New FAQ and bunch of Erratas

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/23/updated-faqs-and-boots-on-the-groundgw-homepage-post-2/

Lots of nerfs!

Flyers
Tank Commanders
Razorflock

On one hand, I find it amusing that the team realized that flyerspam is better than they intended. On the other hand, I find their nerf very kludge-tastic/gamey in its implementation, and is easy to work around ("Fine, I take a solo Astropath and place it out of Line of Sight.")

Flyers in 8th are a shining example of what goes wrong when you simplify the core rules. Removing fire arcs removed the core disadvantage of said flyers (minimum speed + limited fire arcs), while removing the exceptions for flyers and movement means aircraft act as a mobile forcefield preventing non-fly units from moving past them!

Of course, you could always luck out, play an army of Space Marines and get an Orbital Bombardment and go "your solo character is dead. I win," but such a victory is so artificial as to really kill the "immersion" aspect of the game, or the satisfaction of being a better general. Might as well just flip a coin.

If 8e had a proper system for Overwatch, alternating activations, or other core mechanics that prevented such alphastrike builds from becoming a thing, rather than mechanical restrictions like "Flyers do not count as models for determining if you're tabled" (meaning no "dropship lists" ever), this would be a better edition overall. (Hint hint, GW)

"Q: When I manifest the Warptime psychic power, can I select a
unit that arrived on the battlefield as reinforcements this turn?
A: Yes."

I have never been happier with a FAQ in my life. I had hoped that this was the way to play it but the wording was rather ambiguous in my opinion.

"[...] they cannot hold territory without ground support."

Well they can certainly clear it of any possible threat...

I for one find the flyer nerf elegant.

Highlights i found

The flyer nerf :

Page 215 – Sudden Death
Change point 2 to read:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate
within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot
hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do
not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield
Role unless they have a unit embarked inside – even the
most formidable bastion requires a garrison if it is to
pose a threat.’

Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such
as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor
Warlord Trait, can I use them both?
A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

Pages 13 and 41 – Tank Commander and Knight
Commander Pask, Wargear Options
Add the following bullet point:
‘• This model may take a hunter-killer missile.

Q: Can a Tank Commander or Knight Commander Pask issue
a Tank Order to themselves?
A: No.

OFFICIO ASSASSINORUM
Q: If a unit of Dark Reapers (which have the Inescapable
Accuracy ability) shoots at a Culexus Assassin (which has the
Etherium ability), what roll do the Dark Reapers require to
successfully hit the Assassin?
A: 3+.
This is because while the Dark Reapers treat their
Ballistic Skill as 6+ because of the Etherium ability,
they always score a hit on rolls of 3+ because of their
Inescapable Accuracy ability, which is irrespective of
their Ballistic Skill characteristic or any modifiers.

Page 76 – Army of the Reborn
Replace this paragraph with the following:
‘If the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the
Visarch or the Yncarne then – with the exception of
<Haemonculus Coven> units, Urien Rakarth, Drazhar,
Mandrakes and the Avatar of Khaine – any Aeldari
unit can also be Ynnari.

Page 118 – Units table, Razorwing Flocks
Change the models per unit value to read ‘3-12’ and the
points per model value to read ‘14’.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On one hand, I find it amusing that the team realized that flyerspam is better than they intended. On the other hand, I find their nerf very kludge-tastic/gamey in its implementation, and is easy to work around ("Fine, I take a solo Astropath and place it out of Line of Sight.")

Flyers in 8th are a shining example of what goes wrong when you simplify the core rules. Removing fire arcs removed the core disadvantage of said flyers (minimum speed + limited fire arcs), while removing the exceptions for flyers and movement means aircraft act as a mobile forcefield preventing non-fly units from moving past them!

Of course, you could always luck out, play an army of Space Marines and get an Orbital Bombardment and go "your solo character is dead. I win," but such a victory is so artificial as to really kill the "immersion" aspect of the game, or the satisfaction of being a better general. Might as well just flip a coin.

If 8e had a proper system for Overwatch, alternating activations, or other core mechanics that prevented such alphastrike builds from becoming a thing, rather than mechanical restrictions like "Flyers do not count as models for determining if you're tabled" (meaning no "dropship lists" ever), this would be a better edition overall. (Hint hint, GW)

I actually think their fix is superb. The solo astropath example you mention is only going to mean that it is good to have a unit or two that allow for mobility or are deep striking to take out that solo unit. Flyers are obviously meant as support and not the primary force.

Also, talking about game breaking immerson: 4-5 Storm Ravens hovering around without any troops or tactics isn't exactly immersion enhancing.

Yeah one Tau commander (not even a spam list) would make short of that and win the game.

If you don't put enough guys on the ground to survive an alpha/beta strike deep strike you will get tabled.

This would probably result in cutting down flyers by one or two models in an army possibly three.

Q: Can Necrons that have fled the battlefield return using Reanimation Protocols?

A: No. This ability only allows models that were slain to return, not models that have fled.
You may find it useful to place Necron models that flee to one side as a reminder that they cannot return using their Reanimation Protocols ability (eh)

Page 102 – Monolith, Damage Table Change the values under ‘BS’ to read ‘3+’, ‘4+’ and ‘5+’. (yay!)

Pages 96 and 128 – Voidblade Add the following ability: ‘Each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon.’ (power swords that give +1 attack? yes please. Hyperphase swords are just meh now)

Neat. So all-flyer lists just need to have their ground forces eliminated, that's ez-pz.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
and is easy to work around ("Fine, I take a solo Astropath and place it out of Line of Sight.")
Flyers in 8th are a shining example of what goes wrong when you simplify the core rules. Removing fire arcs removed the core disadvantage of said flyers (minimum speed + limited fire arcs), while removing the exceptions for flyers and movement means aircraft act as a mobile forcefield preventing non-fly units from moving past them!

Of course, you could always luck out, play an army of Space Marines and get an Orbital Bombardment and go "your solo character is dead. I win," but such a victory is so artificial as to really kill the "immersion" aspect of the game, or the satisfaction of being a better general. Might as well just flip a coin.

Maybe don't take all flyers if you want to prove you're a better general?

If 8e had a proper system for Overwatch, alternating activations, or other core mechanics that prevented such alphastrike builds from becoming a thing, rather than mechanical restrictions like "Flyers do not count as models for determining if you're tabled" (meaning no "dropship lists" ever), this would be a better edition overall. (Hint hint, GW)

All dropship lists are out anyway, because you can't have more than half in reserve. If THAT was a balancing mechanic then this flyer patch is no less in the same vein.

Lots of people talk about points being just one factor of balance. I'll give GW credit for taking an approach that still gives people some flexibility without hiking points.

I'm not sure they should've acted to fix it so fast. We're still figuring things out.

That said, this is a fairly elegant solution to the flier lists and I'm O.K. with it.

Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, can I use them both?

A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

For example, if a model had the two aforementioned abilities and lost a wound, you could roll a D6 due to the Disgustingly Resilient ability and on a roll of 5+ that wound would be ignored. If you rolled less than 5, you could then roll another D6 because of the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, and this time the wound would be ignored on a 6.

This will make Iron Hands venerable dreads happy.

Holy hell this is great for the ITC where lists are already set.

All the WAAC flyer spam lists are now at a supreme disadvantage, and they've already submitted their lists to the event

There is no way they will apply the FAQ for this tourney.

 Melissia wrote:

Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, can I use them both?

A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

For example, if a model had the two aforementioned abilities and lost a wound, you could roll a D6 due to the Disgustingly Resilient ability and on a roll of 5+ that wound would be ignored. If you rolled less than 5, you could then roll another D6 because of the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, and this time the wound would be ignored on a 6.

This will make Iron Hands venerable dreads happy.

Ironhands venerable chaplain dreadnought with the tenacious survivor trait.

roll 3d6 when you take a wound, on a single 6 ignore the wound.

In general my wolves got buffed, individual wolf claws cost more but a pair got cheaper.

And models that were illegal are once more legal.

GAdvance wrote:
Ironhands venerable chaplain dreadnought with the tenacious survivor trait.

roll 3d6 when you take a wound, on a single 6 ignore the wound.

Yep. And the opponent will be salty indeed!

That's every single wound!

May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

I'm definetly very salty about this faq and I probably won't be playing much of 8th because of it.

I run a mobile strike corsairs force, and 75% of my army is fliers, pheonix bomber, pair of nightwing and a vampire. The rest is jetbikes elements with a farseer pretending to be a prince because they took that option from me already. But now I'm on a situation where I lose just a few jetbikes I auto lose the game. It would have been much more just to knock down the op flyers and then say they can't grab objectives auto losing is just awful.

I play what I feel is a very thematic list and not just 5 empty buffed stormravens but now I'm going to be tabled every game turn 1 or turn 2.

"If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment."

Great, elegant change that fixes matched play abuses without affecting casual gaming.

+1 GW

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

Sorta? Some of these are more "the game isn't quite working how we thought due, better FAQ to make the rules match our intent better". It's hard to argue razorflocks were a more pressing issue than say conscripts or brimstones were, in the really cheap and hard to kill department, for example.

Or necrons not being able to reanimate from morale losses, creating another set of units more or less discouraged from taking anything more than the smallest unit possible. Someone on the design team really doesn't want people to use large squads, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

However, having units eternally embarked in the flyers makes the transport flyers even more expensive while doing feth-all to add to their firepower or durability.

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

Units embarked in transports are NOT on the battlefield. Already established in transport rules. So, not "written poorly."

 davou wrote:

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

They count as being deployed on the battlefield when applying the tactical reserves rule.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! EAT THIS FAQ ETC!!! BUUUUUURN!!!

sossen wrote:

 davou wrote:

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

They count as being deployed on the battlefield when applying the tactical reserves rule.

How does that apply to this situation? If units embarked on transports were intended to 'count as' being deployed on the battlefield, then GW would have wasted time and ink on writing the rule. Stormravens with 1 acolyte in them would be 100% as valid as they were a day ago.

I'm glad to see the Solitaire and Visarch buffs. And the nerf to the ridiculous Razorwing Flocks as well. All those steps in the right direction.

Also, on the last local tournament I saw but thankfully did not fight a 6-Flyers IG army. Now I know what to do should someone try that army post-FAQ

SilverAlien wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

Sorta? Some of these are more "the game isn't quite working how we thought due, better FAQ to make the rules match our intent better". It's hard to argue razorflocks were a more pressing issue than say conscripts or brimstones were, in the really cheap and hard to kill department, for example.

Or necrons not being able to reanimate from morale losses, creating another set of units more or less discouraged from taking anything more than the smallest unit possible. Someone on the design team really doesn't want people to use large squads, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

That's because they aren't slain. Isn't difficult to figure out. It makes they don't reanimate.

Tank Commanders were already unable to order themselves, so the "nerf" was mostly to clarify that Pask could not order himself (which might have been implied but never clearly stated). So I don't really mind that.

But I also think the nerf to Flyers was actually pretty cool, and I definitely support it. Too bad for the people who run a lot of them, but I agree that fliers as well as superheavies should be limited to a supporting role instead of armies in and of themselves.

The flyer spam solution is inventive indeed! I like it. Also, oh, the drama of ITC where one flyer spam list sets it's couple characters cowardly crawling out of los and desperately tries to MURDER the couple characters from another flyer spam list cowardly crawling out of los. Like half of the lists there are flyer spam.

