyer wings all have to be the same flyer, so you can't have a pair of talons with a hawk as an attack pattern, since they all need to be from the same wing.
Honestly, the Stormhawk is probably the best flyer in the marine book now, since even -1BS vs ground targets is a small price to pay, considering its 15 more points than a talon to keep Skyfire and have a two shot Lascannon.
Yeah, I saw that (edited my post too). The Stormhawk is not so much good so much as the Stormtalon and Stormraven are worthless.
EDIT: Apparently they included the data sheet for the Stormhawk IN its box, so even if I get one, I won't need to get the book to play with it.
Well, I guess I'd you get the four (two of each one) they can form flyer formations that might make them pretty decent. The downside is you have to spend 490 points (for the typical load outs of skyhammers) on flyers.
Might not be to bad, though, Especially if they fly in the indomitable pattern. Preeeety good.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes you need two each for the formation (which can use attack patterns). Hmm
Especially given that the majority of Astartes flyers are going to get blown up easily due to AV 11, so Know No Fear is pointless. Angel of Death is objectively inferior to the Raptor Wing's rules. Chapter Champion is pretty nice though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know, if they really wanted to represent Fighters being much harder to hit, they should have made it so only Fighters and units with Interceptor could not them at full BS, and Attack Flyers and Bombers only gain Skyfire against themselves and FMCs. That way FMCs are super fast and maneuverable compared to Attack Flyers and Bombers, and Fighters are very good.
If I do get some AA for my Blood Angels, it will be in the form of a Deredeo Dreadnought. Not getting another Stormraven. Ever.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Did they ever leak if there any restirctions on which armies can take the new fighters?
Im assuming which is never good the GK can take them since the stormraven is part of a formation?
Just Codex: Space Marines can take the Stormhawk. Other Space Marine armies can ally one in. GW keeps talking about it like it is an actual solution. Honestly, if that is their solution, they should have just allowed GK and BA to take it in the first place.
txdyz wrote: Only Fighters can skyfire and get nerfed against ground units.
Attack Flyers are designed to attack ground.
Bombers only get buffs from flyer wing for their bombs.
Fighters shoot at full BS against Air Targets and -1BS against Ground Targets. Attack Flyers get BS1 against Air Targets and full BS to Ground Targets. So the Stormhawk is BS4/BS3, the Stormtalon and Stormraven are BS1/BS4. And the Stormhawk gets more and better weapons all for 15 points. Do you see why I am irritated by this? If they had made Attack Flyers -1 BS to Air Targets and Full BS to Ground, there would be parity between the two. But as it stands, Fighters are OBJECTIVELY better than Attack Flyers. Period.
On a side note, GW Facebook said the book is optional.
txdyz wrote: Only Fighters can skyfire and get nerfed against ground units.
Attack Flyers are designed to attack ground.
Bombers only get buffs from flyer wing for their bombs.
Fighters shoot at full BS against Air Targets and -1BS against Ground Targets. Attack Flyers get BS1 against Air Targets and full BS to Ground Targets. So the Stormhawk is BS4/BS3, the Stormtalon and Stormraven are BS1/BS4. And the Stormhawk gets more and better weapons all for 15 points. Do you see why I am irritated by this? If they had made Attack Flyers -1 BS to Air Targets and Full BS to Ground, there would be parity between the two. But as it stands, Fighters are OBJECTIVELY better than Attack Flyers. Period.
On a side note, GW Facebook said the book is optional.
Stormtalons are bs5 against ground for they have strafing run.
When forming a flyer wing pattern provides ignore cover, Fighters get ignore cover against air targets(Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures, Skimmers, Jetbikes), and Attack Flyers get ignore cover against ground units(others). Bombers only get ignore cover for their bombs.
txdyz wrote: Only Fighters can skyfire and get nerfed against ground units.
Attack Flyers are designed to attack ground.
Bombers only get buffs from flyer wing for their bombs.
Fighters shoot at full BS against Air Targets and -1BS against Ground Targets. Attack Flyers get BS1 against Air Targets and full BS to Ground Targets. So the Stormhawk is BS4/BS3, the Stormtalon and Stormraven are BS1/BS4. And the Stormhawk gets more and better weapons all for 15 points. Do you see why I am irritated by this? If they had made Attack Flyers -1 BS to Air Targets and Full BS to Ground, there would be parity between the two. But as it stands, Fighters are OBJECTIVELY better than Attack Flyers. Period.
On a side note, GW Facebook said the book is optional.
Stormtalons are bs5 against ground for they have strafing run.
When forming a flyer wing pattern provides ignore cover, Fighters get ignore cover against air targets(Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures, Skimmers, Jetbikes), and Attack Flyers get ignore cover against ground units(others). Bombers only get ignore cover for their bombs.
Some things that were Ground Targets have been moved to Air Targets. Jetbikes are now Air Targets, so now my Stormtalons can only fire Snap Shots against them.Actually, since they don't have the Hard to Hit rule, Jetbikes probably can be shot fine. Still, Stormhawks still shoot Jetbikes at full ballistic skill, meaning they are still objectively better than the Stormtalon. Meanwhile Stormtalons don't get their handy BS5 against Skimmers or Jetbikes.
The updated dfts book is just as optional as the last dfts book.
Did you use the rules from the last dfts book?
If no then continue to ignore this updated version.
Furthermore what's the difference between planet strike and cities of death and death from the skies? Nada!!!
There's actually a 4 pack warhammer 40k expansion bundle in black library.
It lumps all 4 current 40k expansions.
Stronghold assault
Escalation
Planet strike
And killteam.
Are we now saying killteam is required rules for 40k?
Absolutely not that's ridiculous.
They are all expansions and you can choose which ever rules you wish to play with.
gungo wrote: The updated dfts book is just as optional as the last dfts book.
Did you use the rules from the last dfts book?
If no then continue to ignore this updated version.
Furthermore what's the difference between planet strike and cities of death and death from the skies? Nada!!!
There's actually a 4 pack warhammer 40k expansion bundle in black library.
It lumps all 4 current 40k expansions.
Stronghold assault
Escalation
Planet strike
And killteam.
Are we now saying killteam is required rules for 40k?
Absolutely not that's ridiculous.
They are all expansions and you can choose which ever rules you wish to play with.
Not true, quit misleading people. From GW website "Death From the Skies is a must-buy for Warhammer 40,000 players – the 160-page hardback contains new rules for Flyers that completely replace those found in Warhammer 40,000, with datasheets including new Agility, Combat Role and Pursuit Value characteristics and options for fielding Flyer Wing units, with their own leaders. Also this book is listed under rules and expansions....not the supplements section. Those you listed also dont state that they specifically replace existing rules. Stick your head in the sand if you want to, but the train has left the station, these are the new flyer rules.
jokerkd wrote: It's an expansion. Kill team is also an expansion that replaces many rules in the core book.
The only time this book will be required is when competitive play organizers say so.
And just about any and all pick up games, cause well its the actual rules for flyers.
Only for those players who wish to use that level of rules, though.
If neither party has the book and/or chooses not to use them in their game, that is perfectly fine and acceptable as much as not using the Stronghold rules or the Escalation rules (for Necrons).
gungo wrote: The updated dfts book is just as optional as the last dfts book.
Did you use the rules from the last dfts book?
If no then continue to ignore this updated version.
Furthermore what's the difference between planet strike and cities of death and death from the skies? Nada!!!
There's actually a 4 pack warhammer 40k expansion bundle in black library.
It lumps all 4 current 40k expansions.
Stronghold assault
Escalation
Planet strike
And killteam.
Are we now saying killteam is required rules for 40k?
Absolutely not that's ridiculous.
They are all expansions and you can choose which ever rules you wish to play with.
Not true, quit misleading people. From GW website "Death From the Skies is a must-buy for Warhammer 40,000 players – the 160-page hardback contains new rules for Flyers that completely replace those found in Warhammer 40,000, with datasheets including new Agility, Combat Role and Pursuit Value characteristics and options for fielding Flyer Wing units, with their own leaders. Also this book is listed under rules and expansions....not the supplements section. Those you listed also dont state that they specifically replace existing rules. Stick your head in the sand if you want to, but the train has left the station, these are the new flyer rules.
Gonna have to go with gungo on this one, who cares if the book replaces rules for flyers from the 40k rulebook, its not mandatory until its actually in the rulebook, until then its just a supplement like Cities of death etc. and thus, not required for actual play, unless of course your saying all supplements are mandatory?
