bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'
Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as <Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or ‘Death Guard’?
A: No. In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes – neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment> and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No. The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
Let's avoid making this a "TFG bashing thread", please, and stick to discussing the posting of the rules and FAQ (in the OP and second post). Thanks all
Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.
The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.
Aenar wrote: I have to be honest: I cannot understand why they ruled dice modifiers this way.
It makes very little sense to me, in order to speed up the game, to apply the modifiers AFTER re-rolling the dice. Confused.
There are lots of abilities that reroll ones. If you're BS4+ with reroll 1s, you're hitting 50% and rerolling 1/6th. If you then shoot a unit that gives a -1 to hit and you do modifiers first, you then either reroll 1s and 2s or have to deal with handling rolls of 0. It's easier to deal with the actual roll, then deal with the results afterwards.
It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.
Aenar wrote: I have to be honest: I cannot understand why they ruled dice modifiers this way.
It makes very little sense to me, in order to speed up the game, to apply the modifiers AFTER re-rolling the dice. Confused.
It's about rules interactions. Some negative modifiers could be turn into a positive if you applied modifiers before the reroll. It feels a bit clunky at first but it makes sense for the rules.
Davor wrote: Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.
The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.
Is a dam FAQ. There are questions and the official GW designers are answering them. How can something be more official than that?!
About the modifiers and rerolls interactions, has people have said, are to make rerolls less powerfull (2++ invulnerable tzeentch bs) and modifiers much more important (So the -1 for heavy weapons for moving that some people claimed was useless has an actual impact even if you buff those units)
Davor wrote: Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.
The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.
You're probably just used to the old yes/no binary answers we used to. Get with no explanation. The ones where they often raised even more questions instead of answering them.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.
Stranger thing is if you have a +1 & a re-roll, the re-roll could potentially be a negative: if you hit on 3+ with a +1 and roll a 2, that would hit post modifier. If you re-roll that and get a 1, you miss what would have been a hit...Whether that crops up anywhere, I don't know.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.
Stranger thing is if you have a +1 & a re-roll, the re-roll could potentially be a negative: if you hit on 3+ with a +1 and roll a 2, that would hit post modifier. If you re-roll that and get a 1, you miss what would have been a hit...Whether that crops up anywhere, I don't know.
Most rules I see say you "can" re-roll, not must. So just don't reroll anything that will later be boosed to a hit.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'
Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?
A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
TBH I never thought of this, and love the fact GW made it clear how it's meant to work. So happy I don't have to worry about explaining to someone why it doesn't work like that lol
Davor wrote: Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.
The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.
Whatever GW has previously been calling a FAQ was basically a pile of FAQ, Errata, Rule Changes and new Rules.
This is what an actual FAQ looks like. Question about how rules work, with official answers.
I'm still reasonably positive about the new edition and my first game reaffirmed this, but honestly that's mostly in direct comparison to 7th ed. To put it politely, I find some of the designers' ideas counter-intuitive.
Good job on conveying designers' intentions again, though. Better to have those than have to guess what they were thinking.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'
Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?
A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
TBH I never thought of this, and love the fact GW made it clear how it's meant to work. So happy I don't have to worry about explaining to someone why it doesn't work like that lol
It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.
It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.
It's a lot easier to think about the reroll changes if you imagine all rerolls to cover only "natural" fails.
So if you pass on a 3, then a natural roll of a 1 or a 2 is a fail.
This is a useful one to have FAQ'd, I probably would've carried on rolling the D6 like it was the vehicle damage chart
Q: Which player rolls the D6 to see if a vehicle
explodes, or if a monster has death throes, etc. when it
is destroyed?
A: The player whose model has been destroyed rolls
the D6.
It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.
It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.
I'm wondering if this is a cultural or linguistic thing at this point, because the idea that someone would think "I can call my guard regiment AND my space marine chapter the Fists of Bull0 and then they can share their rules!" is just ridiculous to me.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.
Actually, looking further, the next couple of questions are about things that trigger on certain results applying only after modifiers. As such I reckon the Chapter Master's ability, which doesn't reference a specific roll value IIRC, "waits" and only triggers after determining if you actually hit or not.
Which makes Chapter Masters special, legendary leaders rather than Captain +1 again.
Also it turns out that Castellans do in fact reflect shots on fives in their default mode. Good to know.
It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.
It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.
I'm wondering if this is a cultural or linguistic thing at this point, because the idea that someone would think "I can call my guard regiment AND my space marine chapter the Fists of Bull0 and then they can share their rules!" is just ridiculous to me.
I think it has more to do with how you look at the background and the rules. I would never do such a thing specifically because I recognize that it's a silly thing to do if you value the background. But solely as a rule, it was immediately obvious to me there was nothing to stop anyone from choosing the same keyword for deliberately discrete factions. It was literally my interest in the background that stopped me from even considering using this loophole.
But for someone who's into the game aspect of 40k with little to no regard for the background? It's a rule that's asking to be abused.
Considering GW had very similar problems with special characters and chapter tactics before, I am tempted to say there is zero excuse for the way keywords are handled (by RAW anyway).
It should be added that it's not as clear cut as your example implies, though. Iron Lords, for instance, are a lesser known chapter. But that could easily be a house name for Imperial Knights. Or a name for forces of a forge world, both Mechanicus and Guard. And while Marines are a pretty separate entity, consider the latter. Guard and Skitarii raised on the same world with the same cultural values, similar equipment and military doctrine but different command structure could easily be justified in the background as being two sides of the same coin. But using the same keyword on Mechanicus and Guard units would clearly (straight from the horse's mouth) be against the spirit in which the rules are written.
No, I'm not even talking about the background - just as a logical thing, I can't imagine looking at a section of a book that says "astra militarum - you can do X" and another section of a book that says "adeptus mechanicus - you can do X" and thinking "so since that army list says I can do X, and that army list also says I can do X, I must be able to do X to the first and have their rules apply to the second!". Like, any rational person would realise that's not permitted.
As you just noted, they're both X. Not X, Y and Z. Just X.
All within the same framework, keywords, and the same subsection of the framework, faction keywords.
In purely logical terms, they are the same thing.