Titanicus wrote:
I'm definetly very salty about this faq and I probably won't be playing much of 8th because of it.

I run a mobile strike corsairs force, and 75% of my army is fliers, pheonix bomber, pair of nightwing and a vampire. The rest is jetbikes elements with a farseer pretending to be a prince because they took that option from me already. But now I'm on a situation where I lose just a few jetbikes I auto lose the game. It would have been much more just to knock down the op flyers and then say they can't grab objectives auto losing is just awful.

I play what I feel is a very thematic list and not just 5 empty buffed stormravens but now I'm going to be tabled every game turn 1 or turn 2.

Sorry to say I don't think many people are gonna feel sorry for you. No matter how much you think your mostly flier army is thematic, it's really not. The justification in the FAQ is exactly as it should be - fliers cannot hold ground themselves, nor should they be able to do so.

Glad flyers got nerfed in this way. It is clear from the way Chapter Tactics don't interact with tanks or flyers that they are meant more to support boots on the ground and not be your army. Yes, some people's armies will need to change because of this, but you should have seen this coming honestly. From the very beginning GW has said they want more troops on the table and they are doing everything they can to support that notion. Flyers aint no troops.

Kinda sad my Helldrake is in that category though, it should really be a fast attack and not a flyer like my Kharybdis is.

Tempest hammer got nerfed.
Ragnar can take his doggies into transports now and has a point cost for them.
Scion Command Squads can now take medipacks and vox casters in addition to their hothot-lasguns by paying for the pistol as a tax,

And the Custodes still haven't regained their teleportarium priviledges.

Haven't combed through all of the Index specific additions, but the flyer change seems elegant. Stormravens are still overpriced but this really hits the 4+ raven lists that were just silly. The understrength unit one is a great change too.

I don't like the Necron morale change. I am all for morale meaning more and too many armies are largely immune to it (get rid of ATSKNF imo). Plus reanimation protocols are annoying when combined with Ghost Arks and Resurrection Orbs. However it complicates the process of rolling for RP.

Points of Purestrain Stealers changed again. Now they're 15ppm

Great to see GW doing this. Very positive sign.

Yay, no more 10 ppm Purestrain Genestealers, 7 ppm Razorwing flocks, and the Monolith got it's BS3+ back.

Nay, Dire Avengers are still 17 ppm...

sossen wrote:

They count as being deployed on the battlefield when applying the tactical reserves rule.

I think everyone is playing it this way but it doesn't appear to be RAW. People seem to think that the tactical reserves rules only intend to hit deep strikers. But we don't have any reason to think that embarked units are supposed to stop you from being tabled, so why not play that RAW?

It's impossible for you to be "tabled" when all you have are ground transports; the ground transports aren't fliers to begin with, and therefor this ruling doesn't apply to them.

People who are painting up 100 brim stones or conscripts, consider this your warning. You will get nerfed. It's inevitable at this point.

Anyone who thinks conscripts will suddenly become BS/WS6+, 6+ save, T2, S2, Ld2 for 4 points apiece is an idiot.

At most, conscripts need a nerf to their ability to receive orders.

The only real way to nerf conscripts is to remove orders like Melissia said or to limit the amount you can take in an army like they did with command squads. Same goes for brimstones, they could make it so you can't take brimstones at all and only let you have them from blues that die.

I would point out, there's nothing STOPPING you from taking those mass flyer lists, it would be just you intentionally nerfing yourself. I much rather this change vs a hard limit or a massive points increase on all flyers.

That said, I do hope ITC offers list revisions.

The Ynnari change is a big one. Must take one of the characters to be Ynnari. Changes my list I played the last 2 games, but needed to bump to 2000pts anyway, so will probably drop Yriel and add Yvraine.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I would point out, there's nothing STOPPING you from taking those mass flyer lists, it would be just you intentionally nerfing yourself. I much rather this change vs a hard limit or a massive points increase on all flyers.

That said, I do hope ITC offers list revisions.

What are you talking about?! I hope it doesn't.

 koooaei wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I would point out, there's nothing STOPPING you from taking those mass flyer lists, it would be just you intentionally nerfing yourself. I much rather this change vs a hard limit or a massive points increase on all flyers.

That said, I do hope ITC offers list revisions.

What are you talking about?! I hope it doesn't.

I certainly hope they don't... People should have a REASON to think about not taking abusive lists when they are pondering what they will bring to large events. Allowing revision just tells people "You keep cheesing out as much and as hard as you can, there will never be any repercussions"

Wow, I didn't think punishing people for playing wrong bad was so important *in a fething tournament*.

People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

Sorta? Some of these are more "the game isn't quite working how we thought due, better FAQ to make the rules match our intent better". It's hard to argue razorflocks were a more pressing issue than say conscripts or brimstones were, in the really cheap and hard to kill department, for example.

Or necrons not being able to reanimate from morale losses, creating another set of units more or less discouraged from taking anything more than the smallest unit possible. Someone on the design team really doesn't want people to use large squads, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

That's because they aren't slain. Isn't difficult to figure out. It makes they don't reanimate.

It really isn't that complicated. In 3rd ed there were ways of cancelling WBB and you had to separate them out. Just knock down the ones that can come back and put aside the ones that aren't. Or have a separate pile.
Large units are still ideal for necrons to make the most out of RP.
I don't know why people think morale hurts large squads more than small squads. If you lost 4 soldiers and you lose another due to morale with a 10 man squad, you have 5 left.
If you lost 4 soldiers and lose another with a 5 man squad, you have 0 left. That's possibly first blood, and your opponent knows they don't have to waste firepower on killing that last guy.

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

The Casual Gaming Mafia is nothing if not completely serious about how not serious they are about their plastic toys.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It really isn't that complicated. In 3rd ed there were ways of cancelling WBB and you had to separate them out. Just knock down the ones that can come back and put aside the ones that aren't. Or have a separate pile.
Large units are still ideal for necrons to make the most out of RP.
I don't know why people think morale hurts large squads more than small squads. If you lost 4 soldiers and you lose another due to morale with a 10 man squad, you have 5 left.
If you lost 4 soldiers and lose another with a 5 man squad, you have 0 left. That's possibly first blood, and your opponent knows they don't have to waste firepower on killing that last guy.

You're sort of ignoring the potential massive downside to having a larger unit, which is that you can lose more models total.

A unit of 5 Ratlings is not very vulnerable to morale, despite being Ld 5. I believe that your expected losses to morale actually decrease when the fourth Ratling dies. A unit of 10 Ratlings is ridiculously vulnerable to morale -- kill 5 of them and a bunch more are going to run. Nobody's too worried about first blood because so many armies will pretty much always get it if they go first, whether or not you're taking max or min squads.

That said, yes, people will still take 20-man Warrior blobs. Necrons were rarely taking many morale losses anyway. If your squad takes only a few casualties, they pass on Ld 10. If the squad takes a bunch of casualties, which will typically only happen to 1 squad because your opponent wants to focus them down, you use 2 CP to auto-pass the test and save them. Not much has changed unless you were playing against people who are only killing like 7 Warriors per turn.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It really isn't that complicated. In 3rd ed there were ways of cancelling WBB and you had to separate them out. Just knock down the ones that can come back and put aside the ones that aren't. Or have a separate pile.
Large units are still ideal for necrons to make the most out of RP.
I don't know why people think morale hurts large squads more than small squads. If you lost 4 soldiers and you lose another due to morale with a 10 man squad, you have 5 left.
If you lost 4 soldiers and lose another with a 5 man squad, you have 0 left. That's possibly first blood, and your opponent knows they don't have to waste firepower on killing that last guy.

For many armies, it's not exactly likely to lose a guy to morale even with 4 losses. Many can get leadership 8, plus rerolls for space marines.

To illustrate where larger units are weaker, consider that taking 7 casualties in a single unit is virtually guaranteed to kill the unit off at least a couple of the unit in question in the morale phase. Taking 5 in one and 2 in the other, or even 4 in one and 3 in another, is unlikely to take any addition casualties from morale.

MSU squads are far less vulnerable to morale. By a large margin.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's because they aren't slain. Isn't difficult to figure out. It makes they don't reanimate.

Well, most of assumed they didn't literally run away being mindless automatons, outside characters who don't face morale issues. Which is dumb.

Thus picture sums up my feelings on GW and how it's handling 8th edition:



That flier Nerf was simply BRILLIANT. Yeah, you run your 6+ flyers while I kill your 10 troops and win. TOP. KEK. This puts more weight on my theory that conscripts will either get squad size reduction (30 models max) or inability to take orders...

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

agreed, they're really doing the FAQ thing well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Wow, I didn't think punishing people for playing wrong bad was so important *in a fething tournament*.

if GW moves quick to close loop holes that go outside the spirit of the game, and a few WAAC people get caught at it maybe we'll see less people abusing loop holes and a stronger focus on tactics are tournies. thats only a good thing.

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

Exalted

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me. I'm not sure if it speaks to tolerance or sadism at this point, le sigh

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

agreed, they're really doing the FAQ thing well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Wow, I didn't think punishing people for playing wrong bad was so important *in a fething tournament*.

if GW moves quick to close loop holes that go outside the spirit of the game, and a few WAAC people get caught at it maybe we'll see less people abusing loop holes and a stronger focus on tactics are tournies. thats only a good thing.

The problem is that if they don't do this consistently, they're just making tournaments a gamble. Sure, now mass flyer and Razorwing spam won't work (this is another reason why locked-in tournaments won't use the FAQ -- it makes some lists outright illegal), but Horror spam and Conscript spam still work. You're not beating Horror spam with a regular list either. If you want to win you've got to take one of the cheesy lists and then hope it's not one they screw with before the tournament.

Yes, it's "ugly" that they have to FAQ their game. But I would much rather they own up to it now, instead of waiting 4 years for the new edition or codex for them to make changes. GW being more reactive with their rule-set is a win in my opinion.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Wow, I didn't think punishing people for playing wrong bad was so important *in a fething tournament*.

if GW moves quick to close loop holes that go outside the spirit of the game, and a few WAAC people get caught at it maybe we'll see less people abusing loop holes and a stronger focus on tactics are tournies. thats only a good thing.

It's an international tournament, there shouldn't be anyone competing who isn't WAAC. It's literally designed as a place for really good WAAC players to put themselves against one another. WAAC isn't an issue when all sides both expect and want their opponents to have such a mindset.

Also, abusing loopholes? Like what? They weren't abusing loopholes they were finding the best rules for units as written.

sossen wrote:

 davou wrote:

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

They count as being deployed on the battlefield when applying the tactical reserves rule.

Only until the Deployment phase is over, and they count as being a single unit with the deploying model. Once deployment ends though, they're removed from the table and don't count as even existing until they disembark. Plus Tactical Reserves is for deep striking units or units that have yet to enter the field, not actual embarked units. Embarked units are already stated to be removed from the battlefield by the Transports rule. You can't be both on the battlefield and removed from it.

"Q: For the purposes of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule,
do units that act separately after they have been set up (e.g. Mek
Gunz and their Grot Crew, T’au Battlesuits and their Drones,
units that have the Vehicle Squadron ability, etc.) count as
being a single unit, or several units?
A: Such units are a single unit for the purposes of the
Tactical Reserves rule. "

There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

 SarisKhan wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

Agreed.