A more accurate analogy would be that it's like Stronghold Assault in 6th Edition. A book that changes the rules that isn't a separate expansion (like Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Spearhead, etc) and being 'mandatory' because that it updates the 6th Edition rules completely, but could still be ignored if both parties didn't have it or didn't want to use it (in the same way you could refuse to play anyone's army).
I'd expect 7.5/8th edition to have the updated rules rolled into it, like Stronghold Assault and Escalation in 7th.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: A more accurate analogy would be that it's like Stronghold Assault in 6th Edition. A book that changes the rules that isn't a separate expansion (like Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Spearhead, etc) and being 'mandatory' because that it updates the 6th Edition rules completely, but could still be ignored if both parties didn't have it or didn't want to use it (in the same way you could refuse to play anyone's army).
I'd expect 7.5/8th edition to have the updated rules rolled into it, like Stronghold Assault and Escalation in 7th.
I bought Stronghold Assault. In addition to cleaning up the building rules (which were a hot mess) it also served as Codex:Fortifications. Overall a decent value.
DftS tweaks the flyer rules in ways which are cumbersome and unneeded. It has no new content I care about, besides one page of rules for the new SM flyer.
I do recognize my hypocrisy from a rules POV, where I embraced SA, but reject DftS. They are equivalent books. IMHO one was a needed patch to the game, that fixed and expanded one aspect of it. The other is an unnecessary cash grab, that tacks on more random charts and RPS mechanics, just to get more flyers on the table.
I’m hoping it crashes and burns like the last time they published it. Not just because it adds another level of negotiation to setting up a game (do we want to use it?) but because it better not be included in the next edition of 40k. There is enough random bloat there now.
As an imperial guard player, I loathe these new rules.
Between the designated difference between ground targets and air targets, my already mediocre codex took a huge hit.
Valkyries are easily now the worst fliers in the game, unless taken strictly to deal with infantry that doesn't have a 3+ save.
Vendettas (common sense dictates they have the same role and statline as a valkyrie) are now way over costed (unless they are designated as a fighter).
The only benefit a guard player gets here is ObSec on Valkyries/vendettas... Other than that GW has deemed the guard flyers to be the slowest flyers with so-so maneuverability.
Somehow Ork flyers (which to be fair, ork players deserve some goodies) are better than valkyries in almost every way. Same goes for the Astartes flying bricks.
To further add insult to injury, every other faction (except chaos, because GW hates them too.) gets at least one designated formation with bonus rules.
Am I over reacting, or does anyone else think this book is squig excrement as well?
FlyingCamel wrote: As an imperial guard player, I loathe these new rules.
Between the designated difference between ground targets and air targets, my already mediocre codex took a huge hit.
Valkyries are easily now the worst fliers in the game, unless taken strictly to deal with infantry that doesn't have a 3+ save.
Vendettas (common sense dictates they have the same role and statline as a valkyrie) are now way over costed (unless they are designated as a fighter).
The only benefit a guard player gets here is ObSec on Valkyries/vendettas... Other than that GW has deemed the guard flyers to be the slowest flyers with so-so maneuverability.
Somehow Ork flyers (which to be fair, ork players deserve some goodies) are better than valkyries in almost every way. Same goes for the Astartes flying bricks.
To further add insult to injury, every other faction (except chaos, because GW hates them too.) gets at least one designated formation with bonus rules.
Am I over reacting, or does anyone else think this book is squig excrement as well?
I play IG/TS as well, and was not thrilled with the way Valks faired. Vendettas faired worse--they aren't even in the book at all. I suspect we will lose them entirely.
That being said, the flyer wing attack patterns do present some interesting buffs for some already existing Valk-based formations. (Emperor's Spear and TS Airborne Assault formation) The missing datasheet for Vendettas though means that you have to work out with an opponent what in the hell a Vendetta is, or you just can't use one in a DFtS based game. I think this bodes poorly for the Vendetta (considering it requires a FW kit or conversions) to make anyway.
It isn't cool what GW did. I will hold hope for vendettas, since they are still in the codex for the IG. As I said, I assume they will take on the same statline as valkyries, which, I don't really bring to the table to deal with ground targets. I use vendettas to eliminate storm fangs, storm wolves, skimmers trying to bring wraiths, or tau vehicles,or heldrakes.
In short, EVERYTHING I use the vendetta for are no longer the best targets for the vendetta.
Emperor help the poor valk/vendetta that is forced to dog fight against any eldar or dark eldar craft.
I am all about a challenge, but they have effectively neutered my air power.... Which is more than a little infuriating considering I have 5 valkyries/vendettas with magnetized weapons.
I have never brought more than 2 to the table at once (I didn't want to be THAT guy), but now I can't even justify taking one.
A vendetta is roughly a harrier style plane; not uber quick in a straight line, but can land on a helipad if needed. An ork fighter is more old school fighter design (yes, I know the harriers from the 60s..)
So it makes sense to me why it's slower. It's also av12 which is a big deal in flyer terms!
the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
AV 12 on 3/4 sides on the valk doesn't mean anything. That poor thing gets into a dogfight with literally anything in the codex, with the inferior statline it has, the enemy will most likely get easy shots on the rear armor. Which even the weakest weapons (in this book) can glance to death in one round. If your valk ends up in a dogfight vs eldar, one may as well just remove it from play.
I can understand if it is a bit slower. But even space wolf xbox huge flyers have better pursuit and AV12 all around.
The pros and cons of taking a fighter vs an attack craft are insane.
Fighters can ignore jinking with their formations, they can get skyfire whenever, and only suffer a -1 BS if they engage ground targets. With most aircraft being BS4 with most weapons being TL or strafing run this is hardly a punishment. This means that the flyers that were meant to be air to air fighters can do the close air support (CAS)mission BETTER than the CAS craft. If they wanted to give my vendettas the benefit of -1 BS skill vs zooming flyers, I would happily take that. Would be better than the short stick IG is getting now...
blaktoof wrote: the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
Yes, they are optional. I do not need to abide by any of those that are not in use. I do not need to abide by anything I choose not to use. That is the definition of House Rule.
Would it be any more fair if I just started using Battle Missions without discussing it with my opponent? What about Planetstrike? Cities of Death? Spearhead?
Also, remember for the longest time, even codices were listed as supplements to the game. That is all any of these books really are in the end. They are there to enhance and improve the experience of the game.
But it will only do that if all players are on board.
Wow, I'm certainly glad I didn't buy any Storm Talons when I was considering it a couple weeks ago... They seem to have gone up in $$$ by about $11 Canadian as well. Wtf are GW doing? Nerfing the thing and then putting the price up 20%??
Lord Corellia wrote: Wow, I'm certainly glad I didn't buy any Storm Talons when I was considering it a couple weeks ago... They seem to have gone up in $$$ by about $11 Canadian as well. Wtf are GW doing? Nerfing the thing and then putting the price up 20%??
You do realize its now a combination kit to make either a Stormtalon Gunship or a Stormhawk Interceptor?
blaktoof wrote: the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
Yes, they are optional. I do not need to abide by any of those that are not in use. I do not need to abide by anything I choose not to use. That is the definition of House Rule.
Would it be any more fair if I just started using Battle Missions without discussing it with my opponent? What about Planetstrike? Cities of Death? Spearhead?
Also, remember for the longest time, even codices were listed as supplements to the game. That is all any of these books really are in the end. They are there to enhance and improve the experience of the game.
But it will only do that if all players are on board.
The problem with that line of thinking is the things you refrence are actually told to be optional within their respective books, DFTS does not in contain any such language.
So it is as optional as the eldar codex, or rolling to hit against ballistic skill.
DFTS is essentially Codex fliers.
You have as much right to deny someone using it as they have to deny you using the adeptus astartes codex.
So yes everythin can be said to be.optional as a house rule, even playing by a points system. The reality however is that DFTS is not actually listed as optional so outside of playing by house rules it is part of the normal 40k game.
The problem with that line of thinking is the things you refrence are actually told to be optional within their respective books, DFTS does not in contain any such language.
So it is as optional as the eldar codex, or rolling to hit against ballistic skill.
DFTS is essentially Codex fliers.
You have as much right to deny someone using it as they have to deny you using the adeptus astartes codex.
So yes everythin can be said to be.optional as a house rule, even playing by a points system. The reality however is that DFTS is not actually listed as optional so outside of playing by house rules it is part of the normal 40k game.