Edit: To expand on this:
All Imperial Factions share the Imperium keyword. Logically, the ability to share a faction keyword is allowed even if there are other, different keywords.
The respective keywords are discrete. <Regiment> does not refer in any way to Astra Militarum. Keywords are ordered, but discrete.
The rule guiding the insertion of faction keywords is not regulated. Literally the same keyword can be chosen,
Logically, there is nothing to stop Marines and Guard from having the same keyword. Logically, if you were to apply the same keyword, there would be no way around treating Guard and Marine units differently based on this keyword.
If you want a format which disallows this, you would need something that refers to the respective faction, say:
Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0
The DIY keywords seem to be <Chapter> and <Regiment> and so on, so no, I don't think they're X and X, because whatever name you pick should inherit the properties of the parent keyword.
<Chapter> Twinkies is not the same as <Regiment> Twinkies, just like <Regiment> Blood Angels is not the same as Blood Angels.
Geifer wrote: As you just noted, they're both X. Not X, Y and Z. Just X.
All within the same framework, keywords, and the same subsection of the framework, faction keywords.
In purely logical terms, they are the same thing.
Actually, from a logic viewpoint it would be "Chapter: X" and "Regiment: X", which are not the same.
The rules tell you to choose a regiment for AM and a chapter for Adeptus Astartes. You cannot chose a chapter as a regiment or a regiment as a chapter.
A space marine with the "CADIAN" keyword would be from the Cadian Chapter and thus cannot benefit from any rules referring regiments.
(The relevant rules can be found on first page of each faction)
If you would go into programming an object of type chapter would never be equal to an object of type regiment, even if they have the same content X.
Don't bring polymorphism to a wargame debate.
That's the terrible part of the rule. <Chapter> is a placeholder that you are instructed to replace entirely. It shouldn't work like that, but it does.
Edit: Jidmah, I don't know a thing about programming. I do know about linguistics, though, so I try to stick with that.
Geifer wrote: That's the terrible part of the rule. <Chapter> is a placeholder that you are instructed to replace entirely. It shouldn't work like that, but it does.
Exact quotes:
"If an Adeptus Astartes datasheet does not specify which Chapter it is drawn from it will have the <CHAPTER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Chapter that unit is from. You then simply replace the <CHAPTER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen Chapter."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chose the Chapter CADIA
"If an Astra Militarum datasheet does not specify which regiment it is drawn from, it will typically have the <REGIMENT> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which regiment that unit is from. You then simply replace the <REGIMENT> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the chosen regiment."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chosen the regiment CADIA
As long as Chapter does not equal regiment, it's irrelevant if you chose the same word for both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: Edit: Jidmah, I don't know a thing about programming. I do know about linguistics, though, so I try to stick with that.
Programming is the thing with the hammer, right?
Programming is the thing which is nothing but rules and logic
Or, to explain it better, the very same syntax exists in many programming languages. Even if you would chose the same name for both, the underlying types would not be equal.
For example, you could call two things a "DUCK". One would be a bird and the another a toy.
Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0
That's X,Y and Z as used above.
Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.
It's only X if you skip half of the piece of information. "What's Fists of Bull0?" "Oh, it's my Space Marine chapter, but it's also my Imperial Guard regiment. But the Imperial Guard can have the Space Marines' rules because, um... they're called the same thing".
No dice. I mean, it already feels like I'm flogging a dead horse here, I'm just shocked that people want the prevailing belief here to be that this needed to be FAQ'd. I mean, jesus christ.
Jidmah wrote: "If an Adeptus Astartes datasheet does not specify which Chapter it is drawn from it will have the <CHAPTER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Chapter that unit is from. You then simply replace the <CHAPTER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen Chapter."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chose the Chapter CADIA.
I'm just going to grab this part here.
If you choose CADIA, you chose CADIA as a keyword. Nothing more. That it's supposed to be Chapter CADIA is meta-information that does not go into the keyword.
Again, and as per your quote, <Chapter> is a placeholder which you are instructed to replace with a name, that of your chapter. The name of the Ultramarines chapter is not The Ultramarines Chapter. Just Ultramarines. Even the samples we get from GW itself say ULTRAMARINES. Not Chapter ULTRAMARINES, or anything else that would tie that particular keyword to the Adeptus Astartes keyword.
We can wish for it. We can find it lamentable. But I'm sorry to say, it's simply not there. The keyword rules are GW's sloppy writing at its best.
Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0
That's X,Y and Z as used above.
Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.
It's only X if you skip half of the piece of information. "What's Fists of Bull0?" "Oh, it's my Space Marine chapter, but it's also my Imperial Guard regiment. But the Imperial Guard can have the Space Marines' rules because, um... they're called the same thing".
No dice. I mean, it already feels like I'm flogging a dead horse here, I'm just shocked that people want the prevailing belief here to be that this needed to be FAQ'd. I mean, jesus christ.
"What's Fists of Bull0?" is additional information that does not appear in the rule text. It should, but it doesn't.
I certainly don't mean to punch the poor horsey any more. My argument is made. I'm not on a mission to convince anybody to follow it, but I stand by it.
Oh my god I can't believe people are still arguing over this when the intent was completely clear to begin with AND they've given us a 100% unequivocal clarification.
Q:Can you declare charges against units that are not visible to the charging unit?
A: Yes
Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so, if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to fire Overwatch.
Can anyone explain that? Seems that at some point in the charge the targeted unit would eventually see the charging unit and pop off some shots at them. I know its a game and abstractions are made but that interaction seems a bit clunky.
Q:Can you declare charges against units that are not visible to the charging unit?
A: Yes
Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so, if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to fire Overwatch.
Can anyone explain that? Seems that at some point in the charge the targeted unit would eventually see the charging unit and pop off some shots at them. I know its a game and abstractions are made but that interaction seems a bit clunky.
Guessing the abstraction is that overwatch is prior to the unit charging moving - its not a full on 'interrupt' mechanic. It also appears to mean that you can charge safely into flamer units - as long as you are willing to risk a longer ranged charge.
Makes about as much sense as a unit half in cover and half behind cover, gets no benefit from the cover as its not totally within it.
It is however pretty clear.
Fluff logic, unit appears from around a corner, taking you by surprise as your unit is watching another. When a unit you can see charges you were expecting it. Position yourself carefully in dense terrain as nimble units have an advantage.