They are treating this as though it was a patch released into an MMO. A large game with often complex systems which can react in un-intended ways. Hands up honestly, who thought that the all flyers lists were either fair or balanced? The change to the rules is a welcome one, although as the one Eldar player stated earlier, it can hurt a fluffy themed list. To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

 Garrlor wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

Agreed.

They are treating this as though it was a patch released into an MMO. A large game with often complex systems which can react in un-intended ways. Hands up honestly, who thought that the all flyers lists were either fair or balanced? The change to the rules is a welcome one, although as the one Eldar player stated earlier, it can hurt a fluffy themed list. To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

The problem is all the boasting GW did about 8th being the MOST PLAYETESTYED EDUITION ERVAR!

It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

Oh boy. I think you're taking this far too personally.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

The Casual Gaming Mafia is nothing if not completely serious about how not serious they are about their plastic toys.

I think it has more to do with things like.

You want to abuse the system you lock in, then you find out they fixed it so you can't abuse it. Then you scream I want to redo things now.

It would be like bring a lotto ticket back and saying my system didn't work I didn't win I want to retry pretend I didn't buy the first one.

 Garrlor wrote:
To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I think it has more to do with things like.

You want to abuse the system you lock in, then you find out they fixed it so you can't abuse it. Then you scream I want to redo things now.

It would be like bring a lotto ticket back and saying my system didn't work I didn't win I want to retry pretend I didn't buy the first one.

Actually, it'd be like like you bought a ticket for the lotto, and they then adjusted the win rates and payout rates before the drawing. Which is illegal as well as scummy.

It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

Bacon, you are a bitter bitter person. If they fix stuff, it's good. If they do it often, that's even better. If they once ran over your dog, I'm sorry.

The flyer nerf is nice but I doubt it'll drastically hurt a clever player who bring scout squads.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

Well you know how that could have been fixed? Not including a flyer detachment with five slots, while most normal detachments have room for two as well. Including a flyer detachment that allows five of the things but only intending them to be taken in ones and twos would imply the game designers at GW are beyond help.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

Agreed.

They are treating this as though it was a patch released into an MMO. A large game with often complex systems which can react in un-intended ways. Hands up honestly, who thought that the all flyers lists were either fair or balanced? The change to the rules is a welcome one, although as the one Eldar player stated earlier, it can hurt a fluffy themed list. To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

The problem is all the boasting GW did about 8th being the MOST PLAYETESTYED EDUITION ERVAR!

It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

Or that they people they asked to playtest the game were playing reasonable lists to test out the various systems and sub systems. Or maybe they were given lists and armies to play and didnt build thier own. The systems of the game itself flow really well, which is testament to playtesting. Letting the internets loose on the army building is where the problems have started, as it was with 7th. Someone will always find a loophole, or a hack or a shortcut. Always. Which is why we have hackers and others abusing computer systems to steal or trick people out of their hard earned. And strangely, despite all of the really intelligent people at Microsoft working to create an OS, there are still always holes in the software somewhere.

GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

 warhead01 wrote:
The flyer nerf is nice but I doubt it'll drastically hurt a clever player who bring scout squads.

Unit of Scarab Occults come in turn 1 and wipe the scout squads. Having 5 fliers and only a handful of ground models is never going to work against a player who has any idea what they're doing.

SilverAlien wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

Well you know how that could have been fixed? Not including a flyer detachment with five slots, while most normal detachments have room for two as well. Including a flyer detachment that allows five of the things but only intending them to be taken in ones and twos would imply the game designers at GW are beyond help.

Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

Exalted

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me. I'm not sure if it speaks to tolerance or sadism at this point, le sigh

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Make sure you don't play DropZone / Drop Fleet or Spartan Games rules sets

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Imperial Fists Terminators pop in and wipe the Scouts out with their ability to ignore cover and add additional shots.

Flyer Spammer is going to have to try harder than that.

 Garrlor wrote:
Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

So you mean.... the exact way people were using it with stormravens? Which was decried as abusive and has now been rendered either illegal or just a bad choice in general?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Imperial Fists Terminators pop in and wipe the Scouts out with their ability to ignore cover and add additional shots.

Flyer Spammer is going to have to try harder than that.

I don't know if this was intended to quote me, I agree that flyer spam is probably bad now. I'm referring to the game as released.

Except that 2000 points is not a "larger game". It's pretty much a standard game size.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

So you mean.... the exact way people were using it with stormravens? Which was decried as abusive and has now been rendered either illegal or just a bad choice in general?

I'm pretty sure the 2000 pt tournament standard is not what Garrlor meant by "larger games". I'm sure you'd be able to fit an Air Wing detachment with 4 storm ravens in an Apocalypse game and still have room for a reasonable ground army.

If you take 2000 points of stormravens in a 4000 point game, that'd be very different from taking 1800 points of stormravens in a 2000 point game.

SilverAlien wrote:

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

But if we were being even semi realistic, why would you want to take a list of all flyers? You want flyers to gain aerial superiority over your enemy, so that you may strike at them un-opposed from the air. An all flyer list can do this, but is vulnerable to AA from the ground without ground forces moving in to occupy and distract that ground based AA. The problem with something like this in 40k is the lack of AA to most ground units, whereas in a modern military things like man-pads are common. Aircraft have the same problems that tanks do, in that they will struggle to dislodge entrenched infantry and to hold ground. Hence why no one runs an all Pred list, as you know that there is a lot of anti tank out there and its pointless.

That is an issue with the balance of the game in of itself, as the lack of reliable AA in a unit is a pain, but I can also see the reasoning in keeping the options down as much as possible for a skirmish game like 40k. Air support should be just that, support, not the whole thrust of an army.

If the intention was to allow a large flyer portion in an apocalypse size army then the battalion and brigade detachments could have allowed for a larger amount of flyers in each. The air wing detachment specifically allows flyer spam, I don't see why they would design it the way they did if such lists were not intended to exist.

Arachnofiend wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

So you mean.... the exact way people were using it with stormravens? Which was decried as abusive and has now been rendered either illegal or just a bad choice in general?

I'm pretty sure the 2000 pt tournament standard is not what Garrlor meant by "larger games". I'm sure you'd be able to fit an Air Wing detachment with 4 storm ravens in an Apocalypse game and still have room for a reasonable ground army.

Exactly. An air wing detachment in a 5000pt game is nothing major, I would consider it a good point sink to balance my forces for land/air/tank/stompy big smashy things.

And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

sossen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Imperial Fists Terminators pop in and wipe the Scouts out with their ability to ignore cover and add additional shots.

Flyer Spammer is going to have to try harder than that.

I don't know if this was intended to quote me, I agree that flyer spam is probably bad now. I'm referring to the game as released.

Nope, I must have clicked the quote button on you but mistake.

This FAQ is beautiful. Particularly making razor wings more reasonably pointed. I think I would have preferred a points increase on the flyers rather than the strange tabling rule, but it'll stop 100 percent flyer spam at least. Top lists will have to include half an army of something else to back up their 3-4 storm ravens.

Now I hope they do something similar with brimstone horrors, conscripts, and militarum tempestus and 8th will be looking so much more interesting from a competitive viewpoint! (And I won't need to carry so many models to tournaments )

 Garrlor wrote:
Exactly. An air wing detachment in a 5000pt game is nothing major, I would consider it a good point sink to balance my forces for land/air/tank/stompy big smashy things.

And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

So the brigade detachment should have 5-6 flyer slots. Problem solved. Again, including the flyer detachment if they didn't intend for all/mostly flyer armies to be a thing means GW is still worthless garbage as far as game design goes.

Playing to win is fine, but this game has historically had some toxic choices available to players who wanted to win.

Getting an extra 500 points of models was one of them not too long ago.

Sure the choice was made available to players, but it still does not add anything tactically interesting either as a player or a spectator to take them. The fault was absolutely with GW for making it an option, but if that option was not taken by players then it wouldn't have been obnoxious.

Arachnofiend wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
The flyer nerf is nice but I doubt it'll drastically hurt a clever player who bring scout squads.

Unit of Scarab Occults come in turn 1 and wipe the scout squads. Having 5 fliers and only a handful of ground models is never going to work against a player who has any idea what they're doing.

Right you are I thought they set up like Ork Kommands. Haha. Now I'm glad that they don't.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
Exactly. An air wing detachment in a 5000pt game is nothing major, I would consider it a good point sink to balance my forces for land/air/tank/stompy big smashy things.

And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

So the brigade detachment should have 5-6 flyer slots. Problem solved. Again, including the flyer detachment if they didn't intend for all/mostly flyer armies to be a thing means GW is still worthless garbage as far as game design goes.

Yeah exactly, it stinks of "oh sorry, we didn't mean for you to play apocalypse with this incredibly loose foc/detachment thing we gave you that limits very little to almost nothing while presenting the veneer of complexity with the depth of a tuna sandwhich. Let's address this imbalance by in no way clamping down and creating an actual foc that differentiates apocalypse from 40k but instead focusses on one unit type."


I shed no tears for flyers but, this whole edition so far has been "the dog ate my homework" over and over followed by an almost manic "but I'm the best and this is awesome and its all part of the plan". Which is it? You already have people getting berated for playing "wrong" in youtube comment sections for not playing itc hammer, the fracturing is already there, the post 5th balkanization is alive and well. in 8th. And it seems like all forms of 40k in their various play groups and leagues still kinda can't keep it a secret that even though the game is perfect and flawless and all falibility is human and not the lord gw's they still can't help but spurt under breath their longing for like actual terrain rules.

 Garrlor wrote:
And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

I don't think the realistic counterparts to such organizations are relevant, it's a game and these are meant to be rules that constrain and promote certain army designs. If they intended for people to use a combination of flyers and other things then my suggestion works just fine. If CP is an issue then they could require you to bring a battalion or brigade in order to unlock the air wing detachment. The way they designed it - 3-5 flyers per detachment - means that as long as you have 3 flyers you can have any number of flyers with no CP drawbacks - in fact you get just as many extra CP as any other army with two elite detachments. I don't think that flyer spam lists can be considered an unintentional consequence of this decision.

sossen wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

I don't think the realistic counterparts to such organizations are relevant, it's a game and these are meant to be rules that constrain and promote certain army designs. If they intended for people to use a combination of flyers and other things then my suggestion works just fine. If CP is an issue then they could require you to bring a battalion or brigade in order to unlock the air wing detachment. The way they designed it - 3-5 flyers per detachment - means that as long as you have 3 flyers you can have any number of flyers with no CP drawbacks - in fact you get just as many extra CP as any other army with two elite detachments. I don't think that flyer spam lists can be considered an unintentional consequence of this decision.

To that point, I accidently messed up my last list and forgot an extra hq for my patrol detachment, my opponent kindly pointed out that I could just take the 3-5 flyer detachment instead, it required zero change in my list and I actually gained an extra cp by doing so. It didn't feel like unlocking some deep wisdom or secret, it just felt silly. I gained a cp for messing up, this truly is a gw game lol

Here's hoping the next 8th ed FAQ addresses the army construction/detachments and maybe just puts fire arcs back for vehicles. 30k has never looked better

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Or GW doesn't make the flyer detachment and people would be crying about how they can't make the army list that they used to use.

I think the biggest change no-ones talking about is the change to understrength units.

