So, I just read the FAQ, and gosh am I left wondering wtfGW was thinking. So basically, grey Knights can’t deepstrike into turn one melee anymore, I can’t spam acolytes to get more people in deep strike, and the imperium keyword nerf made it so we can’t be allied in easily. Did nerfing deepstrike really need to happen? All it does is nerf melee armies and encourage gunlines.
Daedalus81 wrote: I have pinged GW on the absence of the GK,DA,BA, and ACFAQs.
I'd laugh if they replied with "what's a GK?"
They for sure need help, but at least allied CP is good for them. Unfortunately, since CA they've been in a weird limbo state where all the rules that matter around them have been in massive flux. Hopefully with Codexes wrapping up in the coming months and some of these changes making it more obvious that their problems are pretty deeply rooted, we might see some improvements next time.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: By the dark gods this thread is just hilariously full of salt.
I'm not salty, but I do think GW should have at least given them some sort of attention on the FAQ. They got a smite buff. Perhaps the Rule of 3 and extra CP will make them more viable. Losing deepstrike turn 1 will hurt, but not as much as other armies I'd wager.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just in case you didn't notice we also can't shunt or GoI in the first turn with the new FAQ.
That is not how I read the FAQ. It calls out units that have arrived on the player's first turn. Both GoI and the shunt would be used by units that were deployed normally, meaning they arrived before the first turn. I see no inherent conflict here, but some confirmation would be good.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just in case you didn't notice we also can't shunt or GoI in the first turn with the new FAQ.
That is not how I read the FAQ. It calls out units that have arrived on the player's first turn. Both GoI and the shunt would be used by units that were deployed normally, meaning they arrived before the first turn. I see no inherent conflict here, but some confirmation would be good.
Read the text of GoI and Shunt. You remove the unit from the battlefield and then it arrives again, thus arriving on the first turn. In addition, GW has previously FAQ'd that things which effect units arriving from reinforcement, such as Auspex Scan's intercept, can target GoI arrivals.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just in case you didn't notice we also can't shunt or GoI in the first turn with the new FAQ.
That is not how I read the FAQ. It calls out units that have arrived on the player's first turn. Both GoI and the shunt would be used by units that were deployed normally, meaning they arrived before the first turn. I see no inherent conflict here, but some confirmation would be good.
Read the text of GoI and Shunt. You remove the unit from the battlefield and then it arrives again, thus arriving on the first turn. In addition, GW has previously FAQ'd that things which effect units arriving from reinforcement, such as Auspex Scan's intercept, can target GoI arrivals.
Both of the abilities say setup, not arrive. This is the same wording in the clarification of Auspex Scan. I don't have a SM codex to check the wording of the entire strategem, but to say that units arrive again is not the wording of those abilities. (In the epub codex anyway)
These questions are why its important that this is a Beta Rule. They're looking for things that interact poorly with it and Gate of Infinity is just the kind of ability that the rule currently isn't entirely clear how it interacts with given other things it specifically allows.
I have emailed them this question about GoI and the beta rules so we will see iif/when we get an answer, but the more people asking will probably increase the odds of an answer
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just in case you didn't notice we also can't shunt or GoI in the first turn with the new FAQ.
That is not how I read the FAQ. It calls out units that have arrived on the player's first turn. Both GoI and the shunt would be used by units that were deployed normally, meaning they arrived before the first turn. I see no inherent conflict here, but some confirmation would be good.
Read the text of GoI and Shunt. You remove the unit from the battlefield and then it arrives again, thus arriving on the first turn. In addition, GW has previously FAQ'd that things which effect units arriving from reinforcement, such as Auspex Scan's intercept, can target GoI arrivals.
Both of the abilities say setup, not arrive. This is the same wording in the clarification of Auspex Scan. I don't have a SM codex to check the wording of the entire strategem, but to say that units arrive again is not the wording of those abilities. (In the epub codex anyway)
I'd say the difference between arriving and setting up is splitting hairs.
There's some tournament organizers who may rule to allow it, but I think most people will think about how this conforms with other rules changes in the FAQ which all seem to be aimed at limiting the impact of an alpha strike.
Crimson Devil wrote: They can still ally easily into an Imperium army. All you have to do is make a pure GK detachment of them.
Assuming you don't play with TFG. As usual GW's usual sloppy writing results in rule that could easily be read as every detachment needs to share keyword(imperium not usable). So GW's FAQ needs a FAQ.
Not being able to viably deep strike turn 1 is so bonkers to me.
I simply don't get it. At all. I expected the OPPOSITE of this, where there would be a Night Fighting rule to help take some steam out of the power that gunlines already have.
People have been using deep strike as a survival tool more than a guaranteed attack on turn 1.
Besides, soaking much of the enemy's firepower into on Pred that would kill something else instead, without spending any CP, is a great use of Killshot.
Bharring wrote: Besides, soaking much of the enemy's firepower into on Pred that would kill something else instead, without spending any CP, is a great use of Killshot.
Bharring wrote: Besides, soaking much of the enemy's firepower into on Pred that would kill something else instead, without spending any CP, is a great use of Killshot.
Bharring wrote: Besides, soaking much of the enemy's firepower into on Pred that would kill something else instead, without spending any CP, is a great use of Killshot.
Since when is destruction of one predator matter of soaking "much of the enemy's firepower"? Well except against orks. Others fire one predator off the board by looking evilly.
For most armies, it takes a greater proportion of their army to drop 1 Pred than the proportion of the army it takes to take one pred. By a reasonably large margin. Preds aren't glass-canon.
Bharring wrote: For most armies, it takes a greater proportion of their army to drop 1 Pred than the proportion of the army it takes to take one pred. By a reasonably large margin. Preds aren't glass-canon.
Actually, they kinda are. T7 W11 3+ sucks in 8th ed.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Just in case you didn't notice we also can't shunt or GoI in the first turn with the new FAQ.
That is not how I read the FAQ. It calls out units that have arrived on the player's first turn. Both GoI and the shunt would be used by units that were deployed normally, meaning they arrived before the first turn. I see no inherent conflict here, but some confirmation would be good.