Its the flip side of having pretty simple core rules, you get abstractions like this, however you solve that you will get edge cases, pick your poison
Q:Can you declare charges against units that are not visible to the charging unit?
A: Yes
Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so, if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to fire Overwatch.
Can anyone explain that? Seems that at some point in the charge the targeted unit would eventually see the charging unit and pop off some shots at them. I know its a game and abstractions are made but that interaction seems a bit clunky.
Guessing the abstraction is that overwatch is prior to the unit charging moving - its not a full on 'interrupt' mechanic. It also appears to mean that you can charge safely into flamer units - as long as you are willing to risk a longer ranged charge.
Makes about as much sense as a unit half in cover and half behind cover, gets no benefit from the cover as its not totally within it.
It is however pretty clear.
Fluff logic, unit appears from around a corner, taking you by surprise as your unit is watching another. When a unit you can see charges you were expecting it. Position yourself carefully in dense terrain as nimble units have an advantage.
Its the flip side of having pretty simple core rules, you get abstractions like this, however you solve that you will get edge cases, pick your poison
In Shadow War: Armageddon it actually is a full on interrupt, which is where my questions arise. That being said, the designers spell it out in black and white, so I'm glad they did. Years past this argument would rage for months on end. I'm glad to see GW is proactive (so far) with this edition. Print out the FAQ and have some fun!! Ooops, I mean "Designers' Commentary."
Not played SWA, I don't think a proper interrupt mechanic is what 40k needed, and given the level of GW rule writing would lead to issues.
Enjoying ti so far, and actually like the day 1 issue being "designers commentary", personally I'd like to see more of this integrated with the FAQ, also would make a good column for WD (and could get me to start buying it again), a column based on:
"To ask the question Why?" going into why rules work the way they do, why they don't work differently etc
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.
It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.
But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.
Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.
From my admittedly limited experience of watching AoS play, engineering overlapping synergies and those kinds of target priority and positional shenanigans seem to be the intentional core of the gameplay - it's possible they just overlooked units in combat, but I doubt it, since maneuvering your models into wierd conga-lines and taking advantage of positional oddities and different unit states seems to be what the new "GW engine" games intend for core tactics.
Basically they've given up on trying to make "cinematic" tabletop interactions where units occupy the battlefield in a logical way also provide a "tactical" experience, and went for a more "gamified" system where the RAW is much tighter and in general more balanced, but finding and exploiting little quirks in the abstractions of the RAWis the gameplay(assuming you're in a competitive mindset) rather than an unintended flaw. And before anyone jumps down my throat, that's not a value judgement, they're different approaches and which you prefer is a matter of taste not divine law.
Davor wrote: Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.
The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.
Whatever GW has previously been calling a FAQ was basically a pile of FAQ, Errata, Rule Changes and new Rules.
This is what an actual FAQ looks like. Question about how rules work, with official answers.
Just because GW said it in an online article it doesn't mean it's OFFICIAL. We can say that Games Workshop has said many things like in White Dwarf or Customer Service on rulings and they were wrong. I still say they are designers notes so we can understand their thought process. I think it's a great idea. Just like in White Dwarf they had designer notes and people were saying anyone could take an Imperial Knight and we know how Chaos Space Marines, Orks and especially Tyranids found out that they couldn't use them. People kept claiming White Dwarf is not official.
Also with all the updating GW has done for the new edition, how come this is not under Errat on the GW website?
Again I am not saying these are not official answers but to call them FAQs is disingenuous because some people can see FAQ and then try and look for them on the GW website and find that there is no FAQ. I know when I saw FAQ I went to GW site to see if I could find it for Tyranids.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.
It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.
But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.
Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.
From my admittedly limited experience of watching AoS play, engineering overlapping synergies and those kinds of target priority and positional shenanigans seem to be the intentional core of the gameplay - it's possible they just overlooked units in combat, but I doubt it, since maneuvering your models into wierd conga-lines and taking advantage of positional oddities and different unit states seems to be what the new "GW engine" games intend for core tactics.
Basically they've given up on trying to make "cinematic" tabletop interactions where units occupy the battlefield in a logical way also provide a "tactical" experience, and went for a more "gamified" system where the RAW is much tighter and in general more balanced, but finding and exploiting little quirks in the abstractions of the RAWis the gameplay(assuming you're in a competitive mindset) rather than an unintended flaw. And before anyone jumps down my throat, that's not a value judgement, they're different approaches and which you prefer is a matter of taste not divine law.
Yep pretty much the whole tactics for competitive AoS is finding ways of twisting and bending rules without breaking them.
Geifer wrote: If you choose CADIA, you chose CADIA as a keyword. Nothing more. That it's supposed to be Chapter CADIA is meta-information that does not go into the keyword.
Again, and as per your quote, <Chapter> is a placeholder which you are instructed to replace with a name, that of your chapter. The name of the Ultramarines chapter is not The Ultramarines Chapter. Just Ultramarines. Even the samples we get from GW itself say ULTRAMARINES. Not Chapter ULTRAMARINES, or anything else that would tie that particular keyword to the Adeptus Astartes keyword.
We can wish for it. We can find it lamentable. But I'm sorry to say, it's simply not there. The keyword rules are GW's sloppy writing at its best.
This. It's obvious what the intent is, but equally obviously exploitable, and in a system that runs on abstraction, it's unreasonable to say what is and isn't common sense in terms of how things should work. Lots of things mechanically make no sense regarding the most basic of common-sense physics but, in abstraction, kind of make sense, and and why should one assume that army organization isn't designed so you can have mixed warbands? Jimmy gets a little in to the fluff and sees Inquisitors can requisition lots of imperial forces and sometimes even make alliances with aliens, so decides to make Inquisitor Jimmy's Green Berets where his hodgepodge list of orks and marines and dark eldar that share little putty hats and the keyword he made up.
The FAQ, which is designed to clarify things, can tell Jimmy that he can't do that, since the rules don't say "replace <chapter> with 'Ultramarines Chapter'," like they should, if decided to go down the rabbit hole of relaxing control on keywords.