An ode to all the heartbroken stormraven spammers:

Whine comes out of your mouth
And sadface is plain in your eye
A tantrum is building within
I look at you, and I sigh.

And to GW: Great job !!!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think the biggest change no-ones talking about is the change to understrength units.

the relevant bit is

If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment

so it costs 1 CP to take under strength units.

Nice little way to plug people spamming Understrength units for CPs

I'm not sure why so many people think the Flyer FAQ was a rule change. It's a clarification at best of their original intentions that were always in old editions that they apparently forgot to mention in this new one. Given that all the rules were rewritten from scratch, I can't fault them for missing a few.

"But playtests!!!"

... were done by people who understood how to play the game the way it was designed. Not these weirdo internet people who defy common sense and try have their tanks drive up trees.

 Arkaine wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think the Flyer FAQ was a rule change. It's a clarification at best of their original intentions that were always in old editions that they apparently forgot to mention in this new one. Given that all the rules were rewritten from scratch, I can't fault them for missing a few.

"But playtests!!!"

... were done by people who understood how to play the game the way it was designed. Not these weirdo internet people who defy common sense and try have their tanks drive up trees.

"Flyers have also been adjusted in light of some feedback from your matched play games. The design team want Warhammer 40,000 to be as fun as possible for as many players as possible, but we’ve noticed that a couple of army lists and certain units were crowding out other options. Now you’ll need to have feet on the ground (or tentacles, hooves, claws, or tracks) to win your games. Flyers are just as powerful as they were before, but now players are encouraged to take more diverse and unusual armies. It’s worth noting that this change only applies to matched play [...]"

Sure sounds like a rule change to me.

Daedalus81 wrote:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Or GW doesn't make the flyer detachment and people would be crying about how they can't make the army list that they used to use.

I don't remember people running 6 Stormravens in 7th edition. Hevk, I don't even remember such a build in 6th. Definitely no such build where you had more Flyers than Tacsquads.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Conscripts and deepstriking plasma scions are making astra militarum really powerful and the lists sweeping tourneys all max out on either one of those. How should we fix this?"

"... I know! Nerf Pask!"

*smacks forehead*

I know I'm just salty because I run an armored company. But honestly. It's not like russ spam was a problem in any competitive environment. It's so far down on the list of priorities.

Pask wasn't nerfed, the rules for Pask (and the other Tank Hunters) where simply clarified because the rules where unclear.

Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

ThePorcupine wrote:
"Conscripts and deepstriking plasma scions are making astra militarum really powerful and the lists sweeping tourneys all max out on either one of those. How should we fix this?"

"... I know! Nerf Pask!"

*smacks forehead*

I know I'm just salty because I run an armored company. But honestly. It's not like russ spam was a problem in any competitive environment. It's so far down on the list of priorities.

GW nerfed Scion command squads a bit by adding a 40 point commander tax to each one. Still cheap.. but an elegant way to tone it down.

Titanicus wrote:
I'm definetly very salty about this faq and I probably won't be playing much of 8th because of it.

I run a mobile strike corsairs force, and 75% of my army is fliers, pheonix bomber, pair of nightwing and a vampire. The rest is jetbikes elements with a farseer pretending to be a prince because they took that option from me already. But now I'm on a situation where I lose just a few jetbikes I auto lose the game. It would have been much more just to knock down the op flyers and then say they can't grab objectives auto losing is just awful.

I play what I feel is a very thematic list and not just 5 empty buffed stormravens but now I'm going to be tabled every game turn 1 or turn 2.

The rule only applies to units with the flyer battlefield role, so you can't be tabled as long as the Vampire remains alive, which I'd say is a pretty reasonable compromise.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Daddy was always abusive, so now that he's less abusive you should enjoy the abuse"

Being responsible is noticing an error before it goes to print, not saying thanks for the money, you can't judge me because I'm acknowledging my mistakes. GW isn't a recovering alcoholic whose sensitive about criticism, nor are they a maiden in need of some sort of monochromatic knight like figuer to defend their honor, they're big boys.


I'd love to see the level of fanatacism and apologetics fly in another subculture. "Hey, leave nikon alone, only 10% of their cameras fail now, it used to be 20% just a few years ago. And I mean yeah, their ceo was indicted for murdering all those hookers, but its a dangerous job!"

Journalism: "Oh man, it's so good that this newspaper that has been an institution for over a century is having to write more and more retractions, its just great to see them taking more responsibility, surely its a sign that not only are we telling more truth than ever, but we've never been this good at it!"

We can all be happy about an FAQ, but saying there shouldn't be a need for them isn't provocative in the slightest.

I'm a professional editor.

No, no, text of any size is free of errors. For GW's books to have no errors would require divine intervention, and someone who claims otherwise simply does not know what publishing is like.

There will always be a need for FAQs. That GW is issuing theirs so quickly is only a good thing.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/17/40k-team-sport-atc-list-meta/
'ere you go. Unless I'm misunderstanding these lists, the Tony Grippando list (1st place) has 4 units of conscripts and Tony Kopach list (2nd place) has 3 larger units of conscripts. Spam? Not exactly. But both lists have conscripts and scions in common.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Daddy was always abusive, so now that he's less abusive you should enjoy the abuse"

Being responsible is noticing an error before it goes to print, not saying thanks for the money, you can't judge me because I'm acknowledging my mistakes. GW isn't a recovering alcoholic whose sensitive about criticism, nor are they a maiden in need of some sort of monochromatic knight like figuer to defend their honor, they're big boys.


I'd love to see the level of fanatacism and apologetics fly in another subculture. "Hey, leave nikon alone, only 10% of their cameras fail now, it used to be 20% just a few years ago. And I mean yeah, their ceo was indicted for murdering all those hookers, but its a dangerous job!"

Journalism: "Oh man, it's so good that this newspaper that has been an institution for over a century is having to write more and more retractions, its just great to see them taking more responsibility, surely its a sign that not only are we telling more truth than ever, but we've never been this good at it!"

We can all be happy about an FAQ, but saying there shouldn't be a need for them isn't provocative in the slightest.

The abussive methapor is a big one. Nobody is forcing you to buy this. All of your hyperbole isn't making your point of view any stronger.

I agree with what you are saying. But you are making of it such a big of a deal everywhere that is lookin absurd. We are talking about rules to play with expensive little plastic toys.
And please, stop the "white knights". Is so tiresome. Basically you are criticizing Games Workshop in an medium where you know that they can't respond you (Because if not you'll post all of this in their Facebook) and when some people challenge what you are saying, you call them White Knights because they don't think like you?
What do you want? A discussion forum or an Echo Chamber?

The hyperbolic rage is strong in this thread.

IMO, flyers fixed, problem solved, bonus point to GW for being quick about it.

The additional clarifications are welcome, too.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/17/40k-team-sport-atc-list-meta/
'ere you go. Unless I'm misunderstanding these lists, the Tony Grippando list (1st place) has 4 units of conscripts and Tony Kopach list (2nd place) has 3 larger units of conscripts. Spam? Not exactly. But both lists have conscripts and scions in common.

Excerpt from BoK, emphasis mine.

Blood of Kittens often gets requests to post on the most “elite” corner of competitive Warhammer 40k, Team Tournaments, specifically the biggest team tournaments the ETC, ATC, and Adepticon Team Tournament. What makes team tournaments interesting is the different play styles and list building necessary to compete in those events. Match ups and pairings are often times more important than the games themselves, as the rock, paper, scissors tendencies are amplified and exploited. Helped by knowing what your opponent is going to take and the strengths and weaknesses of each participant.

It is for those reasons, I have often resisted talking about those events, as they don’t represent how the game is really played, nor do they represent an experience the average Warhammer 40k player exists in. What they do bring though is a barometer of where the game is currently at and most importantly the biggest problems it has.

In short, take what you see at ATC or any team tournament with a big grain of salt unless of course you only participate in team tournaments. As for BoK's remark about it being a barometer about the ATC being representative of the biggest problems, even his choice of analogy is revealing in that a barometer is only capable of measuring only a small localized area or in this case a segment of the matched play scence and like in weather is only useful for short term forecasting in that immediate area. So if you want to build lists based on ATC's meta, then by all means do so. Just don't be surprised if YMMV with how succesful (or eligible) those type of lists are in all matched play settings and organized tournaments. I think another poster had the right of it that GW has essentailly put everyone on notice that they are watching the matched play scence and that abusive lists that run counter to the spirit and intent are going to be addressed quickly (for better or worse remains to be seen).

If anything, I am a little more concerned that GW maybe reacting too early. It's hardly been one month since 8th was officially released and we as a community are still running it through it's paces without the benefit of the codices which like the battletomes in AoS will inevitablely move the needle. What we all seem to be engaged in is a rush to find that mythical auto win list and/or be the first to gain the also mythical moral high ground by labeling some list (or player) as the most evil WAAC list (or player) ever. Hmmmm......New 40k hobby meet the old 40k hobby...oh I see you are already well aquainted with each other.....

That said, I like the overall direction the FAQ's are taking. GW is diffinetly interested in maintaining a certain level of balance while still allowing for list creativity that creates the imbalance that is necessary for this type of game. Without it, the game would become stale very quickly or become unweildly nigh impossible to play as what occurred with 7th.

At the end of the day, I think we take a deep breath, digest, apply, adpat and keep playing.

 Garrlor wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

But if we were being even semi realistic, why would you want to take a list of all flyers? You want flyers to gain aerial superiority over your enemy, so that you may strike at them un-opposed from the air. An all flyer list can do this, but is vulnerable to AA from the ground without ground forces moving in to occupy and distract that ground based AA. The problem with something like this in 40k is the lack of AA to most ground units, whereas in a modern military things like man-pads are common. Aircraft have the same problems that tanks do, in that they will struggle to dislodge entrenched infantry and to hold ground. Hence why no one runs an all Pred list, as you know that there is a lot of anti tank out there and its pointless.

That is an issue with the balance of the game in of itself, as the lack of reliable AA in a unit is a pain, but I can also see the reasoning in keeping the options down as much as possible for a skirmish game like 40k. Air support should be just that, support, not the whole thrust of an army.

+1 to this.

I think they should have introduce a new type of AA weapon that can be taken by troops and havocs. Like anti aircraft missile. Make it have a +2 to hit fliers, str8, and does d6 damage (like a missile) but on fliers, it does 2d6 damage.

I have also always wondered at the resilience of fliers this edition. Hard to hit is one thing already, but most fliers irl are so afraid of damage that any kind of hit on them has them running back to base for repairs, or emergency landing and such. Yet fliers in 40k seem to be able to shrug off metal melting lascannon blasts like nothing and just keep on going. Fliers are simply a lot more vulnerable compared to a tank because a tank is surrounded by steel while a flier has vulnerable exhaust points, rotors and such.

Actually, while I appreciate that people may think twice about spamming fliers now, but how does this stop hiding a special hard to kill character with a 4++ save behind a bunch of fliers? You can't target a special character unless its the closest so you still have to wade through all the fliers to get at that cowering single character anyway. Close assault can do it, but yeah, lets try to close assault to the edge corner of a board with 5 SR flying around blasting you to bits...