But does anything state it is required outside of its own use?
blaktoof wrote: the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
Yes, they are optional. I do not need to abide by any of those that are not in use. I do not need to abide by anything I choose not to use. That is the definition of House Rule.
Would it be any more fair if I just started using Battle Missions without discussing it with my opponent? What about Planetstrike? Cities of Death? Spearhead?
Also, remember for the longest time, even codices were listed as supplements to the game. That is all any of these books really are in the end. They are there to enhance and improve the experience of the game.
But it will only do that if all players are on board.
The problem with that line of thinking is the things you refrence are actually told to be optional within their respective books, DFTS does not in contain any such language.
So it is as optional as the eldar codex, or rolling to hit against ballistic skill.
DFTS is essentially Codex fliers.
You have as much right to deny someone using it as they have to deny you using the adeptus astartes codex.
So yes everythin can be said to be.optional as a house rule, even playing by a points system. The reality however is that DFTS is not actually listed as optional so outside of playing by house rules it is part of the normal 40k game.
Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
Imateria wrote: Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
Every other "optional" rule book that expanded the core rules met with initial resistance and then promptly became standard. I'd expect the next version of the core rule book to include these new flyer rules in the same way that the current version includes rules originally found in Escalation and Stronghold Assault.
History shows that trying to convince everyone to use rules that are obviously intended as standard rules won't be as much of an uphill battle as you think.
I really only plan on playing friendly games with house rules that don't give broken advantages to "fighters". At least unless they decide to make valkyries/vendettas not be trash.
Imateria wrote: Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
Every other "optional" rule book that expanded the core rules met with initial resistance and then promptly became standard. I'd expect the next version of the core rule book to include these new flyer rules in the same way that the current version includes rules originally found in Escalation and Stronghold Assault.
History shows that trying to convince everyone to use rules that are obviously intended as standard rules won't be as much of an uphill battle as you think.
That is very true.
But that doesn't mean I need to use Escalation rules if neither I nor my opponent are using Super-Heavies in that book.
blaktoof wrote: the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
Yes, they are optional. I do not need to abide by any of those that are not in use. I do not need to abide by anything I choose not to use. That is the definition of House Rule.
Would it be any more fair if I just started using Battle Missions without discussing it with my opponent? What about Planetstrike? Cities of Death? Spearhead?
Also, remember for the longest time, even codices were listed as supplements to the game. That is all any of these books really are in the end. They are there to enhance and improve the experience of the game.
But it will only do that if all players are on board.
The problem with that line of thinking is the things you refrence are actually told to be optional within their respective books, DFTS does not in contain any such language.
So it is as optional as the eldar codex, or rolling to hit against ballistic skill.
DFTS is essentially Codex fliers.
You have as much right to deny someone using it as they have to deny you using the adeptus astartes codex.
So yes everythin can be said to be.optional as a house rule, even playing by a points system. The reality however is that DFTS is not actually listed as optional so outside of playing by house rules it is part of the normal 40k game.
Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Just like someone can show up to play a game with the angels of death supplement to use cataphractii terminators and skyhammer, or a hive tyrant with a fighter ace rule from one of the baal supplements, I can show up with flyers from DFTS, and use all the rules which are not listed as optional within. Someone can of course decide they do not want to play with flyers, Just as someone could decide they don't want to play a game with any SHV or GMC.
Just as I can play a pick up game at a FLGS and decide to not play against someone because they are using Eldar, You can opt to not play against someone for using flyers.
If I own rules for flyers that I already paid for, and this gives me different rules for flyers for [price], but I'm happy with my current rules for flyers, I'm not buying it. I need rules, so I buy BRB and codex. I now have everything I need to play. Everything else is always optional. If someone wants to use the optional rules, I have no problem trying them out, but be prepared to share your book and help me learn them. And then let's play a game where we don't use them!
Tournaments may require it, and that is their prerogative.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They don't have to be listed as optional to be optional.
FlyingCamel wrote: I really only plan on playing friendly games with house rules that don't give broken advantages to "fighters". At least unless they decide to make valkyries/vendettas not be trash.
Yes, Valkyries/Vendettas are "trash" because they can't fire at normal BS versus other Flyers natively. Oh noes!
Let's ignore that they have some of the better Wing Leader abilities(+3 inches to their moves and autopass Break Turn tests while in an Attack Pattern[Why would you NOT be in an Attack Pattern with Valkyries or Vendettas?], rerolls on To Wound/Armor Pen rolls of 1 while in an Attack Pattern, and the ability to reroll all failed saves when they Jink while in an Attack Pattern when the save is made) and that Attack Patterns fundamentally change the way that you will want to use Valkyries/Vendettas.
Let's also ignore that while their Pursuit value is low(1), their Agility value is high(3) which means they can potentially get the win in the Manoeuvre sub-phase, which allows you to change the facing of your opponent's Flyer during a dogfight--allowing you to get into their rear arc which means you are firing at your normal Ballistic Skill.
blaktoof wrote: The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
Not if they think they are optional. And really, all the rules of the game are optional. Those outside the core rulebook are even more optional then others.
blaktoof wrote: DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
You haven't quoted the part that says they are required and are normal now.
blaktoof wrote: Just like someone can show up to play a game with the angels of death supplement to use cataphractii terminators and skyhammer, or a hive tyrant with a fighter ace rule from one of the baal supplements, I can show up with flyers from DFTS, and use all the rules which are not listed as optional within. Someone can of course decide they do not want to play with flyers, Just as someone could decide they don't want to play a game with any SHV or GMC.
Just as I can play a pick up game at a FLGS and decide to not play against someone because they are using Eldar, You can opt to not play against someone for using flyers.
If I own rules for flyers that I already paid for, and this gives me different rules for flyers for [price], but I'm happy with my current rules for flyers, I'm not buying it. I need rules, so I buy BRB and codex. I now have everything I need to play. Everything else is always optional. If someone wants to use the optional rules, I have no problem trying them out, but be prepared to share your book and help me learn them. And then let's play a game where we don't use them!
Tournaments may require it, and that is their prerogative.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They don't have to be listed as optional to be optional.
So then codex eldar is optional, as in the same optional as a book that specifically has a section that says "these rules are optional, and may be used if both players agree to play with them" or "These experimental rules are optional, and require both players to agree to use them". Despite it not saying anywhere it is optional?
They do have to be listed as optional to be optional rules.
The idea that everything is optional exists only if both players agree that things are optional that are normally not. Ie "lets not play with SHV" or "Lets play with the old rules for flyers" or " Lets play with last edition of the eldar codex" which is an agreement between players to change what are the normal rules.
This is not the same as a statement in the book saying rules are optional, and you need to ask the other player if you want to use them.
example- "Hey I know we are going to play 40k, instead lets play apocalypse" or "Cities of death is cool, and right here it says these rules are optional in the text of the book- would you try out a game using them with me?"
the two are not really the same, and some people seem to want to use the idea that two players can decide something that is part of the normal rules will not be used, or changed in some way, (making it now optional) as a statement to claim that somehow the DFTS rules are actually optional in the way Cities of Death and other books which actually state in their text they are optional are. Which is disingenuous.
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone. Optional rules you have to convince someone to use. the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere. DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Cite a page where DFTS rules are listed as mandatory.
Here's the intro from DFTS for the "Burning Skies" section.
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote: Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Just to reiterate:
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote: Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Nowhere in this book does it say "These are the new rules, replacing those from the normal rulebook". It just is presenting expanded rules.
This book is sufficiently disruptive that one can gain widespread rejection in a given local meta. That hasn't been possible with other releases for the most part. At least, that's what's happening with me.
FlyingCamel wrote: I really only plan on playing friendly games with house rules that don't give broken advantages to "fighters". At least unless they decide to make valkyries/vendettas not be trash.
Yes, Valkyries/Vendettas are "trash" because they can't fire at normal BS versus other Flyers natively. Oh noes!
Let's ignore that they have some of the better Wing Leader abilities(+3 inches to their moves and autopass Break Turn tests while in an Attack Pattern[Why would you NOT be in an Attack Pattern with Valkyries or Vendettas?], rerolls on To Wound/Armor Pen rolls of 1 while in an Attack Pattern, and the ability to reroll all failed saves when they Jink while in an Attack Pattern when the save is made) and that Attack Patterns fundamentally change the way that you will want to use Valkyries/Vendettas.