Geifer wrote: I'm still reasonably positive about the new edition and my first game reaffirmed this, but honestly that's mostly in direct comparison to 7th ed. To put it politely, I find some of the designers' ideas counter-intuitive.
Good job on conveying designers' intentions again, though. Better to have those than have to guess what they were thinking.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'
Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?
A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
TBH I never thought of this, and love the fact GW made it clear how it's meant to work. So happy I don't have to worry about explaining to someone why it doesn't work like that lol
It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.
It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.
Only if we can pretend an aspect of the rules designed to support artistic creativity is best evaluated from a perspective of mathematical logic. Seriously, if you want to criticize the rules there are loads of good places to do it. This isn't one of them. The only potential 'flaw' of people exploiting the keywords (that would be immediately overruled by any TO anyways) was addressed by two paragraphs explaining how it works.
It's like putting a warning label on a lighter saying "WARNING: Fire can burn" at a certain point rule designers are not responsible for people lacking a basic level of reasoning.
RiTides wrote: Let's avoid making this a "TFG bashing thread", please, and stick to discussing the posting of the rules and FAQ (in the OP and second post). Thanks all
TFG reported people mocking him* *in no way am I implying that RiTides is TFG.. he's cool as a cucumber
When I loaded up the FAQ I got the rules.. or maybe I am looking at it wrong (or clicked the wrong one). I'm still waiting for my actual 8th ed to ship from the warstore (first and last time pre-ordering from them) so I am not sure how much of the rules they've listed here line up with the rules as they are in the actual book.. Is the only difference the pointed play? Are the mechanics otherwise exactly as what is at that link?
I remember in the other thread some people had submitted FAQs.. or at least were attempting to through various means, did anyone get their questions/concerns answered? I'm not asking that because I care about your specific situation (which I do) but because I am curious as to whether or not they are legitimately fielding questions that are cropped from the community rather than wherever the hell they used to get their seemingly strange and/or pointless questions from in days of old.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.. is Page 12 of the rules pdf messed up for anyone else? On mine it's half loaded, out of alignment (the text, fields, frames, etc) and starts halfway down the page where it's cutoff and the next page begins. EDIT: It appears the above Page 12 problem is only when I view it in my web browser. When I download the PDF and view it with Acrobat it appears to be perfectly fine.
Jidmah wrote: "If an Adeptus Astartes datasheet does not specify which Chapter it is drawn from it will have the <CHAPTER> keyword. When you include such a unit in your army, you must nominate which Chapter that unit is from. You then simply replace the <CHAPTER> keyword in every instance on that unit's datasheet with the name of your chosen Chapter."
If you chose CADIA in this case, you have chose the Chapter CADIA.
I'm just going to grab this part here.
If you choose CADIA, you chose CADIA as a keyword. Nothing more. That it's supposed to be Chapter CADIA is meta-information that does not go into the keyword.
Again, and as per your quote, <Chapter> is a placeholder which you are instructed to replace with a name, that of your chapter. The name of the Ultramarines chapter is not The Ultramarines Chapter. Just Ultramarines. Even the samples we get from GW itself say ULTRAMARINES. Not Chapter ULTRAMARINES, or anything else that would tie that particular keyword to the Adeptus Astartes keyword.
We can wish for it. We can find it lamentable. But I'm sorry to say, it's simply not there. The keyword rules are GW's sloppy writing at its best.
Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0
That's X,Y and Z as used above.
Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.
It's only X if you skip half of the piece of information. "What's Fists of Bull0?" "Oh, it's my Space Marine chapter, but it's also my Imperial Guard regiment. But the Imperial Guard can have the Space Marines' rules because, um... they're called the same thing".
No dice. I mean, it already feels like I'm flogging a dead horse here, I'm just shocked that people want the prevailing belief here to be that this needed to be FAQ'd. I mean, jesus christ.
"What's Fists of Bull0?" is additional information that does not appear in the rule text. It should, but it doesn't.
I certainly don't mean to punch the poor horsey any more. My argument is made. I'm not on a mission to convince anybody to follow it, but I stand by it.
No dude, just no. Its a CHAPTER or REGIMENT keyword. Period. No amount of twisting and cheating can help you with this.
Once again, take the keyword discussion elsewhere. It's been resolved in the FAQ. If you want to discuss how you thought it worked prior to the FAQ, or the merits or otherwise of the keyword system in either case, take it to 40K Discussions.
The best thing to come out of that keyword discussion was me discovering the name for my next guard regiment, the mighty Fists of Bull0. Maybe a pure armored regiment.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.
It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.
But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.
Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.
From my admittedly limited experience of watching AoS play, engineering overlapping synergies and those kinds of target priority and positional shenanigans seem to be the intentional core of the gameplay - it's possible they just overlooked units in combat, but I doubt it, since maneuvering your models into wierd conga-lines and taking advantage of positional oddities and different unit states seems to be what the new "GW engine" games intend for core tactics.
Basically they've given up on trying to make "cinematic" tabletop interactions where units occupy the battlefield in a logical way also provide a "tactical" experience, and went for a more "gamified" system where the RAW is much tighter and in general more balanced, but finding and exploiting little quirks in the abstractions of the RAWis the gameplay(assuming you're in a competitive mindset) rather than an unintended flaw. And before anyone jumps down my throat, that's not a value judgement, they're different approaches and which you prefer is a matter of taste not divine law.
Yep pretty much the whole tactics for competitive AoS is finding ways of twisting and bending rules without breaking them.
No, it isn't. The meta defining AoS tournaments is exploiting areas of poorly balanced point costs, and always has been. If anything exploits of rules to do weird things is less common now than it was in WHFB.
Some of these rules are really counter-intuitive. A character with a familiar can't be picked out from a crowd, but once the character is dead the familiar is easier to stop than both of them together were?
Having a character nearby your plasma weapons letting you re-roll ones to hit makes it way less likely they will overheat. I guess I can kind of buy that an officer being there to point out targets and just inspire the men to do their best makes them better at shooting, but does his presence inspire the machine spirit of the plasma gun to not overheat?
Also, if you have +1 to hit, then your plasma weapons can't overheat because you'll never roll a 1? But if you have some negative modifiers to hit, it is WAY more likely to overheat, because the lowest you can get is a 1. So if you are -1 to hit, a roll of 1 or 2 will overheat.