Anyway, world eaters are fluffy and viable now. Sure, have fun fielding an all flyer list. Then let's see your few infantry models and that one character hold off 2000 points of berserkers on the ground all by himself. lol

 Crablezworth wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Daddy was always abusive, so now that he's less abusive you should enjoy the abuse"

Being responsible is noticing an error before it goes to print, not saying thanks for the money, you can't judge me because I'm acknowledging my mistakes. GW isn't a recovering alcoholic whose sensitive about criticism, nor are they a maiden in need of some sort of monochromatic knight like figuer to defend their honor, they're big boys.


I'd love to see the level of fanatacism and apologetics fly in another subculture. "Hey, leave nikon alone, only 10% of their cameras fail now, it used to be 20% just a few years ago. And I mean yeah, their ceo was indicted for murdering all those hookers, but its a dangerous job!"

Journalism: "Oh man, it's so good that this newspaper that has been an institution for over a century is having to write more and more retractions, its just great to see them taking more responsibility, surely its a sign that not only are we telling more truth than ever, but we've never been this good at it!"

We can all be happy about an FAQ, but saying there shouldn't be a need for them isn't provocative in the slightest.

can you name a SINGLE table top game that does not have to publish FAQs and Errata? go on a SINGLE one.
I'm waiting, until then, Shut up.

Normally people complain that GW does not put out FAQs fast enough. Now we are getting them thick and fast and people are still moaning....

Its a massive game, lots of armies and lots of changes to how the game is played in 8th. There were always going to be mistakes, rules clarifications and changes. Lets just be happy GW cares enough to get into them quickly. Lets be honest no one is going to miss seeing 4-5 Storm Ravens across the board in a 2k points game now are they.

< deleted>

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

Oh boy. I think you're taking this far too personally.

He obviously doesn't play videogames. I'd hate to hear his opinion on one of those dev teams...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

The rules as written must be able to support large point games.

What, exactly, are you going to do when people want to pool models and play a 25k points game?

Limit them to 1 or 2 flyers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh...and Tau players should be happy. This FAQ fixes their shield drones.

Pages 53, 63 and 69 – Abilities
Add the following sentence onto the end of the MV52
Shield Generator and Shield Generator abilities:
‘In addition, roll a D6 each time a Drone with this
ability loses a wound; on a 5+ that Drone does not lose
a wound.’

Wow...that makes those little bastards hands DOWN the best ablative wounds in the game.

...and they gave the sunshark two more ion rifles.

Eldenfirefly wrote:



+1 to this.

I think they should have introduce a new type of AA weapon that can be taken by troops and havocs. Like anti aircraft missile. Make it have a +2 to hit fliers, str8, and does d6 damage (like a missile) but on fliers, it does 2d6 damage.

I have also always wondered at the resilience of fliers this edition. Hard to hit is one thing already, but most fliers irl are so afraid of damage that any kind of hit on them has them running back to base for repairs, or emergency landing and such. Yet fliers in 40k seem to be able to shrug off metal melting lascannon blasts like nothing and just keep on going. Fliers are simply a lot more vulnerable compared to a tank because a tank is surrounded by steel while a flier has vulnerable exhaust points, rotors and such.

Actually, while I appreciate that people may think twice about spamming fliers now, but how does this stop hiding a special hard to kill character with a 4++ save behind a bunch of fliers? You can't target a special character unless its the closest so you still have to wade through all the fliers to get at that cowering single character anyway. Close assault can do it, but yeah, lets try to close assault to the edge corner of a board with 5 SR flying around blasting you to bits...

Anyway, world eaters are fluffy and viable now. Sure, have fun fielding an all flyer list. Then let's see your few infantry models and that one character hold off 2000 points of berserkers on the ground all by himself. lol

Been there, done that last edition. We don't need something that restricts lists.

If Stormravens are guarding a character then the 24" guns aren't doing much of anything. If they're hovering they're more vulnerable otherwise like other flyers they'll be forced to move.

I'm sure we'll still see the SR / Razorback Asscan lists, but an army of knights could easily plink the tanks off the board. This new rule doesn't stop the possibility, but it gives a whole lot more pause to the list builder.

Gibs55 wrote:
Normally people complain that GW does not put out FAQs fast enough. Now we are getting them thick and fast and people are still moaning....

Its a massive game, lots of armies and lots of changes to how the game is played in 8th. There were always going to be mistakes, rules clarifications and changes. Lets just be happy GW cares enough to get into them quickly. Lets be honest no one is going to miss seeing 4-5 Storm Ravens across the board in a 2k points game now are they.

Of course not. I just find it annoying we are heaping praise on GW for fixing a screw up balance wise (and arguably not fixing the main isue but that's another discussion entirely) while also somehow treating the players who used the unbalanced strategies, in tournaments designed for WAAC mentality, as if they were the ones responsible.

No. 1000 times no. GW does not deserve praise for managing to FAQ a slapdash fix for issues that were ultimately their own fault.

All they have to do to nerf Conscripts is give them a rule along the lines of:

"Undisciplined Rabble: [Fluff Blurb], this unit cannot receive the benefits from Orders."

Guardsmen are professional soldiers, and it would be drilled into them how to react when they receive orders. A bunch of guys given a lasgun and a flak vest and sent out to die isn't going to be disciplined enough to react like well trained soldiers.

Eldenfirefly wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

But if we were being even semi realistic, why would you want to take a list of all flyers? You want flyers to gain aerial superiority over your enemy, so that you may strike at them un-opposed from the air. An all flyer list can do this, but is vulnerable to AA from the ground without ground forces moving in to occupy and distract that ground based AA. The problem with something like this in 40k is the lack of AA to most ground units, whereas in a modern military things like man-pads are common. Aircraft have the same problems that tanks do, in that they will struggle to dislodge entrenched infantry and to hold ground. Hence why no one runs an all Pred list, as you know that there is a lot of anti tank out there and its pointless.

That is an issue with the balance of the game in of itself, as the lack of reliable AA in a unit is a pain, but I can also see the reasoning in keeping the options down as much as possible for a skirmish game like 40k. Air support should be just that, support, not the whole thrust of an army.

+1 to this.

I think they should have introduce a new type of AA weapon that can be taken by troops and havocs. Like anti aircraft missile. Make it have a +2 to hit fliers, str8, and does d6 damage (like a missile) but on fliers, it does 2d6 damage.

I have also always wondered at the resilience of fliers this edition. Hard to hit is one thing already, but most fliers irl are so afraid of damage that any kind of hit on them has them running back to base for repairs, or emergency landing and such. Yet fliers in 40k seem to be able to shrug off metal melting lascannon blasts like nothing and just keep on going. Fliers are simply a lot more vulnerable compared to a tank because a tank is surrounded by steel while a flier has vulnerable exhaust points, rotors and such.

Actually, while I appreciate that people may think twice about spamming fliers now, but how does this stop hiding a special hard to kill character with a 4++ save behind a bunch of fliers? You can't target a special character unless its the closest so you still have to wade through all the fliers to get at that cowering single character anyway. Close assault can do it, but yeah, lets try to close assault to the edge corner of a board with 5 SR flying around blasting you to bits...

Anyway, world eaters are fluffy and viable now. Sure, have fun fielding an all flyer list. Then let's see your few infantry models and that one character hold off 2000 points of berserkers on the ground all by himself. lol

I'm a fan of "trigger on attack" Overwatch instead of "trigger on movement" Overwatch, as a way to intentionally prevent the game from going too alpha-strike but not becoming a Mexican standoff.

I imagine a more pressing issue will be that solo character hiding while immune to non-sniper targeting, then the Stormravens dropping off solo Acolytes to spread a larger "no Deep Strike" cordon around the table. It still weirds me out how GW FAQed flyers near the end of 7th to effectively be on a different "plane" (ha!) from ground units, only for them to reverse it for 8th. The change works both ways, as while you can crash an aircraft by flooding the board with so many infantry that it has nowhere to move (a giant "Tron" wall of death), it also means that you cannot move *past* or around said aircraft unless you also Fly. Damn repulsor-fields!

Which of course leads to the hilarity of a Trygon and tunneling Hormagaunts not being able to tunnel close because the aircraft are lurking in the sky, not being able to move past said Stormravens and not being able to charge them...while the 15-point Astropath goes "sure, you can take Deathleaper just to kill me...but what happens when I'm only one model out of several?"

For a Conscript Nerf I rather see Comissars instead say

During morale, any number of times per unit, you may slain a model to reduce the morale test by d6

Wow this discussion went nowhere fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:
For a Conscript Nerf I rather see Comissars instead say

During morale, any number of times per unit, you may slain a model to reduce the morale test by d6

No.

If you nerf commissars to the point that it makes them unusable on any unit EXCEPT conscripts, you're going to make conscripts used even more and guardsmen used even less.

Or as I keep repeating (and no one has apparently gotten in to their thick skulls yet) when you're trying to turn a screw, you don't grab the damn jackhammer, you grab the screwdriver.

What exactly was wrong with AOEs, or "closest model first" casualties again? Or mandatory pile-in for that matter?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
What exactly was wrong with AOEs, or "closest model first" casualties again? Or mandatory pile-in for that matter?

Because it let you snipe individual models and made flamers useless.

 DoomMouse wrote:
This FAQ is beautiful. Particularly making razor wings more reasonably pointed. I think I would have preferred a points increase on the flyers rather than the strange tabling rule, but it'll stop 100 percent flyer spam at least. Top lists will have to include half an army of something else to back up their 3-4 storm ravens.

Instead of [5 x Ravens and Pappa G], I expect to see [4 x Ravens, Pappa G and 1 x Ravens points worth of Conscripts and Comissars].

1 x less Raven and a couple of large blobs of (conscripts + commisar).

You've basically got to wipe the conscripts (and a Primarch) from the board before his Storm ravens delete you.

Some of the more minor changes are excited about are broadsides going back to taking 2 drones per suit instead of per squad and jokaeros being able to ride in vehicles.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think the biggest change no-ones talking about is the change to understrength units.

It's great they reacted to our comments on FB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
What exactly was wrong with AOEs, or "closest model first" casualties again? Or mandatory pile-in for that matter?

It overnerfed hordes.

Absolutely brilliant move by GW. The reponse time was top notch as well. Flyer lists are not fun to play against, and if you're salty about it I'm sorry but I'm glad that mess is fixed.

Now onto the other issues of a million conscripts.

Only people not happy about GW nerfing FOTM lists are the guys running FOTM lists. The salt is real.

Have to say I'm guilty as well. I jumped the gun and bought me some Wolf guard bikers and they got hampered in the equipment department and quite significantly so. It's probably the last time I'm buying anything that is strong at the moment.

I'm not salty though, a more balanced game means a more enjoyable game for everyone involved.

I didn't pay much attention to the puppies before-- what were you trying to take advantage of?

 Melissia wrote:
I didn't pay much attention to the puppies before-- what were you trying to take advantage of?

They could take a chainsword (or any melee weapon), a storm bolter and a storm shield. Now they have to replace the chainsword for the SS. Essentially if you want to go full ham on SS/SB you cannot take any melee weapons, making them somewhat less potent overall. The dakka is still impressive though and I'm not super salty, they were a bit too much with melee weapons added to that. Now you have to make a compromise between melee prowess, survivability, or dakka.

Only sad thing about this FaQ is still no palanquin for my herold.

Kind of interesting that they did something about razorwing, but not about conscripts and horrors yet.
This edition is getting better and better, I thought we'd have to wait until decembre before they do sth. about the balance.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
What exactly was wrong with AOEs, or "closest model first" casualties again? Or mandatory pile-in for that matter?