Let's also ignore that while their Pursuit value is low(1), their Agility value is high(3) which means they can potentially get the win in the Manoeuvre sub-phase, which allows you to change the facing of your opponent's Flyer during a dogfight--allowing you to get into their rear arc which means you are firing at your normal Ballistic Skill.
Incorrect about valkyries/ vendettas shooting at normal BS. All flyers in the dogfighting phase are considered zooming. This means without skyfire, they are hard to hit.
Also, their benefits only affect ground targets. With a vendetta, I don't need extra bonuses when shooting at tanks. I bring vendettas to deal with other flyers or fast moving skimmer cheese. Dealing with tanks is a perk, yes. But IG needs no help dealing with tanks. It needs solid choices with dealing with flyers.
If they offered a steep point discount for valkyries/ vendettas, MAYBE they would be worth it. As it stands now, a fighter can do the same job with BETTER accuracy even with a -1 BS modifier and for fewer points than my flyers can.
And lastly, 3 is not a high agility value. I am losing a dogfight 90% of the time VS eldar, and since crimson hunters will most likely actually destroy my flyer ( four S8 shots on rear AV 10 at BS 4 or 5 with skyfire that re-rolls fail to glance or pen) before it can get to the table (you know before I can even get ANY formation advantages)
The same ossue persists VS ANY fighter, not just eldar.
Dog fighting gives storm hawks +1 pursuit and agility. Nephilims get infinite range skyfire missiles. Even dakkajets at least get skyfire. IG gets no benefits remotely close to making them able to deal with aircraft.
Yes. Valkyries are trash.
FlyingCamel wrote: I really only plan on playing friendly games with house rules that don't give broken advantages to "fighters". At least unless they decide to make valkyries/vendettas not be trash.
Yes, Valkyries/Vendettas are "trash" because they can't fire at normal BS versus other Flyers natively. Oh noes!
Let's ignore that they have some of the better Wing Leader abilities(+3 inches to their moves and autopass Break Turn tests while in an Attack Pattern[Why would you NOT be in an Attack Pattern with Valkyries or Vendettas?], rerolls on To Wound/Armor Pen rolls of 1 while in an Attack Pattern, and the ability to reroll all failed saves when they Jink while in an Attack Pattern when the save is made) and that Attack Patterns fundamentally change the way that you will want to use Valkyries/Vendettas.
Let's also ignore that while their Pursuit value is low(1), their Agility value is high(3) which means they can potentially get the win in the Manoeuvre sub-phase, which allows you to change the facing of your opponent's Flyer during a dogfight--allowing you to get into their rear arc which means you are firing at your normal Ballistic Skill.
Incorrect about valkyries/ vendettas shooting at normal BS. All flyers in the dogfighting phase are considered zooming. This means without skyfire, they are hard to hit.
I've got the book, bud.
Yes, Valkyries/Vendettas ARE shooting at normal BS during a Dogfight if you get into the rear arc of a Flyer. It's a special rule called "Tailing" under the "Angle of Attack" rules in the Attack Sub-Phase(p.72). It does not change the fact that Zooming Flyers are considered "hard to hit"(snap shooting), it just means you're firing at normal BS while snap shooting.
Read the book. You're wrong. All Skyfire does during a Dogfight is make it so that you ignore the Angle of Attack rules for any weapons with the Skyfire rule.
Also, their benefits only affect ground targets. With a vendetta, I don't need extra bonuses when shooting at tanks. I bring vendettas to deal with other flyers or fast moving skimmer cheese. Dealing with tanks is a perk, yes. But IG needs no help dealing with tanks. It needs solid choices with dealing with flyers.
If they offered a steep point discount for valkyries/ vendettas, MAYBE they would be worth it. As it stands now, a fighter can do the same job with BETTER accuracy even with a -1 BS modifier and for fewer points than my flyers can.
The "solid choices with dealing with Flyers" should never have been that marty suetastic piece of garbage Vendetta. Maybe now the Hydra can be made to actually be useful again and we can get that abomination out of the Guard book and be given the Vulture like we should have been to start with.
Sucks when they kick your crutch out from under you, but oh well. Gotta walk on your own sometime.
And lastly, 3 is not a high agility value. I am losing a dogfight 90% of the time VS eldar, and since crimson hunters will most likely actually destroy my flyer ( four S8 shots on rear AV 10 at BS 4 or 5 with skyfire) before it can get to the table (you know before I can even get ANY formation advantages)
Yes. Valkyries are trash.
3 is the same Agility value as the Stormhawk Interceptor(a Fighter), Stormtalon Gunship(Attack Flyer) Ravenwing Dark Talon(Attack Flyer), Nephilim Jetfighters(Fighter), the Razorshark Strike Fighter(Attack Flyer), and the Wazbom Blastajet(Attack Flyer that can add 2 to its Pursuit value by lowering its Agility by 2).
The examples you gave(Eldar) are the outliers. The Eldar Flyers and Heldrake are the only ones with a base(unmodified by Wing Leader or other special rules) Agility value of 4 or higher.
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Cite a page where DFTS rules are listed as mandatory.
Here's the intro from DFTS for the "Burning Skies" section.
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Just to reiterate:
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Nowhere in this book does it say "These are the new rules, replacing those from the normal rulebook". It just is presenting expanded rules.
Cite a page where it lists the Adeptus Astartes codex is mandatory.
Rules are listed as optional, they are not listed as mandatory.
Cite a page where it lists using Codex:Tau to field a tau army is mandatory.
You quoted where the DFTS book says it replaces the normal rules, not where it modifies the normal rules with optional rules. These are replacements to the core rules, which are not listed as "optional rules".
Nowhere in this book does it say "These are the new rules, replacing those from the normal rulebook". It just is presenting expanded rules.
You highlighted that these are updated rules which replace those in the 40l rulebook.
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000.
which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules
you then latched on to the word "expand" and took that to mean "this is an expansion, these rules are optional"
can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are optional? or any iteration of that?
If I own rules for flyers that I already paid for, and this gives me different rules for flyers for [price], but I'm happy with my current rules for flyers, I'm not buying it. I need rules, so I buy BRB and codex. I now have everything I need to play. Everything else is always optional. If someone wants to use the optional rules, I have no problem trying them out, but be prepared to share your book and help me learn them. And then let's play a game where we don't use them!
Tournaments may require it, and that is their prerogative.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They don't have to be listed as optional to be optional.
So then codex eldar is optional, as in the same optional as a book that specifically has a section that says "these rules are optional, and may be used if both players agree to play with them" or "These experimental rules are optional, and require both players to agree to use them". Despite it not saying anywhere it is optional?
They do have to be listed as optional to be optional rules.
The idea that everything is optional exists only if both players agree that things are optional that are normally not. Ie "lets not play with SHV" or "Lets play with the old rules for flyers" or " Lets play with last edition of the eldar codex" which is an agreement between players to change what are the normal rules.
This is not the same as a statement in the book saying rules are optional, and you need to ask the other player if you want to use them.
example- "Hey I know we are going to play 40k, instead lets play apocalypse" or "Cities of death is cool, and right here it says these rules are optional in the text of the book- would you try out a game using them with me?"
the two are not really the same, and some people seem to want to use the idea that two players can decide something that is part of the normal rules will not be used, or changed in some way, (making it now optional) as a statement to claim that somehow the DFTS rules are actually optional in the way Cities of Death and other books which actually state in their text they are optional are. Which is disingenuous.
Codex is needed to field anything at all, unless you're playing doll house. Well, maybe you have a point. Codex Eldar is only needed if you want to play Eldar. If you're playing Grey Knights, Codex Eldar is definitely optional for you to use.
BRB is obviously needed, as it has core rules. Including core rules for flyers. Which I'm able to use still. Because they're only overridden by using DftS. Which I don't plan on using unless an event requires it. Also, if events start requiring it as a blanket rule, then yeah I'll use it. Casual and pick-up games, it's 100% optional.
Your examples aren't all that different, actually. They all involve talking to your opponent beforehand and deciding what set of rules you're going to use. This book should be treated the same as all your examples because not everyone is going to expect the book they own (BRB with flyer rules) to be thrown out mid-game. If you're wanting to use dtfs, are you saying you're not going to make sure your opponent knows that beforehand? You're just going to roll with it, and when your opponent asks what you're doing, or why [such and such], you're just going to tell them "It's DtfS bro, what you didn't know?"