As has been pointed out, if a character unit is the closest (or only) valid target, but there is a closer enemy unit engaged in combat, the character can't be picked out and fired at, even if they are nowhere near another of their own units.
The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
skarsol wrote: Not all vehicles. Plasma auto-kills Chaos vehicles cause Combi-weapons don't care.
I think the correct words would be "because Copy-and-Paste don't care." A lot of copy-and-pasting of rules without going back to review and edit them is probably the source of a lot of problems.
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
It already works like this for vehicles in fact.
Where is that from? Because its not on any plasma-toting vehicles I own.
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
It already works like this for vehicles in fact.
Where is that from? Because its not on any plasma-toting vehicles I own.
Space Marine index. Out of their 8! slightly different plasma weapons, one is for dreads and gets the 'heavy' to distinguish it. (there is also a twin heavy plasma cannon that goes on... something. Thanks to the terrible organization, some of these weapons are difficult to match to the unit that can actually take them).
But other armies can take 'normal' plasma weapons on non-infantry, and as a result they get wrecked outright.
Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
And you see that with stuff like the ghostkeel, the whole fluff idea is its -2 to hit outside of 12 inches becasuse it's basically a giant stealth suit. The problem arises with the FW sicaran's new 8th ed rules. In 7th it ignored jink saves , the fluff being its a fast tracking weapon ideal for shooting at jetbikes and flyers and so on. Now it just ignores the ghostkeels -2 all together because the ghostkeel has the "fly" keyword.
Bespoke is great and all if its something truly unique and interesting while hopefully being as consistent as possible with the new rules. But when its stuff that basically infiltrate or deep strike, often either worded identically or in a similar way. It just seems lazy and pointless. It creates like fake distinctions and actual confusion.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Some of these rules are really counter-intuitive. A character with a familiar can't be picked out from a crowd, but once the character is dead the familiar is easier to stop than both of them together were?
Having a character nearby your plasma weapons letting you re-roll ones to hit makes it way less likely they will overheat. I guess I can kind of buy that an officer being there to point out targets and just inspire the men to do their best makes them better at shooting, but does his presence inspire the machine spirit of the plasma gun to not overheat?
Also, if you have +1 to hit, then your plasma weapons can't overheat because you'll never roll a 1? But if you have some negative modifiers to hit, it is WAY more likely to overheat, because the lowest you can get is a 1. So if you are -1 to hit, a roll of 1 or 2 will overheat.
As has been pointed out, if a character unit is the closest (or only) valid target, but there is a closer enemy unit engaged in combat, the character can't be picked out and fired at, even if they are nowhere near another of their own units.
The downside of a simplified ruleset is you get cases like this were stuff just doesn't make sense. Its unfortunate, but the (idea is) rules as a whole are better off having a dozen or so weird things than having to include extra rules to cover all of them. Personally I think its worth it, especially considering the sort of non-sense we overlook anyways.
Though for what its worth, in the case of the character granting re-roll 1's I could totally see him pointing at a guy about to overheat his weapon and shouting 'hold trooper!' to prevent that from occurring.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
And if GW had done that people would be ceaselessly whining about how they didn't change enough or didn't fix X or didn't address Y. Sorry that 8th wasn't exactly what you wanted.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about. When someone decides that they are not going to like something then they will see a bad release no matter what.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
HH was an entirely different game, using tweaked rules. Not even close, considering it was only marines and IG with some ad mech, and then sprinklings of flavor for the marines. Really easy to balance a ruleset around 1 army.
Those ideas do not apply to 40K. Henceforth, why it was never done, and even the most 'balanced' go at it (ITC) was still a laughable affair from a competitive standpoint.
Complete rewrite was needed, because anything less would simply be the same as what the last 3 editions had been - a bandage on a gaping wound.
And we've been told codex's are on the way, and that they are a high priority. Not sure where you're getting your info.
Played 10+ games of 8th so far. It is by and far a better game than 7th was. Took me 10 minutes to teach a 6 year old how to play, and got 3 more games finished in two hours. I definitely would like more flavor in the army, but seeing as how they are taking they're design queues from AoS, I'd say that the battletomes are a clear indicator of what we are getting.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
And if GW had done that people would be ceaselessly whining about how they didn't change enough or didn't fix X or didn't address Y. Sorry that 8th wasn't exactly what you wanted.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about. When someone decides that they are not going to like something then they will see a bad release no matter what.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
You speaked too agains't Bespoken degradation tables and those are all good, even making things like vehicles become better in meele as they loose wounds for being angrier.
So it has nothing to do with the "bespoken" nature of the rules. Is about with how well they implement it. They could to the same mistakes with a central armoury.
In fact, they HAVE done the same mistakes with USR and a central Armoury (5th, 6th and 7th as a proof)
EDIT: HH is a much better balanced game because... is basically 18 slightly different versions of the same army over and over again, with some deviations like Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc...
The problem is that people want for 40k to have all the "fluff adderence", all the "variety of factions", etc... and still be a fast and balanced game... but what they are willing to give to gain that?
Did you wan't a fast game? A fluff simulation game? A balanced game where all the hundreds of options of 40k are viable? Decide because many of those philosofies of game desing drink from totally opposite sources.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about.
That's not "being fair". That's a "personal attack". I believe that's against the board's rules, so cut it out.
I think he has a point. The point of the fact that we aren't entitled for GW to make exactly the game/miniatures/universe we wan't. One should be reasonable and expect things to not addapt 100% to his tastes. And if they don't offer reasonable value for them, to not pay for it. Sweet and simple capitalism.
EDIT: HH is a much better balanced game because... is basically 18 slightly different versions of the same army over and over again, with some deviations like Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc...
The problem is that people want for 40k to have all the "fluff adderence", all the "variety of factions", etc... and still be a fast and balanced game... but what they are willing to give to gain that?