Alot of things was wrong with removing closest model first.

It made flamers near-useless, since they'd always end up closest to the enemy, and then get killed instantly in the following phase.
It nerfed horde armies (and close-combat in general) since an shooting could easily "push" a unit back several inches and an overwatch likewise could increase a chargerange by afew inches, usually leading to a failed charge.
It looked dumb seeing all those sergeants and champions leading their units from the back...
I can probably think of several other reasons once I've had my morning-coffee.

As for removing AoE:s - I've yet to meet a single person (irl) who doesn't love the removal of Blasts and Templates.
The new system speeds up the game and all arguments about "no it scattered like this" are gone.

Not to mention the removal of blasts and templates makes unit spacing a non-issue. Whereas before you had to make sure to space everyone out to avoid blasts, now you can just place them asap without worrying. If anything the change to a D6 for small blasts actually improved them. When was the last time you even had the POSSIBILITY of getting 6 hits with a frag launcher?

I will concede the way they changed the large blast weapons to be inconsistent at best. Why a Demolisher canon became D3(D6 vs 5+) when a Battle Cannon became a flat D6 is baffling.

Also, while I don't know how it worked in 7th specifically, using multiple templates from open-topped transports was just silly. A unit of Burnaz could get 70+ Hits.

I am really happy with GW for putting out these FAQ's so fast. It shows that they do care about peoples opinions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to mention the removal of blasts and templates makes unit spacing a non-issue. Whereas before you had to make sure to space everyone out to avoid blasts, now you can just place them asap without worrying. If anything the change to a D6 for small blasts actually improved them. When was the last time you even had the POSSIBILITY of getting 6 hits with a frag launcher?

I will concede the way they changed the large blast weapons to be inconsistent at best. Why a Demolisher canon became D3(D6 vs 5+) when a Battle Cannon became a flat D6 is baffling.

It also reduced time, as soon as people saw flamers or blast weapons that time for games increased as each people spread out all their models to 2" exactly.. Worse if they have horde units.

I will concede as well that some blast weapons have some oddly inconsistent issues like that... You'd think they'd have gone 2d3 in some cases.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
What exactly was wrong with AOEs, or "closest model first" casualties again? Or mandatory pile-in for that matter?

Closest model allowed for unit tanks. That, in turn, caused a lot of problems.

 Talamare wrote:
For a Conscript Nerf I rather see Comissars instead say

During morale, any number of times per unit, you may slain a model to reduce the morale test by d6

That would have to only apply to Conscripts for that to work. It would make Commissars pretty useless with everybody else. I think it makes perfect sense for them not to be able to take orders.

I hope they do something to conscripts soon. I've been slowly getting my new force together for over a year with the plan to use a fair number of conscripts. They weren't good for much in 7th, but now...

I don't want to be "that guy."

Are conscripts honestly that bad?

Or is 8th edition too new and 99% of the playerbase haven't realized that if you snipe commissars the conscripts fold like origami.

I don't think I've seen a single person use snipers yet.

everyone here is discussing the new flyer rules and I'm just happy that the infiltrators got un-nerfed

ThePorcupine wrote:
Are conscripts honestly that bad?

Or is 8th edition too new and 99% of the playerbase haven't realized that if you snipe commissars the conscripts fold like origami.

I don't think I've seen a single person use snipers yet.

Not every army *has* Snipers, and "Take Snipers" isn't good game design, for it's a solution to a relatively narrow yet deadly problem, that is of relatively less use the moment you come across a build that doesn't rely on fragile buff-characters. The game should be more about "generalship" and less about "matchup."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
What exactly was wrong with AOEs, or "closest model first" casualties again? Or mandatory pile-in for that matter?

Closest model allowed for unit tanks. That, in turn, caused a lot of problems.

However, with 8th removing Independent Characters and Monster Squadrons, two of the more notable ways to create "tanks" have been removed from the game in turn. Alternately, removing "LOS" or making it a 3" area (instead of 6") and removing the ability to pawn hits onto *other* characters, and you have two hotfixes there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not to mention the removal of blasts and templates makes unit spacing a non-issue. Whereas before you had to make sure to space everyone out to avoid blasts, now you can just place them asap without worrying. If anything the change to a D6 for small blasts actually improved them. When was the last time you even had the POSSIBILITY of getting 6 hits with a frag launcher?

I will concede the way they changed the large blast weapons to be inconsistent at best. Why a Demolisher canon became D3(D6 vs 5+) when a Battle Cannon became a flat D6 is baffling.

Also, while I don't know how it worked in 7th specifically, using multiple templates from open-topped transports was just silly. A unit of Burnaz could get 70+ Hits.

In 7e, since you could only remove models in range and line of sight, what happened was models within 8" of the wagon would be deleted, but everything else would be fine. I think GW actually forgot this rule when writing Ynnari in 7e, because in typical Eldar fanboy fashion, they created a Witchfire for Eldar that was Assault X, where X was the number of models in the target unit. Rather than deleting a Green Tide, it would instead overkill the few models in range in hilarious form and fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Alot of things was wrong with removing closest model first.

It made flamers near-useless, since they'd always end up closest to the enemy, and then get killed instantly in the following phase.
It nerfed horde armies (and close-combat in general) since an shooting could easily "push" a unit back several inches and an overwatch likewise could increase a chargerange by afew inches, usually leading to a failed charge.
It looked dumb seeing all those sergeants and champions leading their units from the back...
I can probably think of several other reasons once I've had my morning-coffee.

As for removing AoE:s - I've yet to meet a single person (irl) who doesn't love the removal of Blasts and Templates.
The new system speeds up the game and all arguments about "no it scattered like this" are gone.

I respect the "speed" argument to a point. I do agree that too many scatters ruins the game (making small blasts scatter in 5e was arguably messier than rolling for "partials" in 4e), and it was definitely wonky that Barrage weapons were better for sniping than actual sniper weapons! Little things like these could have been patched and the system would still be fine.

Of course, slow play will happen regardless of AOEs, so I'm more iffy on that. I do have to willfully stifle my sense of disbelief and go "no, I'm not playing Napoleon: Total War, yes those Conscripts are in a musket line" so ynmv. It's more a "visual" thing I suppose but I like the idea that "bunched up" troops are innately more likely to be hit with AOE weapons, rather than every Battlecannon being a pseudo-Exorcist launcher.

I guess what I'm saying is that Conscripts as they currently stand require "extreme" solutions to handle, wheras while hordes were that much weaker in 7th compared to Bikes and move-12 Monsters, you didn't have to take specific "anti-horde" units to handle them, and you could soft-counter them by merit of the core rules. "Hard counters" don't make for a balanced game.

So, overall, I am pretty happy with how things are progressing with the faq’s, however, there are still a lot of un-answered questions that need a response. For example, I sent a 2-and-a-half-page document of questions to GW prior to this latest faq, and 2/3rds of the questions are still unanswered. (For example, there are still no rules on how things like "SWARMS", "BEASTS" and "DRONES" interact with terrain. You'd have thought that a scarab or ripper swarm base would benefit from a crater in the same way an infantry model would, but, apparently not.) It might be the case that some of the requests for clarification are actual changes within the new game, but, they still need clarifying at the end of the day to put the questions to rest.

Unfortunately, this does raise the questions of consistency and whether an adequate review has taken place. Yes, there will be mistakes here and there, but there have been a lot of major oversights and countless minor ones within the index’s themselves, and I fully expect more questions to be raised when the SM codex is in people’s hands soon. (I.E The next big thing is going to be around units that are in the Imperium 1 index but not the space marine codex - hq’s on bikes, and does the codex override the index in all instances, or a “pick and choose”.) While expected, this is somewhat disappointing and frustrating for a lot of players and indicates a failure somewhere between game design to publishing. Hell, I even offered free services to provide an extra level of proof reading (which I feel is very, very much required at the current stage) to help resolve the issue, but, sadly the offer hasn’t been responded to.

As for the flyer change in particular – I think it is somewhat ok for now, but I’m not sure it will be enough, especially in the case of “imperium” armies. My first thoughts were “this is way too much”, but the more I look at it, the more I feel that it does not overly prevent Stormraven spam – which was the main culprit. For example, in 2000 points you can still get 5 Stormravens, along with 144 conscripts, 1 commander and 1 lord commissar. Sure, the conscripts will get ripped apart pretty quickly, but, if you are forced to focus them for 2 or 3 turns, the Raven’s will just rip your army in the same way they were previously.

Overall, I am happy that things are getting looked at, and fixed, quickly, but I am frustrated at the fact that it is having to happen to this extent. This was, after all, the most play tested and reviewed set of rules for 40k ever.

"If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment."

What is meant by under strength unit?

 MinscS2 wrote:
As for removing AoE:s - I've yet to meet a single person (irl) who doesn't love the removal of Blasts and Templates.
The new system speeds up the game and all arguments about "no it scattered like this" are gone.

Agreed. The only thing I don't like about the new flamer rules is that they can't overwatch if the charge begins outside of 8" range which seems dumb. But if that's the penalty I have to take to eliminate the old template shenanigans then I will live with it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I will concede the way they changed the large blast weapons to be inconsistent at best. Why a Demolisher canon became D3(D6 vs 5+) when a Battle Cannon became a flat D6 is baffling.

Absolutely agreed, should defently be D6 or D3+3 or something, its a freakin seigeshell with very short range and very big boom. At the moment it feels like an unreliable overclocked lascannon.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/17/40k-team-sport-atc-list-meta/
'ere you go. Unless I'm misunderstanding these lists, the Tony Grippando list (1st place) has 4 units of conscripts and Tony Kopach list (2nd place) has 3 larger units of conscripts. Spam? Not exactly. But both lists have conscripts and scions in common.

20 Man units of conscripts because you can no longer merge squads in Tony G's list. It is using them for meatshields so all that other shooty will destroy everything. Mind you this list is not designed for a non team tournament, its designed for the team format.

Conscript Math Freak outs are AMAZING and I wish people would stop doing it :(

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
"If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment."

What is meant by under strength unit?

A unit with fewer models than the minimum size. So for example, you can take 9 Necron Warriors to fit them and an HQ into a Ghost Ark but have to use the Auxiliary Support Detachment to do so.

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
"If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment."

What is meant by under strength unit?

Taking less than the minimum size. There was some potential for abuse with the prior version of the understrength rules, I forget specifically what it was, but this nips it in the bud by requiring you to pay 1 CP (as an Auxiliary Support Detachment is -1 CP) in order to take a squad less than the minimum size.

 kastelen wrote:
everyone here is discussing the new flyer rules and I'm just happy that the infiltrators got un-nerfed

As far as I can tell, they are still 2/3 attacks for infiltrator/princeps?

Or are you referring to a different infiltrators?

crimsondave wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
For a Conscript Nerf I rather see Comissars instead say

During morale, any number of times per unit, you may slain a model to reduce the morale test by d6

That would have to only apply to Conscripts for that to work. It would make Commissars pretty useless with everybody else. I think it makes perfect sense for them not to be able to take orders.

I hope they do something to conscripts soon. I've been slowly getting my new force together for over a year with the plan to use a fair number of conscripts. They weren't good for much in 7th, but now...

I don't want to be "that guy."

I mean... how?

The effect I said is always worth using if you have a high chance of losing multiple dudes.