Saying it's required for casual games is literally against the idea of establishing rules beforehand with your opponent.
I do understand where you're coming from, but for casual games, it's optional. Because in casual games, everything is optional, everything can be decided by you and your opponent beforehand. As shown by your examples.
And yes, I get it, your examples are different in that they are grouped into categories of "Let's agree to this style of list building" and then "Let's agree to rule set." However, styles of list building are a type of rule set, house ruling. The "list building" examples limit what you bring, the "rule set" examples change the rules from the core book/codex combination, and that's where I would place DftS regardless of anyone telling me it's "normal rules."
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Cite a page where DFTS rules are listed as mandatory.
Here's the intro from DFTS for the "Burning Skies" section.
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Just to reiterate:
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Nowhere in this book does it say "These are the new rules, replacing those from the normal rulebook". It just is presenting expanded rules.
Cite a page where it lists the Adeptus Astartes codex is mandatory.
Rules are listed as optional, they are not listed as mandatory.
Cite a page where it lists using Codex:Tau to field a tau army is mandatory.
This is the dumbest argument anyone could ever make.
You quoted where the DFTS book says it replaces the normal rules, not where it modifies the normal rules with optional rules. These are replacements to the core rules, which are not listed as "optional rules".
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
"Expanded"--adjective
increased in area, bulk, or volume; enlarged
"Replace"--verb
to provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of
"Updated"--verb
to bring (a book, figures, or the like) up to date as by adding new information or making corrections
So yeah. The language used should be your first clue that this is an optional thing.
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Cite a page where DFTS rules are listed as mandatory.
Here's the intro from DFTS for the "Burning Skies" section.
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Just to reiterate:
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Nowhere in this book does it say "These are the new rules, replacing those from the normal rulebook". It just is presenting expanded rules.
Cite a page where it lists the Adeptus Astartes codex is mandatory.
Rules are listed as optional, they are not listed as mandatory.
Cite a page where it lists using Codex:Tau to field a tau army is mandatory.
This is the dumbest argument anyone could ever make.
You quoted where the DFTS book says it replaces the normal rules, not where it modifies the normal rules with optional rules. These are replacements to the core rules, which are not listed as "optional rules".
Death From the Skies p.58 wrote:
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000. These expand upon those from the rulebook, allowing you to use special Attack Patterns, to take part in vicious dogfights, to field ace pilots, and to fight thrilling Air War missions. This first section of the Burning Skies rules presents the expanded rules for Flyers, which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
"Expanded"--adjective
increased in area, bulk, or volume; enlarged
"Replace"--verb
to provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of
"Updated"--verb
to bring (a book, figures, or the like) up to date as by adding new information or making corrections
So yeah. The language used should be your first clue that this is an optional thing.
everything you just said is purely your opinion without any rules as writing to support any of it.
Nowhere in this book does it say "These are the new rules, replacing those from the normal rulebook". It just is presenting expanded rules.
You highlighted that these are updated rules which replace those in the 40l rulebook.
Burning Skies provides updated rules for Flyers in games of Warhammer 40,000.
which replace those from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules
you then latched on to the word "expand" and took that to mean "this is an expansion, these rules are optional"
can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are optional? or any iteration of that?
Kanluwen wrote: Can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are required? or any iteration of that?
Yeah, I "latched onto the word expand"--because the language presented throughout the book is pretty clear that it is an OPTIONAL thing.
Earlier you decided to say asking that something being stated as mandatory is a dumb argument, then you require it as proof that something is not optional.
Cite a page where it lists the Adeptus Astartes codex is mandatory.
Rules are listed as optional, they are not listed as mandatory.
Cite a page where it lists using Codex:Tau to field a tau army is mandatory.
This is the dumbest argument anyone could ever make.
-Kanluwen
Guess I am going to have to say that I cannot quote anywhere that any rule is listed as mandatory.
However by your own reasoning asking me quote where it says it is mandatory is a dumb argument, your words not mine.
Which of course does not prove in any way that DFTS has rules which are stated as being optional by the writers of the book.
can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are optional? or any iteration of that?
I bought Dark Eldar models for the rules they had, now wyches can't threaten AV units in cc, meaning I have 60 wyches sitting on a dusty shelf. I also have characters that do not exist. Won't even comment on my chaos models between 3.5 and all the codex editions to now.
Updated rules that you personally do not like does not mean the writers listed them as "optional rules" anywhere in their text.
Kanluwen wrote: Can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are required? or any iteration of that?
Yeah, I "latched onto the word expand"--because the language presented throughout the book is pretty clear that it is an OPTIONAL thing.
Earlier you decided to say asking that something being stated as mandatory is a dumb argument, then you require it as proof that something is not optional.
Guess I am going to have to say that I cannot quote anywhere that any rule is listed as mandatory.
Which of course does not prove in any way that DFTS has rules which are stated as being optional by the writers of the book.
Thanks for proving my point.
The language used throughout the book is intentionally vague, like previous supplements that aren't clearly labeled "SUPPLEMENTS". I can see the argument from both sides("It's optional!" "No, it's mandatory!"), but I personally would lean towards this being a case of "It hurts nobody if you opt to use parts of the rules from this book without other parts". If someone wants to use Attack Patterns or the updated Squadron sizes? No big.
Just talk to your opponent. It doesn't hurt, I promise.
blaktoof wrote: I bought Dark Eldar models for the rules they had, now wyches can't threaten AV units in cc, meaning I have 60 wyches sitting on a dusty shelf. I also have characters that do not exist. Won't even comment on my chaos models between 3.5 and all the codex editions to now.
Updated rules that you personally do not like does not mean the writers listed them as "optional rules" anywhere in their text.
You'll get no argument from me, mate. It bothers me how so many of these updates hurt factions that are not among the current top tier.
FlyingCamel wrote: I really only plan on playing friendly games with house rules that don't give broken advantages to "fighters". At least unless they decide to make valkyries/vendettas not be trash.
Yes, Valkyries/Vendettas are "trash" because they can't fire at normal BS versus other Flyers natively. Oh noes!
Let's ignore that they have some of the better Wing Leader abilities(+3 inches to their moves and autopass Break Turn tests while in an Attack Pattern[Why would you NOT be in an Attack Pattern with Valkyries or Vendettas?], rerolls on To Wound/Armor Pen rolls of 1 while in an Attack Pattern, and the ability to reroll all failed saves when they Jink while in an Attack Pattern when the save is made) and that Attack Patterns fundamentally change the way that you will want to use Valkyries/Vendettas.
Let's also ignore that while their Pursuit value is low(1), their Agility value is high(3) which means they can potentially get the win in the Manoeuvre sub-phase, which allows you to change the facing of your opponent's Flyer during a dogfight--allowing you to get into their rear arc which means you are firing at your normal Ballistic Skill.
Incorrect about valkyries/ vendettas shooting at normal BS. All flyers in the dogfighting phase are considered zooming. This means without skyfire, they are hard to hit.
I've got the book, bud.
Yes, Valkyries/Vendettas ARE shooting at normal BS during a Dogfight if you get into the rear arc of a Flyer. It's a special rule called "Tailing" under the "Angle of Attack" rules in the Attack Sub-Phase(p.72). It does not change the fact that Zooming Flyers are considered "hard to hit"(snap shooting), it just means you're firing at normal BS while snap shooting.
Read the book. You're wrong. All Skyfire does during a Dogfight is make it so that you ignore the Angle of Attack rules for any weapons with the Skyfire rule.
Also, their benefits only affect ground targets. With a vendetta, I don't need extra bonuses when shooting at tanks. I bring vendettas to deal with other flyers or fast moving skimmer cheese. Dealing with tanks is a perk, yes. But IG needs no help dealing with tanks. It needs solid choices with dealing with flyers.
If they offered a steep point discount for valkyries/ vendettas, MAYBE they would be worth it. As it stands now, a fighter can do the same job with BETTER accuracy even with a -1 BS modifier and for fewer points than my flyers can.
The "solid choices with dealing with Flyers" should never have been that marty suetastic piece of garbage Vendetta. Maybe now the Hydra can be made to actually be useful again and we can get that abomination out of the Guard book and be given the Vulture like we should have been to start with.
Sucks when they kick your crutch out from under you, but oh well. Gotta walk on your own sometime.
And lastly, 3 is not a high agility value. I am losing a dogfight 90% of the time VS eldar, and since crimson hunters will most likely actually destroy my flyer ( four S8 shots on rear AV 10 at BS 4 or 5 with skyfire) before it can get to the table (you know before I can even get ANY formation advantages)
Yes. Valkyries are trash.