Read the text of GoI and Shunt. You remove the unit from the battlefield and then it arrives again, thus arriving on the first turn. In addition, GW has previously FAQ'd that things which effect units arriving from reinforcement, such as Auspex Scan's intercept, can target GoI arrivals.
Both of the abilities say setup, not arrive. This is the same wording in the clarification of Auspex Scan. I don't have a SM codex to check the wording of the entire strategem, but to say that units arrive again is not the wording of those abilities. (In the epub codex anyway)
I'd say the difference between arriving and setting up is splitting hairs.
There's some tournament organizers who may rule to allow it, but I think most people will think about how this conforms with other rules changes in the FAQ which all seem to be aimed at limiting the impact of an alpha strike.
Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Therefore, as I pointed out in the general thread, shunt should be fine along with armies that have speed in general. It makes Slaanesh more viable in the Chaos of Daemons codex. I view GKs as benefiting from the same kind of thing, suddenly they're one of the armies that have units that can get in someones face super quickly.
Not that Killshot is gonna happen anymore as you needed at minimum 4 Predators to make sure you could do it once.
Yeah; I'm not sure what they were thinking.
I feel like the FAQ does nothing to address actual balance problems, and is just a knee-jerk reaction to the Flyrants thing. While I don't like it, just doing 1/detach on strong HQ's would have been a better solution.
They also seem to have just decided to write GK off as a loss; I'm kind of surprised they even remember to exempt them from the smite rule because their smites are so bad. I don't think Grey Knights are any more officially dead than they were before, but that's just because they already run afoul of so many kind of bad rules what's another hit on the head.
10 Reapers x 35 ppm is 350 points to one-round that Pred.
Previously, 10 Reapers was not a surprising number of Reapers to see. I guess we'll see how it goes now, though I think they're still very much worth taking myself.
Honestly, I think the deep strike change is going to go a long way toward making these hypothetical predators last longer, at least until deep strike plasma gets replaced with lascannon spam.
Oh, then we agree. 2.5x something's cost to kill it is even generally considered not good enough across the entire game. (from the shooter's perspective that is)
Yeah, I was surprised by how "right" the points were when they got cleaned up. Loving the nerf to Reapers - just right.
Would you agree with this point:
Part of the value of Killshot, when you bring 3 Preds, is that the opponent may need to prioritize killing one of the Preds over something else. So if you lose a Pred and not something more important on top of 1, Killshot helped you out.
The solution to not deep striking on the first turn is deep strike on second. Simples. It makes sense that players want to have at least one turn before they get hammered in assault.
Bharring wrote: Yeah, I was surprised by how "right" the points were when they got cleaned up. Loving the nerf to Reapers - just right.
Would you agree with this point:
Part of the value of Killshot, when you bring 3 Preds, is that the opponent may need to prioritize killing one of the Preds over something else. So if you lose a Pred and not something more important on top of 1, Killshot helped you out.
?
Not really.
Predators aren't cheap enough. You'd rather lose other things over your Predators.
Grey Knights are almost certainly the worst codex army at this point. The almost suffered from reverse future proofing, where many of the GK special rules that were meant to prevent abuse become additionally burdensome in the context of current match play rules.
Horrible internal balance, poor stratagems, and almost army wide overpricing all hurt as well.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Let's look at it closely.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
One could argue Tactical Reserves doesn't apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield.
When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Okay. The first paragraph there just means you have to set up 50% of your army based on Power Level. It's not based on the number of units anymore. Fine with this.
The second paragraph, it's saying this other important part of the rule applies to [u]any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn.[/u] It's important to note the distinction: the unit must be arriving on the battlefield from somewhere else that allows it to be set up mid-game as reinforcements. It's not necessarily talking about units that have already been set up on the battlefield.
One could argue this part does not apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield. Gate of Infinity happens after the unit has already arrived on the battlefield, despite the language about removing it and setting it up. It is arriving on the battlefield again, but not from some other place where it was set up.
Not saying this is the only interpretation, but that it could be argued that way.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
This final piece makes me think this interpretation is the correct one. If a unit becomes REINFORCEMENTS when it is removed from the battlefield using Gate of Infinity, that unit would automatically be destroyed after turn 3. I don't think that's RAI, why would GOI stop working after turn 3?
I get it that GW is trying to blunt the impact of alpha strikes. I don't think GoI really runs counter to that, you can only use it once per turn in matched play and it affects a single unit.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Let's look at it closely.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
One could argue Tactical Reserves doesn't apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield.
When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Okay. The first paragraph there just means you have to set up 50% of your army based on Power Level. It's not based on the number of units anymore. Fine with this.
The second paragraph, it's saying this other important part of the rule applies to [u]any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn.[/u] It's important to note the distinction: the unit must be arriving on the battlefield from somewhere else that allows it to be set up mid-game as reinforcements. It's not necessarily talking about units that have already been set up on the battlefield.
One could argue this part does not apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield. Gate of Infinity happens after the unit has already arrived on the battlefield, despite the language about removing it and setting it up. It is arriving on the battlefield again, but not from some other place where it was set up.
Not saying this is the only interpretation, but that it could be argued that way.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
This final piece makes me think this interpretation is the correct one. If a unit becomes REINFORCEMENTS when it is removed from the battlefield using Gate of Infinity, that unit would automatically be destroyed after turn 3. I don't think that's RAI, why would GOI stop working after turn 3?
I get it that GW is trying to blunt the impact of alpha strikes. I don't think GoI really runs counter to that, you can only use it once per turn in matched play and it affects a single unit.
I see the other side of the argument you're giving in the middle there but from a spirit of the game perspective it doesn't make sense. I realize you agreed with me (I think?) but it just irks me that people try to nitpick rules like this when they obviously go against the spirit of what is intended. When I read the GOI rule or shunt it's meant to be an example within the rule for how they are moving/interacting in the game when it references "Like deep strike". They aren't literally redeploying as reserves. Otherwise you're correct, they would be destroyed by using GOI if they used it on turn 4... which is simply a ludicrous thing to do. Therefore I think GK might actually be OK with this new deep strike rule, as I said before.
I don't play Grey Knights by the way. I just thought I'd poke into the thread and give an opinion for what I would view as the intention and maybe soothe some of the butt hurt I've seen.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Let's look at it closely.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
One could argue Tactical Reserves doesn't apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield.