If your Veterans took 6 casualties this turn on their Ld8, then you have 50% chance of losing 2 more guys or greater. With an expected loss of 1.66 guys.
If decide to accept you're losing at least 1, to roll a counter d6 then even if you roll a 1 on the Commissar, your expected losses still went down to 1.0 guys.

The actual expected effect reduction is 3.5 guys.

Oh, and this is with using a Commissar Ld effect... without that at all... if your Veterans took 6 causalities on their Ld7, then you have a 83% chance of losing 1 more guy, and you will expect to lose 2.5 guys.

So yea... It wouldn't make the Commissar useless with everybody else. Commissar will still be insanely useful for negating morale.

It will be a terrible nerf.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

screw Harakoni and Elysians AMMIRIGHT GUYS ?!!!!???

 General Orange wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

screw Harakoni and Elysians AMMIRIGHT GUYS ?!!!!???

I'm hoping FW will put out an FaQ making Elysian Valkyries at the very least have an ability that lets them count as being a model on the board for Sudden Death.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 General Orange wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

screw Harakoni and Elysians AMMIRIGHT GUYS ?!!!!???

I'm hoping FW will put out an FaQ making Elysian Valkyries at the very least have an ability that lets them count as being a model on the board for Sudden Death.

In fluff terms Elysians are often slaughtered when they are on their own as they lack the staying power to hold ground unless reinforced and air cover can't do it on its own - bit like paratroops in WWII.

so in the fluff they lose if they dont have anything on the ground too?

All the ott reactions to conscripts here... What they need is to only allow 1 conscript squad per 2 squads of guardsmen. Problem solved. If they couldnt take orders they'd need probably point drop. And making them 2ppm would open up yet another can of worms.

 Talamare wrote:

crimsondave wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
For a Conscript Nerf I rather see Comissars instead say

During morale, any number of times per unit, you may slain a model to reduce the morale test by d6

That would have to only apply to Conscripts for that to work. It would make Commissars pretty useless with everybody else. I think it makes perfect sense for them not to be able to take orders.

I hope they do something to conscripts soon. I've been slowly getting my new force together for over a year with the plan to use a fair number of conscripts. They weren't good for much in 7th, but now...

I don't want to be "that guy."

I mean... how?

The effect I said is always worth using if you have a high chance of losing multiple dudes.

If your Veterans took 6 casualties this turn on their Ld8, then you have 50% chance of losing 2 more guys or greater. With an expected loss of 1.66 guys.
If decide to accept you're losing at least 1, to roll a counter d6 then even if you roll a 1 on the Commissar, your expected losses still went down to 1.0 guys.

The actual expected effect reduction is 3.5 guys.

Oh, and this is with using a Commissar Ld effect... without that at all... if your Veterans took 6 causalities on their Ld7, then you have a 83% chance of losing 1 more guy, and you will expect to lose 2.5 guys.

So yea... It wouldn't make the Commissar useless with everybody else. Commissar will still be insanely useful for negating morale.

So to fix the "Conscript problem" that I'm just accepting exists cause dakka says so, you want to hurt all guard infantry? It would be a horrible nerf that would make commissars not worth their points. I still think no orders for conscripts works better. Isn't it FRSR that is freaking people out?

"What they need is to only allow 1 conscript squad per 2 squads of guardsmen. Problem solved."

^This is what I really think the fix is, but no one but you and I seem to agree.

It's the fact that you can pour tons and tons of ammo into them and still have a huge blob still remaining there. Tyranids this isn't so bad because Synapse characters tend to be able to be sniped because of 10 wounds. Commissars not so much.

Also i play nidz and they suck haha Nothing in our index is near to IG haha However codex arent out yet

I really like the fix to understrength units.

Should quiet the 'shaming' crowd

Now is that lone exarch worth that loss of cp?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

you know right! lol

Hell yea my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Only sad thing about this FaQ is still no palanquin for my herold.

Kind of interesting that they did something about razorwing, but not about conscripts and horrors yet.
This edition is getting better and better, I thought we'd have to wait until decembre before they do sth. about the balance.

Well I wonder if the codexes will be out fairly soon for those armies and the fix is already in. So no need to make a hasty faq. The Dark Eldar may be on a back burner for 2018 and needed a fast change.

Lets just have a rule just for guard that on a role of 6 every phase of the game a random guardsmen dies, just dies, opponent chooses of course.

crimsondave wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

crimsondave wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
For a Conscript Nerf I rather see Comissars instead say

During morale, any number of times per unit, you may slain a model to reduce the morale test by d6

That would have to only apply to Conscripts for that to work. It would make Commissars pretty useless with everybody else. I think it makes perfect sense for them not to be able to take orders.

I hope they do something to conscripts soon. I've been slowly getting my new force together for over a year with the plan to use a fair number of conscripts. They weren't good for much in 7th, but now...

I don't want to be "that guy."

I mean... how?

The effect I said is always worth using if you have a high chance of losing multiple dudes.

If your Veterans took 6 casualties this turn on their Ld8, then you have 50% chance of losing 2 more guys or greater. With an expected loss of 1.66 guys.
If decide to accept you're losing at least 1, to roll a counter d6 then even if you roll a 1 on the Commissar, your expected losses still went down to 1.0 guys.

The actual expected effect reduction is 3.5 guys.

Oh, and this is with using a Commissar Ld effect... without that at all... if your Veterans took 6 causalities on their Ld7, then you have a 83% chance of losing 1 more guy, and you will expect to lose 2.5 guys.

So yea... It wouldn't make the Commissar useless with everybody else. Commissar will still be insanely useful for negating morale.

So to fix the "Conscript problem" that I'm just accepting exists cause dakka says so, you want to hurt all guard infantry? It would be a horrible nerf that would make commissars not worth their points. I still think no orders for conscripts works better. Isn't it FRSR that is freaking people out?

"What they need is to only allow 1 conscript squad per 2 squads of guardsmen. Problem solved."

^This is what I really think the fix is, but no one but you and I seem to agree.

You keep saying that his solution would be a horrible nerf? How?because occasionally you might lose more than one model? Occasionally you would lose no models at all. Actually given LD 8 it is far more common you would lose nothing in any non-conscript squad.

his fix effectively makes units in the commisar bubble LD 9 (Commisars 8 + minimum 1 on the d6 ignored casualties) No non-conscript unit can have more than 10 models.

Based on this the solution would look like this for every squad with the roll of a 6 on the morale dice
1-3 casualties = no losses ever
4 casualites = no losses on a 2+, max 1 loss (on a 5 or lower on the morale dice 0 losses)
5 casulties = no losses on a 3+, 1 loss on a 2, 2 losses on a 1. This is better than the current rule 66% of the time, worse 16% of the time. (on a 5 or less on the morale dice this is always better)
6 casulties = no losses on a 4+, 1 loss on a 3, 2 losses on a 2, 3, on a 1., this is better than current rule 50% of the time, worse 33% of the time (on a 4 or less on morale this is always better)
7 casulties = no losses on a 5+, 1 on a 4+ this is better 33% of the time and worse 50% of the time.(on a 3 or less on morale this is always better)
8 casualties = no losses on a 6+, 1 on a 5+ this is better 16%. (on a 2 or less on morale this is always better)
9 casualties = both the same you will lose a single model.

So his change to the commisar actually makes it better for every non-conscript squad in a majority of situations, the only time it doesn't is when you lose 8 models.They are fairly equal at 7. Especially with CP re-rolls it is highly likely you will rarely lose models in this scenario. Where it really starts to lose ground for the commissar is once all other squads will be dead and conscripts are still taking wounds. If I kill say 20 ouf 50 conscripts they suffer because at best they lose 7 models (20 + 1 -= 21 - 8 = 13 - 6 = 7)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact this would be a massive buff to the commissar for non- conscript units. Doing some math on this for 1-9 casualties on any 10 man (or less) unit.

The current commissar and D6 reduction are equal in cases of 1 or 2 casualties as neither lose either.

At 3 casualties the D6 is better as 16% of the time the current commissar loses a single model, while the D6 reduction loses 0.

At 4 casualties D6 is way better, as you only lose 1 model 2.7% of the time, where as you lose a single model 33% of the time currently

At 5 casualties D6 is still way better as you lose at least 1 model only 8.3% of the time, while currently you lose one model 50% of the time. You lose 2 models 2.8% of the time with the D6 reduction, not including any CP re-rolls

At 6 casualties D6 is still better as you only lose at least one model 17% of the time, vs 67% of the time for the current. Now you will lose 2 models 5.6% of the time and three 2.8% of the time (so 8.3% of the time you will lose multiple models assuming you don't CP re-roll)

At 7 casualties D6 is still better as you only lose at least 1 model 28% of the time Vs 83% of the time for current, you will lose multiple models 17% of the time (8.3 % two, 8.3% 3) without re-rolls, so this evens it out a bit, as you have a chance of losing the rest of the squad, but it is quite unlikely.

At 8 Casualties D6 is still better as you only lose at least 1 model 42% of the time, vs 100% of the time for current. Now 28% of the time you will lose both remaining models. So given the ~1/4 chance of the squad dying this might be considered an edge to the current commissar.

At 9 casualties the D6 is infinitely better as there is still a 42% chance the squad will survive, whereas currently it auto dies.

So given CP re-rolls, I would say the advantage for smaller squads is always with the D6 reduction. For conscripts however it end up being worse because you can cause a bunch of casualties, though they can still use 2 CP to auto pass morale if desired.

Why not just make the Commissar rule work like this:


For every model a Commissar executes roll a D6 and reduce the amount of models lost to morale by the amount rolled.


So an example of this would be:

Player-A has a fifty man unit of conscripts and loses thirteen models in a turn. Player-A then rolls a five on his morale roll, meaning the conscripts should lose ten additional models to morale. Player-A decides to use the Commissars rule to execute two models and rolls 2d6, rolling a combined total of seven. Player-A removes the two models from the unit due to the Commissars rule, and then removes three more models for morale (10-7=3).

The wounds are effectively halved by the Commissar this way, but wouldn't make a unit unbreakable unto death.

Anyway just my two cents.

Take it for what it's worth.

Best of luck to all!

what was the nerf to Razorbacks that the OP indicated? didn't see it in the FAQ...

 benlac wrote:
what was the nerf to Razorbacks that the OP indicated? didn't see it in the FAQ...

He said Razorflock, as in razorwing flock, not Razorback

Breng77 wrote:

 benlac wrote:
what was the nerf to Razorbacks that the OP indicated? didn't see it in the FAQ...

He said Razorflock, as in razorwing flock, not Razorback

They doubled their pt costs.
I saw an ETC list with 11*12 Razorflocks (with old pt costs).

 wuestenfux wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 benlac wrote:
what was the nerf to Razorbacks that the OP indicated? didn't see it in the FAQ...

He said Razorflock, as in razorwing flock, not Razorback

They doubled their pt costs.
I saw an ETC list with 11*12 Razorflocks (with old pt costs).

Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

hobojebus wrote:


Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

Good, anyone who brought 132 freshly bought razorwing flocks to a game deserves a slap to the face.

hobojebus wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 benlac wrote:
what was the nerf to Razorbacks that the OP indicated? didn't see it in the FAQ...

He said Razorflock, as in razorwing flock, not Razorback

They doubled their pt costs.
I saw an ETC list with 11*12 Razorflocks (with old pt costs).

Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

Honestly? no sympathy for those people. They want to try and break the game by taking advantage of loose army building restrictions, they have to deal with the consequences of it being invalidated for playing against the spirit of the game.

 MinscS2 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

Good, anyone who brought 132 freshly bought razorwing flocks to a game deserves a slap to the face.

People buy the actual Razorwing models?
at £10 EACH?!?

Jbz` wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

Good, anyone who brought 132 freshly bought razorwing flocks to a game deserves a slap to the face.

People buy the actual Razorwing models?
at £10 EACH?!?

Yeah a i saw a picture of an entire freshly bought razorflock tourney army. I truely enjoy seeing fruitcake like that waste his money on that, at the end it all supports GW. I hope they keep lureing waac players into exteme builds and then "invalidate" for waac shortly after.

Have we come to the conclusion that troops in fliers do not count as having boots on ground?

So if I kill all your guys on the ground and you have one model in a flier do you lose still or do I have to kill that one model zipping around in the sky?

usmcmidn wrote:
Have we come to the conclusion that troops in fliers do not count as having boots on ground?

So if I kill all your guys on the ground and you have one model in a flier do you lose still or do I have to kill that one model zipping around in the sky?

the guy in the flyer is not considered on the board... so you lose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jbz` wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

Good, anyone who brought 132 freshly bought razorwing flocks to a game deserves a slap to the face.

People buy the actual Razorwing models?
at £10 EACH?!?

Zombicide birdies

The issue now with stormravens is they are dangerous flyers to use. Example:


I load 4 squads of PAGK and 2 dreadnoughts into 2 stormravens on turn 1. I also am teleporting in 1 dreadknight.

I move the stormravens forward 20 inches. I am now 4 inches off the front of my opponents front line. My dreadknight teleports in.

Opponents turn, He kills my dreadknight and surrounds my two stormravens bases. End of my turn. I will lose because I cannot disembark my troops from the stormraven to stay in the game. Because there is no place to put them on the table.

OgreOnAStick wrote:
Ragnar can take his doggies into transports now and has a point cost for them.

I keep looking, but can find where this is.

Youn wrote:
The issue now with stormravens is they are dangerous flyers to use. Example:


I load 4 squads of PAGK and 2 dreadnoughts into 2 stormravens on turn 1. I also am teleporting in 1 dreadknight.

I move the stormravens forward 20 inches. I am now 4 inches off the front of my opponents front line. My dreadknight teleports in.

Opponents turn, He kills my dreadknight and surrounds my two stormravens bases. End of my turn. I will lose because I cannot disembark my troops from the stormraven to stay in the game. Because there is no place to put them on the table.

If he was able to completely surround two storm ravens your loss that game is on you. That's just bad positioning.

Like, really bad positioning.

Youn wrote:
The issue now with stormravens is they are dangerous flyers to use. Example:


I load 4 squads of PAGK and 2 dreadnoughts into 2 stormravens on turn 1. I also am teleporting in 1 dreadknight.

I move the stormravens forward 20 inches. I am now 4 inches off the front of my opponents front line. My dreadknight teleports in.

Opponents turn, He kills my dreadknight and surrounds my two stormravens bases. End of my turn. I will lose because I cannot disembark my troops from the stormraven to stay in the game. Because there is no place to put them on the table.

correct me if I'm wrong.. but wouldn't you have lost anyway ? Don't you check at the end of the game turn ?

 Anpu42 wrote:

OgreOnAStick wrote:
Ragnar can take his doggies into transports now and has a point cost for them.

I keep looking, but can find where this is.

In the Imperium 1 FAQ? He could always take them into transports (they were Infantry) but they used to have a null value for points, now they cost some.

Page 216 – Space Wolves Points Values
Change Ragnar Blackmane’s entry to read:
‘Ragnar Blackmane | 1 | 141
- Svangir and Ulfgir | 0-2 | 9’


Q: Can Svangir and Ulgir embark on a transport?
A: Yes. Treat these models as if they were Space Wolves
Infantry for all rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


Imagine that guys rage if he just bought them.

Good, anyone who brought 132 freshly bought razorwing flocks to a game deserves a slap to the face.

People buy the actual Razorwing models?
at £10 EACH?!?

Yeah a i saw a picture of an entire freshly bought razorflock tourney army. I truely enjoy seeing fruitcake like that waste his money on that, at the end it all supports GW. I hope they keep lureing waac players into exteme builds and then "invalidate" for waac shortly after.

If they weren't recasts or 3rd party then the guy is a bit of an idiot.

The impact on everythign with the fly keyword is significant for Tau. A lot of things in that army has the fly keyword including all the tanks. The option is to use a lot of kroots, firewarriors and whatever the name is of the third unit type that doesnt fly.

Darbagal wrote:
The impact on everythign with the fly keyword is significant for Tau. A lot of things in that army has the fly keyword including all the tanks. The option is to use a lot of kroots, firewarriors and whatever the name is of the third unit type that doesnt fly.

Read the errata again. It affects FLYER Battlefield Role, not FLY keyword.

 zedsdead wrote:

Youn wrote:
The issue now with stormravens is they are dangerous flyers to use. Example:


I load 4 squads of PAGK and 2 dreadnoughts into 2 stormravens on turn 1. I also am teleporting in 1 dreadknight.

I move the stormravens forward 20 inches. I am now 4 inches off the front of my opponents front line. My dreadknight teleports in.

Opponents turn, He kills my dreadknight and surrounds my two stormravens bases. End of my turn. I will lose because I cannot disembark my troops from the stormraven to stay in the game. Because there is no place to put them on the table.

correct me if I'm wrong.. but wouldn't you have lost anyway ? Don't you check at the end of the game turn ?

From 'Sudden Death':

If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory.

 Ghaz wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

Youn wrote:
The issue now with stormravens is they are dangerous flyers to use. Example:


I load 4 squads of PAGK and 2 dreadnoughts into 2 stormravens on turn 1. I also am teleporting in 1 dreadknight.

I move the stormravens forward 20 inches. I am now 4 inches off the front of my opponents front line. My dreadknight teleports in.

Opponents turn, He kills my dreadknight and surrounds my two stormravens bases. End of my turn. I will lose because I cannot disembark my troops from the stormraven to stay in the game. Because there is no place to put them on the table.

correct me if I'm wrong.. but wouldn't you have lost anyway ? Don't you check at the end of the game turn ?

From 'Sudden Death':

If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory.

So my reading of that is battle round = game turn, turn = player turn. So after the first 2 player turns if at the end of any player turn you have no non-flyers you lose.

Yeah, your assumed to be able to use your flying transports for turn one. After that, they are useless for transports if you don't have boots on the ground.

Yes, so he would have lost anyways.

Top of Turn 1: Flyers blitz forwards.
Bottom of Turn 1: Everything on the table but fliers is dead.

End of turn 1 check = auto loss, regardless of if the flyers were surrounded.

If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends immediately and their opponent automatically wins a crushing victory.

It's after any player turn after game turn 1.

So, if you went first, you are allowed to start in flyers and on turn 2, you must disembark before the end of your round. If you don't disembark on turn 2, you lose the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, so he would have lost anyways.

Top of Turn 1: Flyers blitz forwards.
Bottom of Turn 1: Everything on the table but fliers is dead.

End of turn 1 check = auto loss, regardless of if the flyers were surrounded.

My reading is that you would not check until after the top of 2. So every turn after game turn 1. So you can start with everything embarked in flyers but if you don't go first it needs to disembark on your first turn. If you go first, it needs to get out turn 2.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, so he would have lost anyways.

Top of Turn 1: Flyers blitz forwards.
Bottom of Turn 1: Everything on the table but fliers is dead.

End of turn 1 check = auto loss, regardless of if the flyers were surrounded.

My reading is that you would not check until after the top of 2. So every turn after game turn 1. So you can start with everything embarked in flyers but if you don't go first it needs to disembark on your first turn. If you go first, it needs to get out turn 2.

Ah, I see..

...yes, shouldn't've gotten the flyers surrounded.

It will be very difficult vs armies like white scars, world eaters and eldar. You literally cannot start in your flyers.

If you go first, your flyer will need to go sideways across the table instead of toward your opponents army.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

OgreOnAStick wrote:
Ragnar can take his doggies into transports now and has a point cost for them.

I keep looking, but can find where this is.

In the Imperium 1 FAQ? He could always take them into transports (they were Infantry) but they used to have a null value for points, now they cost some.

Page 216 – Space Wolves Points Values
Change Ragnar Blackmane’s entry to read:
‘Ragnar Blackmane | 1 | 141
- Svangir and Ulfgir | 0-2 | 9’


Q: Can Svangir and Ulgir embark on a transport?
A: Yes. Treat these models as if they were Space Wolves
Infantry for all rules purposes.

I have WARHAMMER 40,000 INDEX: IMPERIUM 1 Official Update Version 1.0 and it goes:
Page 215 – Blacksword missile launcher
Change the Type to read ‘Heavy 1’.

Page 219 – Glacius
Change the ability to read:
‘If a model suffers any unsaved wounds from this
weapon but is not slain, roll a D6; on a 6, the target
suffers a mortal wound.’

There is no Page 216 listed.

And the Q: does not exist, do I have the wrong one?

New FAQs as of Sunday - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/23/updated-faqs-and-boots-on-the-groundgw-homepage-post-2/

Imperium 1 - https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Index_Imperium_1_ver_1.1.pdf

 andysonic1 wrote:
New FAQs as of Sunday - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/23/updated-faqs-and-boots-on-the-groundgw-homepage-post-2/

Imperium 1 - https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Index_Imperium_1_ver_1.1.pdf

I thought that was getting when I followed the link on Page one.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
New FAQs as of Sunday - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/23/updated-faqs-and-boots-on-the-groundgw-homepage-post-2/

Imperium 1 - https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Index_Imperium_1_ver_1.1.pdf

I thought that was getting when I followed the link on Page one.

That is what you are getting. For some reason they have them only on the community site and not the official errata site.

Al Haquis wrote:

Page 76 – Army of the Reborn
Replace this paragraph with the following:
‘If the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the
Visarch or the Yncarne then – with the exception of
<Haemonculus Coven> units, Urien Rakarth, Drazhar,
Mandrakes and the Avatar of Khaine – any Aeldari
unit can also be Ynnari.

Page 118 – Units table, Razorwing Flocks
Change the models per unit value to read ‘3-12’ and the
points per model value to read ‘14’.

Blarty McFly. A nice simple fix to the "Ynnari army" conundrum. Sort of...You now must take one of the Triumvirate as Warlord to play Ynnari? At least it's better than last time which some people interpreted as "All units must be Ynnari, every time!"

The Razorwing thing is a bit sad though, especially in regards Ynnari. Chucking some Goth Chickens at an enemy to spam Soulburst could have been fun.

Is there any confirmation of stormravens increase in points?

usmcmidn wrote:
Is there any confirmation of stormravens increase in points?

That would be the new SM codex, not the FAQs

usmcmidn wrote:
Is there any confirmation of stormravens increase in points?

No, but they got kicked in the balls in the FAQ.

Did a google search and according to this guy who has the codex no points increase for ravens.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6DqjcNd9mOY

usmcmidn wrote:
Is there any confirmation of stormravens increase in points?

It's okay. They found another way.