Did you wan't a fast game? A fluff simulation game? A balanced game where all the hundreds of options of 40k are viable? Decide because many of those philosofies of game desing drink from totally opposite sources.
you are right, HH was balanced because it was predominately 16 legions vs each other, they got lucky with militia, solar auxilia and did an alright job with those but custodes, mechanicum, space wolves and thousand sons has thrown that balance right out the window. To the point where the mechanicum player in our gaming group brings 2500 point lists to 3000 point games just to keep it fair.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
You speaked too agains't Bespoken degradation tables and those are all good, even making things like vehicles become better in meele as they loose wounds for being angrier.
So it has nothing to do with the "bespoken" nature of the rules. Is about with how well they implement it. They could to the same mistakes with a central armoury.
In fact, they HAVE done the same mistakes with USR and a central Armoury (5th, 6th and 7th as a proof)
EDIT: HH is a much better balanced game because... is basically 18 slightly different versions of the same army over and over again, with some deviations like Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc...
The problem is that people want for 40k to have all the "fluff adderence", all the "variety of factions", etc... and still be a fast and balanced game... but what they are willing to give to gain that?
Did you wan't a fast game? A fluff simulation game? A balanced game where all the hundreds of options of 40k are viable? Decide because many of those philosofies of game desing drink from totally opposite sources.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about.
That's not "being fair". That's a "personal attack". I believe that's against the board's rules, so cut it out.
I think he has a point. The point of the fact that we aren't entitled for GW to make exactly the game/miniatures/universe we wan't. One should be reasonable and expect things to not addapt 100% to his tastes. And if they don't offer reasonable value for them, to not pay for it. Sweet and simple capitalism.
By the same token people are not entitled to have their opinions agreed with, and should be reasonable and not expect every poster's views to 100% match their taste. If they find they don't like a poster's views, they can simply ignore them. Sweet and simple politeness.
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
It already works like this for vehicles in fact.
Where is that from? Because its not on any plasma-toting vehicles I own.
Space Marine index. Out of their 8! slightly different plasma weapons, one is for dreads and gets the 'heavy' to distinguish it. (there is also a twin heavy plasma cannon that goes on... something. Thanks to the terrible organization, some of these weapons are difficult to match to the unit that can actually take them).
But other armies can take 'normal' plasma weapons on non-infantry, and as a result they get wrecked outright.
Twin Heavy Plasma goes on the storm Raven. I think it's actually a steal because it's only 35 points I believe and it doesn't suffer -bs for moving and shooting due to machine spirit. Best weapons platform we have IMO.
Moving and supercharge-firing heavy plasma of any variant seems pretty darn lethal with "can never be modded lower than 1" rule. Especially multishot weapons..
I did not mean it as a personal attack; I was commenting on the nature of the criticism. Because he will respond negatively to any development the logic behind that is questionable. Is the point of criticism a legitimate problem or is it just confirmation bias talking? In all fairness it isn't worth responding to the latter with logical debate. Considering the number of "GW White Knight" comments he has made over the years I find it a bit hypocritical to take offense.
Verviedi wrote: To be fair, white knights do exist, and seem to have doubled in presence since 8th was leaked.
I agree, and (to my knowledge) pointing out people behaving as such has not historically been considered a rule #1 violation. If I am wrong about that I am happy to have my comments removed.
Going off that somewhat, I feel 8th is a mixed bag of more positive developments than negative. There's a lot of discussion to be had, especially on where GW goes from here. I think we got a bit of insight into the developer's mindset with the recent FAQ. From that and other comments they've made elsewhere it seems like they want to stick with where the rules are now so that people can get used to it (and get over knee-jerk responses both positive and negative we have mentioned) before determining a direction. Now that everyone has their hands on the rules (and let's be honest; has for a couple weeks now) what are actual tabletop results telling us about where issues might be? What do we expect to see FAQ'd in the next few months?
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's not "being fair". That's a "personal attack". I believe that's against the board's rules, so cut it out.
H.B.M.C. don't like personal attacks. He is completely right, of course. I just hope he remembers it not just when someone else make one .
Pot and kettles…
Verviedi wrote: To be fair, white knights do exist, and seem to have doubled in presence since 8th was leaked.
Or, it's more likely that "White Knight" is a label used to undermine someone's opinion without actually addressing it said opinion.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.
skarsol wrote: Anything that applies a negative modifier to hit makes plasma more dangerous.
Which is highlighting a problem brought up in miniwargamings 8th ed review. Paraphrasing: "gw can't decide whether units that are harder to hit for whatever reason (speed/stealth/invisible) should get a modifier or an inv save. "
They keyword system is part of the problem IMO and its really messing with my immersion. It's so far the other way on abstraction, its often a missed opportunity too. The ghostkeel having that fly keyword is going to come back to haunt it with traditionally AA style weaponry
In marketing you hear the word bespoke a lot. It just means made to order. Your delicious mcdonalds cheeseburger is also bespoke. The problem with bespoke to me is they think they're saying tailor made and I'm hearing whipped up on the spot.
The keyword system works really well in AoS and I don't expect anything less in 40k. I think hard-to-hit units should generally be given hit penalties to strike them unless it represents an active 'dodge' sort of ability where an invul is appropriate (see Genestealers). But that such hard-to-hit-ness translates into plasma weapons overheating more often is silly and more importantly not how plasma weapons are supposed to work.
I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.
Just Tony wrote: I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.
For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.
Just Tony wrote: I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.
For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.
For once, Davor and I agree.
I'm going to go have a few drinks now...
Just Tony wrote: I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.
For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.
I'll be buying/playing 40k now when I wasn't previously doing so at all.
Just Tony wrote: I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.
For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.
I'll be buying/playing 40k now when I wasn't previously doing so at all.
all of this, seriously. i hadn't bought anythign 40k in months and hadn't played a game in longer.
Just Tony wrote: I'm glad that it was a free download to see I have no interest in diving into 8th. As long as they keep selling models playable in older editions of their games, they'll get some of my money. The second that stops, so does my spending directly to GW and I will be aftermarket only.
For me on the other hand, I am spending more money now since I see 8th edition so much better than all previous editions. Not saying you are wrong, since that is what you think, but I am thinking I can actually have fun now with my army now and not feel disadvantaged just for picking the "wrong" army. I feel I can justify buying minis now that I haven't for the last few years now.
I'll be buying/playing 40k now when I wasn't previously doing so at all.
Same here. Sat out 6th and 7th and 8th edition WFB.