3 is the same Agility value as the Stormhawk Interceptor(a Fighter), Stormtalon Gunship(Attack Flyer) Ravenwing Dark Talon(Attack Flyer), Nephilim Jetfighters(Fighter), the Razorshark Strike Fighter(Attack Flyer), and the Wazbom Blastajet(Attack Flyer that can add 2 to its Pursuit value by lowering its Agility by 2).
The examples you gave(Eldar) are the outliers. The Eldar Flyers and Heldrake are the only ones with a base(unmodified by Wing Leader or other special rules) Agility value of 4 or higher.
What have you got against the vendetta? Why should it have not been a solid AA choice? Your opinion. That's why.
Do you play IG? You should realize how badly this hurts.
I wouldn't be against bringing the vulture. I have 3 of them.
I dont want hydras. I bought valkyries for the rules they HAD. Even the valkyrie as it was was a decent AA choice.
As it is now, I wouldn't even consider bringing valkyries or vendettas unless my opponent agreed to some more balanced rules.
Forcing me to waste more money on a tank that is sorta okay at its job is infuriating when I HAD already spent money on models that were better suited to the job.
Here is my perspective; I bought an Xbox one because I wanted halo. (I didn't this is just an example.) All of a sudden microsoft decides halo will no longer work on xbox and will be a sony game.
I am pissed that models I spent money on, time painting, are now out classed by EVERY unit I bought them to deal with.
Kanluwen wrote: because the language presented throughout the book is pretty clear that it is an OPTIONAL thing.
The language, as it's been presented here, to me sounds rather ambiguous.
It says expand and replace.... neither of those words necessarily mean "optional" in the common tongue. "Replace" can certainly have the connotation of not being optional, but it depends on context, in the context of a wargame it's vague up until the point you can no longer buy the original rules. Then it's clear that it's no intended to be optional (though it's still optional in the sense any gaming group is free to do what they want).
There is some things in wargaming that aren't clearly spelled out but are still taken as gospel. Like, can you use an old edition of Codex: Orks, or do you have to use the current one? No where that I'm aware of is it clearly spelled out you have to use the version that's currently on the shelves, but if you try and use an old version you'll likely get a bunch of whinging about how you're supposed to be using the newest version.
blaktoof wrote: Guess I am going to have to say that I cannot quote anywhere that any rule is listed as mandatory.
Then you have no case, and we can be done with this discussion. Tenets.
blaktoof wrote: can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are optional? or any iteration of that?
Anything not mandatory is optional. 6 Troops in a CAD is optional, 2 Troops are Required.
Please pull out any codex, or codex supplement and list where it states it is mandatory.
Obviously the DFTS book contains the words "these rules are optional: if you and your opponent agree then you may use them" or any iteration thereof because they do not state "these rules are absolutely mandatory", which of course every other book states right?
Skyhammer Annihilation force is not mandatory, therefore it is optional according to you. So you can just ask your opponent to pick up their drop pods and models and play with non optional rules when they field it. Right?
blaktoof wrote: Guess I am going to have to say that I cannot quote anywhere that any rule is listed as mandatory.
Then you have no case, and we can be done with this discussion. Tenets.
blaktoof wrote: can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are optional? or any iteration of that?
Anything not mandatory is optional. 6 Troops in a CAD is optional, 2 Troops are Required.
Please pull out any codex, or codex supplement and list where it states it is mandatory.
Obviously the DFTS book contains the words "these rules are optional: if you and your opponent agree then you may use them" or any iteration thereof because they do not state "these rules are absolutely mandatory", which of course every other book states right?
Skyhammer Annihilation force is not mandatory, therefore it is optional according to you. So you can just ask your opponent to pick up their drop pods and models and play with non optional rules when they field it. Right?
Sounds pretty reasonable.
Well, it's a little late at that point. But since it's optional, you can ask them not to play it before the game!
blaktoof wrote:
Guess I am going to have to say that I cannot quote anywhere that any rule is listed as mandatory.
Then you have no case, and we can be done with this discussion. Tenets.
blaktoof wrote:
can you actually quote anywhere that it says these rules are optional? or any iteration of that?
Anything not mandatory is optional. 6 Troops in a CAD is optional, 2 Troops are Required.
Please pull out any codex, or codex supplement and list where it states it is mandatory.
Obviously the DFTS book contains the words "these rules are optional: if you and your opponent agree then you may use them" or any iteration thereof because they do not state "these rules are absolutely mandatory", which of course every other book states right?
Skyhammer Annihilation force is not mandatory, therefore it is optional according to you. So you can just ask your opponent to pick up their drop pods and models and play with non optional rules when they field it. Right?
Sounds pretty reasonable.
Well, it's a little late at that point. But since it's optional, you can ask them not to play it before the game!
LOL.
I don't know, doesn't say anywhere it is mandatory to agree about optional things before the game, so I guess its optional when I tell them.
What have you got against the vendetta? Why should it have not been a solid AA choice? Your opinion. That's why.
Because it's a gunship, not a fighter.
Do you play IG? You should realize how badly this hurts.
It hurts. But like I said, the Vendetta is a crutch. It's an undercosted piece of Cruddace excrement that never should have been put into the book in the first place. It was a FW designed item that somehow slipped in and was initially intended to be exclusive to the Elysian lists.
I wouldn't be against bringing the vulture. I have 3 of them.
And yet you run Vendettas instead.
I dont want hydras. I bought valkyries for the rules they HAD. Even the valkyrie as it was was a decent AA choice.
Let's be honest here. You didn't buy "Valkyries"--you bought Vendettas. Undercosted platform that far outperformed its originating unit to the point where people didn't take the originating unit.
As it is now, I wouldn't even consider bringing valkyries or vendettas unless my opponent agreed to some more balanced rules.
Forcing me to waste more money on a tank that is sorta okay at its job is infuriating when I HAD already spent money on models that were better suited to the job.
Then don't run DFTS. Simple fix.
PS; the Hydra? it's a hell of a lot better if you run IA1:2E. It still has Auto-Targeter; which basically gives Flyers a nice dose of lead poisoning.
Here is my perspective; I bought an Xbox one because I wanted halo. (I didn't this is just an example.) All of a sudden microsoft decides halo will no longer work on xbox and will be a sony game.
I am pissed that models I spent money on, time painting, are now out classed by EVERY unit I bought them to deal with.
Sucks for you, but the Vendetta never should have been able to dogfight Flyers to begin with at the level it was at.
blaktoof wrote: Please pull out any codex, or codex supplement and list where it states it is mandatory.
Show me how to build an army without the proper paperwork. I can build an army without a codex, so long as I have the proper datasheets, Wargear, and Special Rule references. It just so happens that the largest collections of such are found as codices. The rulebook actually states this in Choosing Your Army.
blaktoof wrote: Skyhammer Annihilation force is not mandatory, therefore it is optional according to you. So you can just ask your opponent to pick up their drop pods and models and play with non optional rules when they field it. Right?
I can. And he can just say, "f* it" and leave us both without a game.
But neither is he nor I required to take a Skyhammer Annihilation Force. Nor is anyone using Codex: Space Marines required to use the Adeptus Astartes book any more than Kauyon is. However, if I am going to run the Strike Forces in those books, I better have them!
But as a Necron player, I need none of those books.
If I plan on running a Planetstrike campaign, I better have the Planetstrike book. But if someone is planning on using DftS rules, they better make sure their opponent is ready to use them or they may end up losing games.
I don't know, doesn't say anywhere it is mandatory to agree about optional things before the game, so I guess its optional when I tell them.
From Choosing Your Army:
Each player in a Warhammer 40,000 battle commands an army. An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models. Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use. If you are using a Warhammer 40,000 mission, it may tell you how to select your army. If you are not using a mission, then you must decide what method of army selection each of you will use for yourselves.
Yeah that doesn't say its mandatory though...good arguement that.
Regardless the thing you keep dancing around, and not acknowledging is there are two types of optional we are discussing here. Some people are taking one and cramming them down the throat of the other and saying "LOOK ITS OPTIONAL"
1- Everything in the game can be modified by the players, making the players declare they are optional
2-Some rules are specifically by the writers stated as being optional, in actual real rules as written writing that says they are optional.
DFTS falls into category 1.
Planetstrike falls into category 2.