When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Okay. The first paragraph there just means you have to set up 50% of your army based on Power Level. It's not based on the number of units anymore. Fine with this.
The second paragraph, it's saying this other important part of the rule applies to [u]any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn.[/u] It's important to note the distinction: the unit must be arriving on the battlefield from somewhere else that allows it to be set up mid-game as reinforcements. It's not necessarily talking about units that have already been set up on the battlefield.
One could argue this part does not apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield. Gate of Infinity happens after the unit has already arrived on the battlefield, despite the language about removing it and setting it up. It is arriving on the battlefield again, but not from some other place where it was set up.
Not saying this is the only interpretation, but that it could be argued that way.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
This final piece makes me think this interpretation is the correct one. If a unit becomes REINFORCEMENTS when it is removed from the battlefield using Gate of Infinity, that unit would automatically be destroyed after turn 3. I don't think that's RAI, why would GOI stop working after turn 3?
I get it that GW is trying to blunt the impact of alpha strikes. I don't think GoI really runs counter to that, you can only use it once per turn in matched play and it affects a single unit.
You're all looking at the wrong one. Tactical Reserves aren't part of this. Reinforcements is the rule you want.
Also note that you can use Ausoex Scan and Forewarned on Gate of Infinity arrivals.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Let's look at it closely.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
One could argue Tactical Reserves doesn't apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield.
When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Okay. The first paragraph there just means you have to set up 50% of your army based on Power Level. It's not based on the number of units anymore. Fine with this.
The second paragraph, it's saying this other important part of the rule applies to [u]any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn.[/u] It's important to note the distinction: the unit must be arriving on the battlefield from somewhere else that allows it to be set up mid-game as reinforcements. It's not necessarily talking about units that have already been set up on the battlefield.
One could argue this part does not apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield. Gate of Infinity happens after the unit has already arrived on the battlefield, despite the language about removing it and setting it up. It is arriving on the battlefield again, but not from some other place where it was set up.
Not saying this is the only interpretation, but that it could be argued that way.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
This final piece makes me think this interpretation is the correct one. If a unit becomes REINFORCEMENTS when it is removed from the battlefield using Gate of Infinity, that unit would automatically be destroyed after turn 3. I don't think that's RAI, why would GOI stop working after turn 3?
I get it that GW is trying to blunt the impact of alpha strikes. I don't think GoI really runs counter to that, you can only use it once per turn in matched play and it affects a single unit.
I see the other side of the argument you're giving in the middle there but from a spirit of the game perspective it doesn't make sense. I realize you agreed with me (I think?) but it just irks me that people try to nitpick rules like this when they obviously go against the spirit of what is intended. When I read the GOI rule or shunt it's meant to be an example within the rule for how they are moving/interacting in the game when it references "Like deep strike". They aren't literally redeploying as reserves. Otherwise you're correct, they would be destroyed by using GOI if they used it on turn 4... which is simply a ludicrous thing to do. Therefore I think GK might actually be OK with this new deep strike rule, as I said before.
I don't play Grey Knights by the way. I just thought I'd poke into the thread and give an opinion for what I would view as the intention and maybe soothe some of the butt hurt I've seen.
Tactical Reserves =/= Reinforcements all the time. The spirit of the rules is that stuff like GoI and Da Jump get effected by things which impact reinforcements(they even specifically FAQ'd to say this in at least one case). So this should hold too.
Why is it when people math out Dark Reapers, they don't look at all of the synergy they have that makes them good?
-1 to hit
shoot twice
guide
etc...
And of course even if it takes more points to kill that first predator, it's a nobrainer because you're eliminating the REASON that 3 predators were brought in the first place. I mean seriously folks... Killing 1 predator out of 3 does way more than just remove 1 predator worth of points.
Of course none of this matters because Grey Knights don't even have access to predators, do they? If they did, Grey Knights predators would actually be pretty solid, considering they have astral aim, and gate of infinity to reposition them.
WHAT THE feth IS THIS CRAP. WHO THE feth DESIGNED OUR ARMY.
I can't do anything but ask that anyone reading this actually send an email to GW to complain about the horrible state of the game for certain factions.
Quickjager wrote: WHAT THE feth IS THIS CRAP. WHO THE feth DESIGNED OUR ARMY.
I can't do anything but ask that anyone reading this actually send an email to GW to complain about the horrible state of the game for certain factions.
I knew an important GK reaction was missing but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Crimson Devil wrote: They can still ally easily into an Imperium army. All you have to do is make a pure GK detachment of them.
Assuming you don't play with TFG. As usual GW's usual sloppy writing results in rule that could easily be read as every detachment needs to share keyword(imperium not usable). So GW's FAQ needs a FAQ.
No it really doesn't. You're letting your rage color your understanding.
And to be honest if you play against TFGs, than you deserve what you get.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Let's look at it closely.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
One could argue Tactical Reserves doesn't apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield.
When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Okay. The first paragraph there just means you have to set up 50% of your army based on Power Level. It's not based on the number of units anymore. Fine with this.
The second paragraph, it's saying this other important part of the rule applies to [u]any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn.[/u] It's important to note the distinction: the unit must be arriving on the battlefield from somewhere else that allows it to be set up mid-game as reinforcements. It's not necessarily talking about units that have already been set up on the battlefield.
One could argue this part does not apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield. Gate of Infinity happens after the unit has already arrived on the battlefield, despite the language about removing it and setting it up. It is arriving on the battlefield again, but not from some other place where it was set up.
Not saying this is the only interpretation, but that it could be argued that way.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
This final piece makes me think this interpretation is the correct one. If a unit becomes REINFORCEMENTS when it is removed from the battlefield using Gate of Infinity, that unit would automatically be destroyed after turn 3. I don't think that's RAI, why would GOI stop working after turn 3?
I get it that GW is trying to blunt the impact of alpha strikes. I don't think GoI really runs counter to that, you can only use it once per turn in matched play and it affects a single unit.
You're all looking at the wrong one. Tactical Reserves aren't part of this. Reinforcements is the rule you want.