AoS and 8th 40k (and the cool board games they've done over the past couple years) brought me back to playing GW stuff.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.
It does have the benefit of forcing players to diversify their armory to tackle different units. I don't want to see Over-Charged Plasma become the new Grav.
I'm excited about a lot of things I've seen about 8th. I still have not received my pre-order from TheWarstore.. probably should've just gone with Frontline.. especially since they're local..
Anyway.. GW is saying and doing the right things.. the things that made it easier to love their products instead of reasons to hate their brand/company.. 8th appears to be similar enough to both older editions and some specialist games while being mindful of newer tendencies in the gaming-verse.
I had not bought any new GW products in a long time. I had bought Mordheim and other OOP stuff.. but the direction they had been going was clearly not aimed at me. The decisions of the 'Ard Boyz era up until the change of leadership were all moves away from what I was looking for..
The interesting thing.. having been away so long, looking through the catalog NOW.. of all the shiny toys that have been released while I've been away.. and not feeling weirdly obligated to hate all of them.. It's actually kinda exciting.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.
Despite the 'cheapness of life' view in some of the 40k factions, I still can't see why any military would make a gun that destroys itself and it's user a sixth of the times it's shot.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.
Despite the 'cheapness of life' view in some of the 40k factions, I still can't see why any military would make a gun that destroys itself and it's user a sixth of the times it's shot.
It used to. Now it is only dangerous when you deliberately overcharge it beyond safe limits.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I feel like they should change it to 'an unmodified roll of 1' in a future errata; I dont think it is the intent for plasma to fluctuate that much in performance.
Despite the 'cheapness of life' view in some of the 40k factions, I still can't see why any military would make a gun that destroys itself and it's user a sixth of the times it's shot.
Rules are not fluff and fluff does not make for good rules. GW has proven this well enough, it's time to let go of the assumption that every detail of a rule needs a justification in fluff.
In this case, the fluff says that it's dangerous to overload your plasma weapon because it might overheat and fry you.
The rules have it explode on a roll of 1 on a d6 because it is impractical to bring a d32 and a d48 along to mimic the exact 3.125% chance of plasma guns exploding and the 2.0833% chance of vehicle mounted a plasma cannon exploding.
Also rolling for rules that have a large chance of doing nothing over the course of an entire game is a major waste of time.
I agree that it is un-intuitive that negative modifiers increase the chance of overheating, however everybody seems to be fine with positive modifiers preventing overheating.
In the end, it's just a rule. All you need to remember is that the '1' for flaming plasma self-incineration is checked after modifiers and you're fine, no matter how many positive or negative modifiers you have.
The only issue I see is that, from a balancing point of view, it might be unwanted to make some models more resilient to plasma overloads than other. Or maybe this is fully intended to prevent plasma from dominating the game as it is currently heralded.
T hey should have just made the rll for plasma overheats separate from the roll to hit. That way it wouldnt be susceptible to all kinds of shenanigans that shouldnt be affecting it
Yeah, maybe they can come up with a better rule for plasma and that would fix a lot of the weirdness. In any case, at least now it's a choice whether or not to overcharge it, so you can just choose not to and then it's not an issue. I suppose it does make some kind of sense that in situations that make it harder to hit (you are moving and firing a heavy weapon for example) you have less concentration available to try to overload your weapon just enough to not have it blow up on you.
If you were to change the rules to only natural 1s causing your plasma gun to explode, would you include a rule that applied the boom before Rerolls or would you want those to still save you?
AduroT wrote: If you were to change the rules to only natural 1s causing your plasma gun to explode, would you include a rule that applied the boom before Rerolls or would you want those to still save you?
We will probably just make it so the re-rolls save you. If you got the Armor Save I would have to say no.
AduroT wrote: If you were to change the rules to only natural 1s causing your plasma gun to explode, would you include a rule that applied the boom before Rerolls or would you want those to still save you?
After re-rolls, for consistency. As in, a re-roll completely ignores the first result, always applies the second result.
Writing in the weapon profile "On an unmodified roll of 1 (after re-rolls)..." could make all these little problems go away, remove ambiguity and isn't something for which a GW writer needs to stay in late on Friday night.
I would just do shots and re rolls as normal, then after the oc plasma has been shot roll a dice to see if it overheats separately. That way the rerolls for precision shots from having a catain or whoevs nearby will affect the units shooting ability, but not the plasma overheating potnetial. It means you can hit or miss and it can still explode as well
FWIW I meant in a rule context; I don't think the explosion chances are supposed to vary that much on the tabletop. Fluff is another issue and one I'm not really bothered by; there are far greater nonsensical issues we must deal with than that. Sometimes good rules design means having areas that don't make perfect sense fluff wise in order to have the game function better.
The road they chose to go down with 8th isn't the only way they could have chosen to fix the game.
And any of those other options would have had a significant group of people complaining about how bad it was. There is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would please everyone, and they are in the decidedly unenviable position of having to try.
I think that plasma kink may be intentional. There are already lots of threads stating that plasma is always the best option. With that higher overheat chance in specific situations, that may not be so true anymore.
Unless you're firing on a unit with T7 there's really not a lot of need to supercharge the plasma gun anyway. I think if it's a choice to do it then the consequences should be worse than when it wasn't optional. For me, it's not worth it.
Geifer wrote: As you just noted, they're both X. Not X, Y and Z. Just X.
All within the same framework, keywords, and the same subsection of the framework, faction keywords.
In purely logical terms, they are the same thing.
Edit: To expand on this:
All Imperial Factions share the Imperium keyword. Logically, the ability to share a faction keyword is allowed even if there are other, different keywords.
The respective keywords are discrete. <Regiment> does not refer in any way to Astra Militarum. Keywords are ordered, but discrete.
The rule guiding the insertion of faction keywords is not regulated. Literally the same keyword can be chosen,
Logically, there is nothing to stop Marines and Guard from having the same keyword. Logically, if you were to apply the same keyword, there would be no way around treating Guard and Marine units differently based on this keyword.
If you want a format which disallows this, you would need something that refers to the respective faction, say:
Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0
That's X,Y and Z as used above.
Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.
Absolutely not.