The rulebook and codexes are category 1.
Cities of death, and apocalypse are category 2.
Because something is in category 1 does not defacto mean it is also category 2.
Because players can willingly choose to modify things in the game, does not mean the writers of the rules specified in rules as written that something is an optional rule.
What have you got against the vendetta? Why should it have not been a solid AA choice? Your opinion. That's why.
Because it's a gunship, not a fighter.
Do you play IG? You should realize how badly this hurts.
It hurts. But like I said, the Vendetta is a crutch. It's an undercosted piece of Cruddace excrement that never should have been put into the book in the first place. It was a FW designed item that somehow slipped in and was initially intended to be exclusive to the Elysian lists.
I wouldn't be against bringing the vulture. I have 3 of them.
And yet you run Vendettas instead.
I dont want hydras. I bought valkyries for the rules they HAD. Even the valkyrie as it was was a decent AA choice.
Let's be honest here. You didn't buy "Valkyries"--you bought Vendettas. Undercosted platform that far outperformed its originating unit to the point where people didn't take the originating unit.
As it is now, I wouldn't even consider bringing valkyries or vendettas unless my opponent agreed to some more balanced rules.
Forcing me to waste more money on a tank that is sorta okay at its job is infuriating when I HAD already spent money on models that were better suited to the job.
Then don't run DFTS. Simple fix.
PS; the Hydra? it's a hell of a lot better if you run IA1:2E. It still has Auto-Targeter; which basically gives Flyers a nice dose of lead poisoning.
Here is my perspective; I bought an Xbox one because I wanted halo. (I didn't this is just an example.) All of a sudden microsoft decides halo will no longer work on xbox and will be a sony game.
I am pissed that models I spent money on, time painting, are now out classed by EVERY unit I bought them to deal with.
Las weapons are lasers which are light. Which travels at the speed of light.
If I can get arested for pointing a laser pen at an aircraft, a gunship in the 41st millenium can shoot down other air craft.
Please don't presume to know my list. Usuall 2 valks 2 vendettas.
In a pinch, a valk with multilaser and 2 heavy bolters was a perfectly acceptable choice against aircrafy. Not anymore.
My elysians have now been neutered as far as AA goes.
A cruch? Gunships that far in the future should also be fighters. Even if they are a bit slower.
If that goes against fluff, so what?
As per fluff, I should be fielding 10 platoons for every squad of astartes, but for sensible purposes and BALANCE that doesn't happen.
blaktoof wrote: Yeah that doesn't say its mandatory though...good arguement that.
Yeah, that "must" I underlined doesn't indicate a mandatory operation at all, does it? /sarcasm
blaktoof wrote: Regardless the thing you keep dancing around, and not acknowledging is there are two types of optional we are discussing here. Some people are taking one and cramming them down the throat of the other and saying "LOOK ITS OPTIONAL"
No, what we're saying is that we're not accepting you coming along and trying to cram it down our throats and saying "LOOK ITS MANDATORY!" It doesn't say it is, so it is only as "mandatory" as the game organizers choose to make it.
Tell me, how much does DftS provide me if I possess zero Flyers? If I only possess one?
blaktoof wrote: Yeah that doesn't say its mandatory though...good arguement that.
Yeah, that "must" I underlined doesn't indicate a mandatory operation at all, does it? /sarcasm
blaktoof wrote: Regardless the thing you keep dancing around, and not acknowledging is there are two types of optional we are discussing here. Some people are taking one and cramming them down the throat of the other and saying "LOOK ITS OPTIONAL"
No, what we're saying is that we're not accepting you coming along and trying to cram it down our throats and saying "LOOK ITS MANDATORY!" It doesn't say it is, so it is only as "mandatory" as the game organizers choose to make it.
Tell me, how much does DftS provide me if I possess zero Flyers? If I only possess one?
so your first statement claims something is mandatory without stating "its mandatory" or using the word mandatory- therefore my statement is invalid to you.
your second statement claims that because DFTS does not state it is mandatory, that it is not mandatory- therefore my statement is invalid to you.
Interesting that for yourself in one case the absence of mandatory does not invalidate something, but in another because of your personal preference it does.
However the rules have nothing to do with your personal preference.
Nothing in the rules for DFTS is written as being optional, in the way the writers of GW products list optional rules. Which is by clearly stating in the rules "these rules are optional" as has been done in cities of death, planet strike, apoc, FW: Experimental rules, etc.
your personal opinion is not a bearing on reality. Reality has no rules as written in DFTS stating it is optional.
blaktoof wrote: so your first statement claims something is mandatory without stating "its mandatory" or using the word mandatory- therefore my statement is invalid to you.
your second statement claims that because DFTS does not state it is mandatory, that it is not mandatory- therefore my statement is invalid to you.
Interesting that for yourself in one case the absence of mandatory does not invalidate something, but in another because of your personal preference it does.
Now see, here is a problem. The term "must" is not a term used with an optional occasion. It is used in mandatory situations.
In order to use a unit, I must have its Army List Entry. These are usually found in a codex, but not always. So, it is not mandatory to have a codex in some cases, but not in most. The mandatory nature of a codex is dependent on the units being used and their availability outside those sources.
I can field a space marine army using zero codices by making a Legion Space Marine force from the Horus Heresy source books, because everything there is associated with. If I try to make a Mephrit Necron list from IA 13, however, I need the Necron codex since it refers to Wargear and Special Rules found there.
My opponent is not required to take a Skyhammer Annihilation Force any more than I am, therefore it is not mandatory. However, if he chooses to take a Skyhammer Annihilation Force, it is mandatory that there be two Drop Pods, two Jump Assault Squads and two Devastator Squads.
Two people MUST agree on how they are going to select their armies, and in so doing, the type of game they are going to play.
There are certain points where things are optional, and certain points where things are mandatory. It is optional for a model to shoot a Heavy Bolter, but it is mandatory that if he shoots a Heavy Bolter, 3 shots are fired, no more no less.
In this case, if the game organizers choose to use DftS rules, they become mandatory to follow, but not until that decision gate has been reached.
blaktoof wrote: However the rules have nothing to do with your personal preference.
No more than yours.
blaktoof wrote: Nothing in the rules for DFTS is written as being optional, in the way the writers of GW products list optional rules. Which is by clearly stating in the rules "these rules are optional" as has been done in cities of death, planet strike, apoc, FW: Experimental rules, etc.
your personal opinion is not a bearing on reality. Reality has no rules as written in DFTS stating it is optional.
Nothing in the rules for DFTS you have presented so far (and you have presented very very little aside from your actual opinion) as being required in the way the writers of GW products list mandatory rules.
Your personal opinion is not a bearing on reality. Reality has not rules as written in DFTS stating it is mandatory.
blaktoof wrote: so your first statement claims something is mandatory without stating "its mandatory" or using the word mandatory- therefore my statement is invalid to you.
your second statement claims that because DFTS does not state it is mandatory, that it is not mandatory- therefore my statement is invalid to you.
Interesting that for yourself in one case the absence of mandatory does not invalidate something, but in another because of your personal preference it does.
Now see, here is a problem. The term "must" is not a term used with an optional occasion. It is used in mandatory situations.
In order to use a unit, I must have its Army List Entry. These are usually found in a codex, but not always. So, it is not mandatory to have a codex in some cases, but not in most. The mandatory nature of a codex is dependent on the units being used and their availability outside those sources.
I can field a space marine army using zero codices by making a Legion Space Marine force from the Horus Heresy source books, because everything there is associated with. If I try to make a Mephrit Necron list from IA 13, however, I need the Necron codex since it refers to Wargear and Special Rules found there.
My opponent is not required to take a Skyhammer Annihilation Force any more than I am, therefore it is not mandatory. However, if he chooses to take a Skyhammer Annihilation Force, it is mandatory that there be two Drop Pods, two Jump Assault Squads and two Devastator Squads.
Two people MUST agree on how they are going to select their armies, and in so doing, the type of game they are going to play.
There are certain points where things are optional, and certain points where things are mandatory. It is optional for a model to shoot a Heavy Bolter, but it is mandatory that if he shoots a Heavy Bolter, 3 shots are fired, no more no less.
In this case, if the game organizers choose to use DftS rules, they become mandatory to follow, but not until that decision gate has been reached.
blaktoof wrote: However the rules have nothing to do with your personal preference.