Also note that you can use Ausoex Scan and Forewarned on Gate of Infinity arrivals.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I read it the same way as he said. Shunting is unaffected by this. What is affected are units that were deployed as reinforcements and then coming in at a later turn. It even specifies units that are deployed as reserves in the rule if I remember correctly.
Let's look at it closely.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
One could argue Tactical Reserves doesn't apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield.
When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Okay. The first paragraph there just means you have to set up 50% of your army based on Power Level. It's not based on the number of units anymore. Fine with this.
The second paragraph, it's saying this other important part of the rule applies to [u]any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn.[/u] It's important to note the distinction: the unit must be arriving on the battlefield from somewhere else that allows it to be set up mid-game as reinforcements. It's not necessarily talking about units that have already been set up on the battlefield.
One could argue this part does not apply to a unit that has already been set up on the battlefield. Gate of Infinity happens after the unit has already arrived on the battlefield, despite the language about removing it and setting it up. It is arriving on the battlefield again, but not from some other place where it was set up.
Not saying this is the only interpretation, but that it could be argued that way.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
This final piece makes me think this interpretation is the correct one. If a unit becomes REINFORCEMENTS when it is removed from the battlefield using Gate of Infinity, that unit would automatically be destroyed after turn 3. I don't think that's RAI, why would GOI stop working after turn 3?
I get it that GW is trying to blunt the impact of alpha strikes. I don't think GoI really runs counter to that, you can only use it once per turn in matched play and it affects a single unit.
I see the other side of the argument you're giving in the middle there but from a spirit of the game perspective it doesn't make sense. I realize you agreed with me (I think?) but it just irks me that people try to nitpick rules like this when they obviously go against the spirit of what is intended. When I read the GOI rule or shunt it's meant to be an example within the rule for how they are moving/interacting in the game when it references "Like deep strike". They aren't literally redeploying as reserves. Otherwise you're correct, they would be destroyed by using GOI if they used it on turn 4... which is simply a ludicrous thing to do. Therefore I think GK might actually be OK with this new deep strike rule, as I said before.
I don't play Grey Knights by the way. I just thought I'd poke into the thread and give an opinion for what I would view as the intention and maybe soothe some of the butt hurt I've seen.
Tactical Reserves =/= Reinforcements all the time. The spirit of the rules is that stuff like GoI and Da Jump get effected by things which impact reinforcements(they even specifically FAQ'd to say this in at least one case). So this should hold too.
I just take that to mean those special rules get to interact with them as if they were performing that action. They are rules designed to counter something appearing right in front of you, therefore they get to do so against rules that follow a similar pattern?
I guess we'll have to have another clarification from them but I hold to my interpretation that it wouldn't impact GOI, Shunts or Da Jump.
blackmage wrote: and not only you cant DS everywhere turn one but you cant also use anymore powers like warptime to move as page 5 handbook FAQ states
To clairfy, you mean you can't use it on reinforcements/deep striking units correct? Because that's how I read what you're referencing. That seems to be a fair change.
Quickjager wrote: You know Iberian ham is only in salt for like 2 weeks yea?
Not, it doesnt, the minimun is 40 days and the maximun is two months based in the amount of fat the piece has, but I was trying to use a classic salty spanish food for the metaphor that everyone would know.
I know you are pissed but pay it with GW not with me.
BlackLobster wrote: The solution to not deep striking on the first turn is deep strike on second. Simples. It makes sense that players want to have at least one turn before they get hammered in assault.
"hammered in assault" it's almost like if they wanted to counter that, they could use bubble wrap, smart positioning, or just shoot the CC unit after it fails to make it points back in one turn of close combat. Also, deep striking turn two as grey knights is the equivalent of basically letting your army get cleaned off the table turn one so that you don't make it to turn two.
BlackLobster wrote: The solution to not deep striking on the first turn is deep strike on second. Simples. It makes sense that players want to have at least one turn before they get hammered in assault.
"hammered in assault" it's almost like if they wanted to counter that, they could use bubble wrap, smart positioning, or just shoot the CC unit after it fails to make it points back in one turn of close combat. Also, deep striking turn two as grey knights is the equivalent of basically letting your army get cleaned off the table turn one so that you don't make it to turn two.
How about players who want to get in at least one turn before getting SHOT OFF THE TABLE? Cause last I looked, gunline alpha strikes were a problem long before a blood angel captain could charge turn 1...and still are a problem.
Bharring wrote: For most armies, it takes a greater proportion of their army to drop 1 Pred than the proportion of the army it takes to take one pred. By a reasonably large margin. Preds aren't glass-canon.
I lose leman russ or two turn 1 pretty much every game. Now remind me. Was leman russ tougher or soften than predator?
If enemy has firepower to take out leman russ or two in T1 what chance do you think I would give predator to survive?
Crimson Devil wrote: They can still ally easily into an Imperium army. All you have to do is make a pure GK detachment of them.
Assuming you don't play with TFG. As usual GW's usual sloppy writing results in rule that could easily be read as every detachment needs to share keyword(imperium not usable). So GW's FAQ needs a FAQ.
No it really doesn't. You're letting your rage color your understanding.
And to be honest if you play against TFGs, than you deserve what you get.
Read it again. I have already seen that interpretation by several peoples. GW being GW...
Similar but slightly different option from the resident Blood Angels player.
The On Wings of Fire stratagem does work turn 1, and operates identically as GoI, with the stipulation that its a stratagem and requires the target unit have Jump Packs of course.
You move a unit that was already set up and place it anywhere on the battlefield outside of 9" from the enemy at the end of the movement phase.
This works the same in the beta rules because you're not placing the unit into reserves, but moving it in the movement phase.
Gate of Infinity seems to be the same only you're moving in the Psychic phase instead. At least that's my understanding.
Bharring wrote: Yeah, I was surprised by how "right" the points were when they got cleaned up. Loving the nerf to Reapers - just right.
Would you agree with this point:
Part of the value of Killshot, when you bring 3 Preds, is that the opponent may need to prioritize killing one of the Preds over something else. So if you lose a Pred and not something more important on top of 1, Killshot helped you out.
?
Not really.
Predators aren't cheap enough. You'd rather lose other things over your Predators.