I have a pet duck, I name him Hawk McTalons. He is still a duck.
A Regiment is not a chapter is not a knight household is not a craft world is not a chaos warband.
xttz wrote: Is it worth renaming this thread title to say "Designers Notes" so that when the actual FAQ comes out it's clearer?
That would just give credence to the people who say we shouldn't actually use the rulings given here during gameplay because for some unfathomable reason only documents specifically titled "FAQ" are official official.
That's a fair point xttz, but I think since there isn't any other FAQ right now it shouldn't be confusing atm. And as someone else noted, their normal "FAQ" documents are actually misnamed as they're more errata than anything else so this one is named appropriately for once!
Went to the GW website to see the new FAQ. They don't have FAQs no more. They are called Rules Errata now. So therefore I guess this can be called FAQ since GW don't call them FAQs no more.
Just guess I have to teach myself now not to go by FAQs now. Problem solved.
GW seems to avoid the free rules model they use for Age of Sigmar with 40k. The 12 pages of core rules are free, but any unit rules are found in the indices.
There has been rumors of a 40k army builder from GW some time in the future. How that will look, if it's free or paid content, and whether it will contain unit rules or just calculates cost is currently unknown.
Supposedly there will also be data sheets in new unit boxes. No way to tell yet if they are complete or cut down.
GW seems to avoid the free rules model they use for Age of Sigmar with 40k. The 12 pages of core rules are free, but any unit rules are found in the indices.
There has been rumors of a 40k army builder from GW some time in the future. How that will look, if it's free or paid content, and whether it will contain unit rules or just calculates cost is currently unknown.
Supposedly there will also be data sheets in new unit boxes. No way to tell yet if they are complete or cut down.
No free unit rules? Bite me. There goes much of my goodwill.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Still, let's see what battlescribe can do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait, an Index only costs $25 rather than the usual stupid $80 hard cover? That is a nice change. Though much cheaper in pounds. : (
I suspect that free dataslates will be available later on, just not at release so they can cash in on people buying the indexes. Its a lot of revenue they would lose out on if people could get things easily from the onset. They also put a lot more work into the 40k relaunch dataslates than they did AoS launch warscrolls (like actual playtesting, for example).
Yeah, "cash in" is the kind of impression I get from this release. Not that it's a bad move for their bottom line. 40k is popular enough and let's be honest, the price of the indices is fair. Even the rulebook is a better priced than the 6th ed and 7th ed books. But GW follows a pretty transparent* strategy if you look at the starter sets. The big, expensive one comes first with not a hint of the smaller ones to get sales out of people who would buy a smaller one but are OK with getting the big one if that's the only starter set, as well as some people on the fence. Then they try to get money out of everyone else by releasing cheaper starter sets.
I don't know we'll ever see free rules as in Age of Sigmar, because I think GW is very aware 40k is popular enough that they don't need free rules as a marketing tool. That may actually be the case. I don't know. I can only speak for myself. Because of how they went about the 8th ed release, they got 20€ out of me for the Marine index and that's it. With free data sheets they could have sold me a Scions start collecting box (for Inquisition) and a Rhino or Razorback kit (for my Sisters of SIlence). However, 8th ed seems to be pretty well received, so I'm going to assume for now I'm part of a minority. And if that's the case, as in GW is happy with their sales, they have no reason to release free rules for 40k.
* As in tinfoil hat transparent, not informing customers of future releases transparent.
As has been mentioned loads, using phrases like "cash in" is largely redundant when we're talking about a company that exists to sell stuff. They exist to cash in on their own launches. New editions make money selling rules back to people who already owned rules. It's a cycle they've done and done again.
The main money issue is really that people built it up in their heads unit rules would be free, despite GW saying from the off that unit rules would cost. It's smart on their part, as it's a larger existing player base and means at least £15 from every player out there to keep up, even if they opt to use only the Battle Primer rules. HUGE cash injection.
The only thing that smarts for me is the dumb errors in my FW Index.
While I largely agree, it's not quite as simple as that now that GW is doing marketing again. They've been working hard at creating the image of "New GW" you can trust and with Age of Sigmar they have trained people to expect free basic rules. They have stated from the beginning that the Indices will hold the unit rules, but have to my knowledge never explicitly ruled out free rules.
It's not just people building it up in their heads. That's part of it, but GW did nothing to dispel the notion that they may release free rules and are only trying to sell people books that are also released. GW is still very tight-lipped and very selective about near future releases.
Geifer wrote: While I largely agree, it's not quite as simple as that now that GW is doing marketing again. They've been working hard at creating the image of "New GW" you can trust and with Age of Sigmar they have trained people to expect free basic rules. They have stated from the beginning that the Indices will hold the unit rules, but have to my knowledge never explicitly ruled out free rules.
It's not just people building it up in their heads. That's part of it, but GW did nothing to dispel the notion that they may release free rules and are only trying to sell people books that are also released. GW is still very tight-lipped and very selective about near future releases.
Not ruling out free unit rules and not even hinting they'll come aren't the same. :-) They said unit rules would cost. They said the base rules would be free and 12 pages. Anything beyond that is what people have brought to the metaphorical table themselves.
Given how easy it is to find those rules free online, and with them being included in future boxes & reboxes, I would be surprised if GW didnt make a direct resource for free rules since realistically they will already be free for a small amount of extra effort.
GW will not give out something for free they can charge for. The only reason we have any sort of free download rules is to give JUST enough to get interest, and force someone to pay for the book proper. That will never change. Nor will it change that they will try their best to get you to buy something you already have simply by adding either a single weapon option only available on the new sprue, or by invalidating a book forcing you to buy a new one. The current indices will sell really well, and every single person who has one will have to turn around and buy a new book within months from now. Mark my words. And as far as I can see, they've simply shifted the problem areas rather then eliminate them entirely.
Really glad they released it so quickly!! Clarifies a lot of stuff.
Personally I like how they specifically mentioned the plasma interaction. For the last two weeks it has always been "OMG plasma overcharge spam is totally broken" now we have something that can help limit its power and it becomes "this is BS, plasma is not as broken as it was before"
Personally I like how they made it so things like re-rolls are less valuable in certain situations and the much more rare modifiers are more powerful.
duck.