No more than yours.
blaktoof wrote: Nothing in the rules for DFTS is written as being optional, in the way the writers of GW products list optional rules. Which is by clearly stating in the rules "these rules are optional" as has been done in cities of death, planet strike, apoc, FW: Experimental rules, etc.
your personal opinion is not a bearing on reality. Reality has no rules as written in DFTS stating it is optional.
Nothing in the rules for DFTS you have presented so far (and you have presented very very little aside from your actual opinion) as being required in the way the writers of GW products list mandatory rules.
Your personal opinion is not a bearing on reality. Reality has not rules as written in DFTS stating it is mandatory.
That's nice.
Please quote where in DFTS it says the rules are optional, as is done in Apoc, Cities of Death, Planetstrike, Spearhead, or any of the FW experimental rules to show the rules as written are listed as optional.
blaktoof wrote: the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
Yes, they are optional. I do not need to abide by any of those that are not in use. I do not need to abide by anything I choose not to use. That is the definition of House Rule.
Would it be any more fair if I just started using Battle Missions without discussing it with my opponent? What about Planetstrike? Cities of Death? Spearhead?
Also, remember for the longest time, even codices were listed as supplements to the game. That is all any of these books really are in the end. They are there to enhance and improve the experience of the game.
But it will only do that if all players are on board.
The problem with that line of thinking is the things you refrence are actually told to be optional within their respective books, DFTS does not in contain any such language.
So it is as optional as the eldar codex, or rolling to hit against ballistic skill.
DFTS is essentially Codex fliers.
You have as much right to deny someone using it as they have to deny you using the adeptus astartes codex.
So yes everythin can be said to be.optional as a house rule, even playing by a points system. The reality however is that DFTS is not actually listed as optional so outside of playing by house rules it is part of the normal 40k game.
Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Just like someone can show up to play a game with the angels of death supplement to use cataphractii terminators and skyhammer, or a hive tyrant with a fighter ace rule from one of the baal supplements, I can show up with flyers from DFTS, and use all the rules which are not listed as optional within. Someone can of course decide they do not want to play with flyers, Just as someone could decide they don't want to play a game with any SHV or GMC.
Just as I can play a pick up game at a FLGS and decide to not play against someone because they are using Eldar, You can opt to not play against someone for using flyers.
All of this is fine, however if the poll on this forum is anything to go by then more than 3/4 of the player base will not be bothering to buy this book, or at least not get it any time soon. If you are going to stand by your idea that using DftS is absolutely mandatory then you may quickly find yourself without opponents because a lot of people wont have the rules and many of them seem not to want them.
blaktoof wrote: Please quote where in DFTS it says the rules are optional, as is done in Apoc, Cities of Death, Planetstrike, Spearhead, or any of the FW experimental rules to show the rules as written are listed as optional.
Right after you prove that it says that it IS mandatory.
Imateria wrote: Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
Every other "optional" rule book that expanded the core rules met with initial resistance and then promptly became standard. I'd expect the next version of the core rule book to include these new flyer rules in the same way that the current version includes rules originally found in Escalation and Stronghold Assault.
History shows that trying to convince everyone to use rules that are obviously intended as standard rules won't be as much of an uphill battle as you think.
This is very true. In fact several people have stated this as the reason for why they're not getting DftS, why bother if it'll become part of the core rules whenever 8th drops. This doesnt mean that it should be taken as a wholesale replacement of the core rules within the BRB, they'd have to replace the BRB for that, put as an expansion that builds on them. That is how most people are going to treat it until it becomes part of the BRB.
I got to read the book last night, and I thought it quite funny that the start of the dogfight phase rules actually states that the phase itself is optional.
I am also going to refuse any game in which my opponent has flyers and I don't, IF he insists on using the new rules.
It is ludicrously easy to give an opponent -2 to reserve rolls just for not having a flyer.
If it just made flyers better, I wouldn't have a problem. Instead it seriously punishes anyone without one
The Gw employee on the Facebook page that's posting all the faqs people plan to take as gospel said these rules replace the rules in the brb however you and your friends are free to play with whatever rules you like. (Aka house rule)
blaktoof wrote: the original DFTS was listed as optional within its cover.
this DFTS is not, an is said to replace existing rulebook rules.
Saying it is optional because it is an expansion is not really true, since it is not listed as an expansion.
Saying it is optional because it is a supplement is not really true, because it is not listed as a supplement:
Ironically the following are supplements:
Daemonic incursions
Angels of death
Waagh Ghazkull
Haemonoculi
Harlequins
All of the new SW/NID books outside of their main codex
tau units/formations from Kauyon books
etc.
Do people who think supplements are optional think those are optional? "I am sorry, skyhammer comes from angels of death which is a supplement, meaning its optional- you need to remove those models you just drop podded in" yeah right lol.
Not that it matters but stronghold assault and escalation were not written as optional either, that some people put their head in the sand and GW soon after released a version folding them into the RB so same said people who did not like them and looked for made up reasons to try and not allow people to play with what were core rules, although updated in another non expansion book, did not make those optional in any way.
Yes, they are optional. I do not need to abide by any of those that are not in use. I do not need to abide by anything I choose not to use. That is the definition of House Rule.
Would it be any more fair if I just started using Battle Missions without discussing it with my opponent? What about Planetstrike? Cities of Death? Spearhead?
Also, remember for the longest time, even codices were listed as supplements to the game. That is all any of these books really are in the end. They are there to enhance and improve the experience of the game.
But it will only do that if all players are on board.
The problem with that line of thinking is the things you refrence are actually told to be optional within their respective books, DFTS does not in contain any such language.
So it is as optional as the eldar codex, or rolling to hit against ballistic skill.
DFTS is essentially Codex fliers.
You have as much right to deny someone using it as they have to deny you using the adeptus astartes codex.
So yes everythin can be said to be.optional as a house rule, even playing by a points system. The reality however is that DFTS is not actually listed as optional so outside of playing by house rules it is part of the normal 40k game.
Good luck getting games in, I can see trying to convince/make everyone use DftS will make you very popular in your group.
The point is, which you missed, I don't have to convince anyone.
Optional rules you have to convince someone to use.
the normal rules both players have to agree not to use.
DFTS are not listed as optional rules anywhere.
DFTS are the normal rules for flyers now.
Just like someone can show up to play a game with the angels of death supplement to use cataphractii terminators and skyhammer, or a hive tyrant with a fighter ace rule from one of the baal supplements, I can show up with flyers from DFTS, and use all the rules which are not listed as optional within. Someone can of course decide they do not want to play with flyers, Just as someone could decide they don't want to play a game with any SHV or GMC.
Just as I can play a pick up game at a FLGS and decide to not play against someone because they are using Eldar, You can opt to not play against someone for using flyers.
All of this is fine, however if the poll on this forum is anything to go by then more than 3/4 of the player base will not be bothering to buy this book, or at least not get it any time soon. If you are going to stand by your idea that using DftS is absolutely mandatory then you may quickly find yourself without opponents because a lot of people wont have the rules and many of them seem not to want them.
I've played against players using codexes that I don't own, so have others. Not a problem for most people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jokerkd wrote: I got to read the book last night, and I thought it quite funny that the start of the dogfight phase rules actually states that the phase itself is optional.
I am also going to refuse any game in which my opponent has flyers and I don't, IF he insists on using the new rules.
It is ludicrously easy to give an opponent -2 to reserve rolls just for not having a flyer.
If it just made flyers better, I wouldn't have a problem. Instead it seriously punishes anyone without one
Yep it's optional, and goes on to say that both players roll a d6 and the winner has the option to choose if There is a dogfight.
blaktoof wrote: Please quote where in DFTS it says the rules are optional, as is done in Apoc, Cities of Death, Planetstrike, Spearhead, or any of the FW experimental rules to show the rules as written are listed as optional.
Right after you prove that it says that it IS mandatory.
I don't think there's any rules that say "THIS IS MANDATORY!!!".
Everything is optional. You can choose to ignore the close combat phase if you want, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say it's mandatory.
I would describe DftS as mandatory or as optional as any other rule in 40k.... that is, if you rock up for a game you should be expecting to use those rules up until you arrange with your opponent that you AREN'T using those rules, the same way you'd be expecting to play with the close combat rules unless you arrange before hand not to use them, or if your opponent rocks up with Eldar you'd be expecting them to play with the most current Eldar codex.
The only thing that makes it less optional than any other rule is that, being a separate book, there's a decent chance neither player is going to rock up with it at all.