Not that Bharring cares as the precious Prisms are still safe because you'd need to kill TWO of them rather than JUST one to make the Strategem go kaput. You know, the Strategem that's better than Killshot in the first place!
Red__Thirst wrote: Similar but slightly different option from the resident Blood Angels player.
The On Wings of Fire stratagem does work turn 1, and operates identically as GoI, with the stipulation that its a stratagem and requires the target unit have Jump Packs of course.
You move a unit that was already set up and place it anywhere on the battlefield outside of 9" from the enemy at the end of the movement phase.
This works the same in the beta rules because you're not placing the unit into reserves, but moving it in the movement phase.
Gate of Infinity seems to be the same only you're moving in the Psychic phase instead. At least that's my understanding.
Offering my thoughts. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
What's wording? Orks Da Jump says "remove from battlefield and then SET IT UP on the battlefield.
If identical no wings, no GK jump. If different then gee orks got shafted by having our da jump removed from T1 use while GK/blood angels don't.
These beta rules for deep strikes could mean gk demise.
We heavily relied on those turn one well placed charges as we haven’t got a good long range weapon( we have those in common with space marines but most of them have suffered because of how they used them) and because we should be a surgical elite army (similar to custodes but squishy)
It's Upon Wings of Fire, correction on the name, and also it's not at the end of the movement phase, but before moving a jump pack unit on the table.
Here's the exact wording:
Gate of infinity has a similar wording regarding being set up.
Here's the new deployment rules from the Community page.
Now a couple of key things to note here.
In the second paragraph it specifically notes the unit as Arriving on the tabletop and deploying those units (not setting up, deploying), meaning they have not been placed on the tabletop previously as units using GoI or Upon Wings of Fire both must be to use the psychic power or stratagem.
Also, the statement regarding the third paragraph noting that any units not deployed from reserve by the end of turn 3 are destroyed, and if using GoI or UWoF stratagem places units in reserve as some argue it would mean they are destroyed immediately if either is used. That's pants-on-head stupid if you're arguing that. They're abilities that allow for limited (one unit) additional movement and don't violate the new beta rule.
An example using the UWoF Strat.
-I use Forlorn Fury stratagem before the first turn of the game starts to move+advance my Death Company across the board. Then the game starts and the DC move a second time, landing within ~6" of an enemy unit.
-I then, in my movement phase prior to moving the model, use the Upon Wings of Fire stratagem to pick up my Lemartes model that had been deployed already and place it within 6" of the Death Company that already moved previously in the movement phase and also keep the model outside of 9" of any enemy models as well.
This does not violate the beta rules. Gate of infinity doesn't either. You can only target a single unit with it.
Red__Thirst wrote: It's Upon Wings of Fire, correction on the name, and also it's not at the end of the movement phase, but before moving a jump pack unit on the table.
Here's the exact wording:
Gate of infinity has a similar wording regarding being set up.
Here's the new deployment rules from the Community page.
Now a couple of key things to note here.
In the second paragraph it specifically notes the unit as Arriving on the tabletop and deploying those units (not setting up, deploying), meaning they have not been placed on the tabletop previously as units using GoI or Upon Wings of Fire both must be to use the psychic power or stratagem.
Also, the statement regarding the third paragraph noting that any units not deployed from reserve by the end of turn 3 are destroyed, and if using GoI or UWoF stratagem places units in reserve as some argue it would mean they are destroyed immediately if either is used. That's pants-on-head stupid if you're arguing that. They're abilities that allow for limited (one unit) additional movement and don't violate the new beta rule.
An example using the UWoF Strat.
-I use Forlorn Fury stratagem before the first turn of the game starts to move+advance my Death Company across the board. Then the game starts and the DC move a second time, landing within ~6" of an enemy unit.
-I then, in my movement phase prior to moving the model, use the Upon Wings of Fire stratagem to pick up my Lemartes model that had been deployed already and place it within 6" of the Death Company that already moved previously in the movement phase and also keep the model outside of 9" of any enemy models as well.
This does not violate the beta rules. Gate of infinity doesn't either. You can only target a single unit with it.
Just my view on it. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
The only problem with it is that with only one unit going up the table that unit will problem be dead by the end of the opponent turn( unless you are advancing a unit so worthless that it doesn’t metter, which is highly unlikely)
This is the big problem for the "UWoF/GoI/Da Jump isn't reinforcements" argument, from p. 6 of the Rulebook FAQ:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons? A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
"As if they are" and actually are, these are two very different things.
"As if they are" allows for stratagems like Ausex Scan or similar abilities to interact with the unit unit being teleported/moved on the tabletop. It doesn't mean they go into Reserves/Reinforcements.
How would you go about making a case for them not being treated exactly the same as a unit arriving as reinforcements? What criteria would you use to determine the ways in which they are treated the same (e.g. Auspex Scan), and the ways in which they are treated differently (e.g. not restricted to the deployment zone)?
I don't think they actually go into reserves either - but the rule requires that you treat them as though that's what's happening. I don't really see how you can pick and choose which "arriving as reinforcements" rules you apply and which you don't.
If you want to continue talking about Preds - especially Preds vs Prisms - you should really start a new thread.
Something like 'Do you need 4+ Preds to get any value out of Killshot' was the original question.
(I actually own only 1 Prism, because I find players enjoy the "One box of anything but troops/transports" army list more than "Spam this one thing plus tax". Same reason I only own 1 Pred. But lots of Tacs, Rhinos, and Razorbacks.)
kadeton wrote: How would you go about making a case for them not being treated exactly the same as a unit arriving as reinforcements? What criteria would you use to determine the ways in which they are treated the same (e.g. Auspex Scan), and the ways in which they are treated differently (e.g. not restricted to the deployment zone)?
I don't think they actually go into reserves either - but the rule requires that you treat them as though that's what's happening. I don't really see how you can pick and choose which "arriving as reinforcements" rules you apply and which you don't.
There is precedence that the word " arrives" refers to the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield in regards to the Tactical Reserves rule:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s
Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth
ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
That is from the FAQ for Index: Xenos 1. So there appears to be a state already that does not use all the reinforcement rules even for units that sped more than a few seconds off the table. The use of the word "arrives" in the beta rules seems to be important, and that FAQ answer shows that a unit has already arrived on the battlefield as long as they have been deployed previously. That is what would have happened in the case of GoI or Shunt.
That's a rule about being destroyed after Turn 3. That doesn't apply to a unit that you relocate... but you still have to treat them as arriving from reinforcements every time you relocate them. Just like you'd treat the Swooping Hawks as arriving from reinforcements when you place them back on the table.
Editing, because this is becoming a really common conflation: A unit that's relocated doesn't go into reserves! It doesn't have to worry about being destroyed after turn 3, because it's not in reserves. It just has to follow all the same rules and restrictions as a unit arriving from reserves when you put it back on the table.
I will be using that interpretation, makes sense specially because it would be idiotic GoI and Interceptor shunts being only usable on turn 2.
Rebasing my lists around inceptors now with GoI GMDK
kadeton wrote: How would you go about making a case for them not being treated exactly the same as a unit arriving as reinforcements? What criteria would you use to determine the ways in which they are treated the same (e.g. Auspex Scan), and the ways in which they are treated differently (e.g. not restricted to the deployment zone)?
I don't think they actually go into reserves either - but the rule requires that you treat them as though that's what's happening. I don't really see how you can pick and choose which "arriving as reinforcements" rules you apply and which you don't.
There is precedence that the word " arrives" refers to the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield in regards to the Tactical Reserves rule:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s
Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth
ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
That is from the FAQ for Index: Xenos 1. So there appears to be a state already that does not use all the reinforcement rules even for units that sped more than a few seconds off the table. The use of the word "arrives" in the beta rules seems to be important, and that FAQ answer shows that a unit has already arrived on the battlefield as long as they have been deployed previously. That is what would have happened in the case of GoI or Shunt.
That is Tactical Reserves not Reinforcements. They are NOT the same.
I'm carrying a post over from another thread to here, but it's very relevant. Thoughts?
DarthDiggler wrote: On page 172 of my digital edition it says every GK psykers gains Brotherhood of Psykers so every single one of them, including characters, smites on a 5.
I know I’m going to get attacked for this, but just in case someone with an open mind is reading.......
I think the reason people have trouble winning with GK is because they are deep striking turn 1. Why would you deep strike when the enemy screens are still up?
GK can’t screen the enemy so no DS T1 and no movement out of DS helps GK much more than it hurts them. Your backfield will be safe T1 as long as you have LOS blocking terrain.
Horde lists took a hit with the lose of poxwalkers and Tide of Traitors only allowed to be used once. Less horde helps GK.
Shining Spears will not be able to deploy out of DS, soul burst and assault. That helps GK.
Dark Reapers are more expensive and won’t be able to Fire and Fade into a Wave Serpent. That helps GK.
Fire Raptors are 90pts more. That helps GK.
Tyrant Spam is gone. That helps GK.
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
As long as you can hide a Rhino(s) size T1 you should survive T1 and use smoke to move up, then drop on T2 freely. Remember Scions aren’t coming down T1. Obliterators aren’t coming down T1. You don’t need to come down to kill Poxwalkers before they get their abilities up.
I’m not saying you will roll up to the table with GK and sleepwalk through 5 wins, but the competitive separation has definitely been shrunk because of what other armies can’t do anymore.
fe40k wrote: Grey Knights aren't dead; 40k is dead.
It's that simple - go Astra Militarum gunline, or go home.
And in less than 12 months with a FULL RESET.
THIS IS THE EDITION WE ASKED FOR!!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm carrying a post over from another thread to here, but it's very relevant. Thoughts?
DarthDiggler wrote: On page 172 of my digital edition it says every GK psykers gains Brotherhood of Psykers so every single one of them, including characters, smites on a 5.
I know I’m going to get attacked for this, but just in case someone with an open mind is reading.......
I think the reason people have trouble winning with GK is because they are deep striking turn 1. Why would you deep strike when the enemy screens are still up?
GK can’t screen the enemy so no DS T1 and no movement out of DS helps GK much more than it hurts them. Your backfield will be safe T1 as long as you have LOS blocking terrain.
Horde lists took a hit with the lose of poxwalkers and Tide of Traitors only allowed to be used once. Less horde helps GK.
Shining Spears will not be able to deploy out of DS, soul burst and assault. That helps GK.
Dark Reapers are more expensive and won’t be able to Fire and Fade into a Wave Serpent. That helps GK.
Fire Raptors are 90pts more. That helps GK.
Tyrant Spam is gone. That helps GK.
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
As long as you can hide a Rhino(s) size T1 you should survive T1 and use smoke to move up, then drop on T2 freely. Remember Scions aren’t coming down T1. Obliterators aren’t coming down T1. You don’t need to come down to kill Poxwalkers before they get their abilities up.
I’m not saying you will roll up to the table with GK and sleepwalk through 5 wins, but the competitive separation has definitely been shrunk because of what other armies can’t do anymore.
This list is laughable. It just shows how far behind gk were but also highlights just how stupidly out of whack 8th has become in less than 12 months.
kadeton wrote: How would you go about making a case for them not being treated exactly the same as a unit arriving as reinforcements? What criteria would you use to determine the ways in which they are treated the same (e.g. Auspex Scan), and the ways in which they are treated differently (e.g. not restricted to the deployment zone)?
I don't think they actually go into reserves either - but the rule requires that you treat them as though that's what's happening. I don't really see how you can pick and choose which "arriving as reinforcements" rules you apply and which you don't.
There is precedence that the word " arrives" refers to the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield in regards to the Tactical Reserves rule:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s
Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth
ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
That is from the FAQ for Index: Xenos 1. So there appears to be a state already that does not use all the reinforcement rules even for units that sped more than a few seconds off the table. The use of the word "arrives" in the beta rules seems to be important, and that FAQ answer shows that a unit has already arrived on the battlefield as long as they have been deployed previously. That is what would have happened in the case of GoI or Shunt.
That is Tactical Reserves not Reinforcements. They are NOT the same.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults
unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn
begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
The rule you are claiming stops GoI and Shunting IS the Tactical Reserve Rule. The destroyed after turn 3 and these restrictions are part of the same rule. They both refer to units arriving on the battle field. We have evidence that arriving is the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield, not everytime it is set up. This is all I need to feel comfortable that this is RAI with enough RAW support.
I won't convince you of this clearly. You can use any interpretation you want until this gets an official answer. I have emailed GW to get one, and I hope everyone else does instead of moping around or getting pointlessly angry with each other.
kadeton wrote: How would you go about making a case for them not being treated exactly the same as a unit arriving as reinforcements? What criteria would you use to determine the ways in which they are treated the same (e.g. Auspex Scan), and the ways in which they are treated differently (e.g. not restricted to the deployment zone)?
I don't think they actually go into reserves either - but the rule requires that you treat them as though that's what's happening. I don't really see how you can pick and choose which "arriving as reinforcements" rules you apply and which you don't.
There is precedence that the word " arrives" refers to the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield in regards to the Tactical Reserves rule:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s
Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth
ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
That is from the FAQ for Index: Xenos 1. So there appears to be a state already that does not use all the reinforcement rules even for units that sped more than a few seconds off the table. The use of the word "arrives" in the beta rules seems to be important, and that FAQ answer shows that a unit has already arrived on the battlefield as long as they have been deployed previously. That is what would have happened in the case of GoI or Shunt.
That is Tactical Reserves not Reinforcements. They are NOT the same.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults
unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn
begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
The rule you are claiming stops GoI and Shunting IS the Tactical Reserve Rule. The destroyed after turn 3 and these restrictions are part of the same rule. They both refer to units arriving on the battle field. We have evidence that arriving is the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield, not everytime it is set up. This is all I need to feel comfortable that this is RAI with enough RAW support.
I won't convince you of this clearly. You can use any interpretation you want until this gets an official answer. I have emailed GW to get one, and I hope everyone else does instead of moping around or getting pointlessly angry with each other.
No, no it's not the rule I'm claiming. The rule I'm claiming is on pg. 177 of the Rulebook. This is also the rule that gives you a -1 to Hit on your GMDK's after using Gate.
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlfield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot mvoe or Advance further during the turn they arrive - their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield - but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, e.t.c.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has nt arrived on the battlefield by the end f the battle counts as having been destroyed.
Red__Thirst wrote: It's Upon Wings of Fire, correction on the name, and also it's not at the end of the movement phase, but before moving a jump pack unit on the table.
Here's the exact wording:
Gate of infinity has a similar wording regarding being set up.
Here's the new deployment rules from the Community page.
Now a couple of key things to note here.
In the second paragraph it specifically notes the unit as Arriving on the tabletop and deploying those units (not setting up, deploying), meaning they have not been placed on the tabletop previously as units using GoI or Upon Wings of Fire both must be to use the psychic power or stratagem.
Also, the statement regarding the third paragraph noting that any units not deployed from reserve by the end of turn 3 are destroyed, and if using GoI or UWoF stratagem places units in reserve as some argue it would mean they are destroyed immediately if either is used. That's pants-on-head stupid if you're arguing that. They're abilities that allow for limited (one unit) additional movement and don't violate the new beta rule.
An example using the UWoF Strat.
-I use Forlorn Fury stratagem before the first turn of the game starts to move+advance my Death Company across the board. Then the game starts and the DC move a second time, landing within ~6" of an enemy unit.
-I then, in my movement phase prior to moving the model, use the Upon Wings of Fire stratagem to pick up my Lemartes model that had been deployed already and place it within 6" of the Death Company that already moved previously in the movement phase and also keep the model outside of 9" of any enemy models as well.
This does not violate the beta rules. Gate of infinity doesn't either. You can only target a single unit with it.
Just my view on it. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
^ this
A very good interpretation of the faq rules, backed up by actual rules quotes.
kadeton wrote: How would you go about making a case for them not being treated exactly the same as a unit arriving as reinforcements? What criteria would you use to determine the ways in which they are treated the same (e.g. Auspex Scan), and the ways in which they are treated differently (e.g. not restricted to the deployment zone)?
I don't think they actually go into reserves either - but the rule requires that you treat them as though that's what's happening. I don't really see how you can pick and choose which "arriving as reinforcements" rules you apply and which you don't.
There is precedence that the word " arrives" refers to the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield in regards to the Tactical Reserves rule:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s
Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the
third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule
mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the
battlefield before the end of the third battle round in
order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth
ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it
had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it
would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to
the Tactical Reserves rule.
That is from the FAQ for Index: Xenos 1. So there appears to be a state already that does not use all the reinforcement rules even for units that sped more than a few seconds off the table. The use of the word "arrives" in the beta rules seems to be important, and that FAQ answer shows that a unit has already arrived on the battlefield as long as they have been deployed previously. That is what would have happened in the case of GoI or Shunt.
That is Tactical Reserves not Reinforcements. They are NOT the same.
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults
unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn
begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.
The rule you are claiming stops GoI and Shunting IS the Tactical Reserve Rule. The destroyed after turn 3 and these restrictions are part of the same rule. They both refer to units arriving on the battle field. We have evidence that arriving is the first time a unit is set up on the battlefield, not everytime it is set up. This is all I need to feel comfortable that this is RAI with enough RAW support.
I won't convince you of this clearly. You can use any interpretation you want until this gets an official answer. I have emailed GW to get one, and I hope everyone else does instead of moping around or getting pointlessly angry with each other.
My only problem with this interpretation is the fact that in the actual faq rule it mentions units being deployed from elsewhere (teleportariums, high orbit, etc). If a unit is already deployed on the battlefield how does "Tactical Reserves" affect them?
We have a similar discussion going on in the Ork thread.
For those who believe that Gate of Infinity or Upon Wings of Fire etc must adhere to the beta Tactical Reserves rule consider these points;
1. When embarked in a transport the units are "removed from the battlefield". Does that mean they are destroyed in turn 4 if they haven't disembarked or if they embark? Does it also mean that units can't disembark outside of their deployment zone turn 1?
2. With regards to certain FAQ answers - please be aware that these responses only relate to their particular question. You cannot and should not infer other meanings from them unless they are explicitly stated. The FAQ response around Auspex Scan for example does not prove that unit's moved by a psychic power are Tactical Reserves, only that they can be shot by Auspex Scan. The same applies to the ruling on Heavy Weapons, this only tells us how firing heavy weapons interacts with such movement and nothing else.
3. As per another question in the FAQ, if a unit has a psychic power cast on it, it must, by definition, have already arrived on the battlefield (or the power could not be cast).
GK players - keep calm and slay daemons until a clarification is made available. Anyone with a lick of common sense would allow you to use GOI to move within charge distance. GW will sort it.
Personally, I don't think GK are 'dead'. In fact I think this FAQ helped them.
Actually you don't want to kill daemons with GK. Weaken them with GK, then kill with something other than GK. Or the daemons just come back.
Further, putting units in deep strike based on points versus model count is a disaster for GK.
This FAQ was a nail in the coffin for GK. They aren't even viable in a soup based scenario. You could bring a patrol with a GMNDK so you could Gate the GMNDK turn 1 if indeed that's how it works, but do you really want to lose 300 points just to say you did a turn 1 DS?
Marmatag wrote: Actually you don't want to kill daemons with GK. Weaken them with GK, then kill with something other than GK. Or the daemons just come back.
Further, putting units in deep strike based on points versus model count is a disaster for GK.
This FAQ was a nail in the coffin for GK. They aren't even viable in a soup based scenario. You could bring a patrol with a GMNDK so you could Gate the GMNDK turn 1 if indeed that's how it works, but do you really want to lose 300 points just to say you did a turn 1 DS?
See, I thought the daemon strategem was the final nail in the coffin for them. If nothing else, GW has proven endlessly capable of finding new places in the coffin to practice their nail driving techniques.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 1. When embarked in a transport the units are "removed from the battlefield". Does that mean they are destroyed in turn 4 if they haven't disembarked or if they embark? Does it also mean that units can't disembark outside of their deployment zone turn 1?
No. Embarking in a transport is not the same as going into tactical reserves, and nothing tells you to treat it like going into tactical reserves. There's no reason to apply the tactical reserves rule to transports, or any other effect that removes units from the battlefield, unless you're specifically told to treat those units like they're going into tactical reserves.
It's worth noting that relocation effects that remove a unit and place it somewhere else are also not putting that unit into tactical reserves. All that you're told to do is apply the same restrictions when placing them. Being destroyed after turn 3 is not part of the placement restrictions.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 2. With regards to certain FAQ answers - please be aware that these responses only relate to their particular question. You cannot and should not infer other meanings from them unless they are explicitly stated. The FAQ response around Auspex Scan for example does not prove that unit's moved by a psychic power are Tactical Reserves, only that they can be shot by Auspex Scan. The same applies to the ruling on Heavy Weapons, this only tells us how firing heavy weapons interacts with such movement and nothing else.
3. As per another question in the FAQ, if a unit has a psychic power cast on it, it must, by definition, have already arrived on the battlefield (or the power could not be cast).
I mean... do you even hear yourself? You literally just said "You cannot and should not infer other meanings from [FAQ rulings]," and then said "As per another question in the FAQ..."
So which is it? Are we referencing other questions that tell you how to treat these units in similar situations, or not? You can't just pick and choose the FAQs that you agree with to support your argument, and ignore the ones that clearly and unambiguously contradict it.
I’m sure Reece will be around soon to tell us that we just haven’t been playing the army right and this beta rule actually helps GK because other armies can’t deepstrike on us.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 1. When embarked in a transport the units are "removed from the battlefield". Does that mean they are destroyed in turn 4 if they haven't disembarked or if they embark? Does it also mean that units can't disembark outside of their deployment zone turn 1?
No. Embarking in a transport is not the same as going into tactical reserves, and nothing tells you to treat it like going into tactical reserves. There's no reason to apply the tactical reserves rule to transports, or any other effect that removes units from the battlefield, unless you're specifically told to treat those units like they're going into tactical reserves.
It's worth noting that relocation effects that remove a unit and place it somewhere else are also not putting that unit into tactical reserves. All that you're told to do is apply the same restrictions when placing them. Being destroyed after turn 3 is not part of the placement restrictions.
You treat them like tactical reserves for some rules but not others, got it. You're told to apply those rules with regards firing heavy weapons only. That's what the FAQ tells you. Nothing more.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 2. With regards to certain FAQ answers - please be aware that these responses only relate to their particular question. You cannot and should not infer other meanings from them unless they are explicitly stated. The FAQ response around Auspex Scan for example does not prove that unit's moved by a psychic power are Tactical Reserves, only that they can be shot by Auspex Scan. The same applies to the ruling on Heavy Weapons, this only tells us how firing heavy weapons interacts with such movement and nothing else.
3. As per another question in the FAQ, if a unit has a psychic power cast on it, it must, by definition, have already arrived on the battlefield (or the power could not be cast).
I mean... do you even hear yourself? You literally just said "You cannot and should not infer other meanings from [FAQ rulings]," and then said "As per another question in the FAQ..."
So which is it? Are we referencing other questions that tell you how to treat these units in similar situations, or not? You can't just pick and choose the FAQs that you agree with to support your argument, and ignore the ones that clearly and unambiguously contradict it.
Well where I reference the FAQ it is in direct response to a question that explicitly and clearly answers something. I'm not inferring meaning from this and using it for something else. It quite literally says that you can only cast a power on a unit that is already on the board. I'm not taking this to mean anything but that. If a unit is on the board is it in tactical reserves? Really? I'll let you make your own mind.
greyknight12 wrote: I’m sure Reece will be around soon to tell us that we just haven’t been playing the army right and this beta rule actually helps GK because other armies can’t deepstrike on us.
I see Reece is the new Matt Ward. Always need that boogeyman!
greyknight12 wrote: I’m sure Reece will be around soon to tell us that we just haven’t been playing the army right and this beta rule actually helps GK because other armies can’t deepstrike on us.
I see Reece is the new Matt Ward. Always need that boogeyman!
I mean the dude literally designs missions around the army he wants to play, and he directly said Grey Knights players were playing their army wrong. I'm livid FOR Grey Knights players for him being so dismissive of the problems of the codex.
greyknight12 wrote: I’m sure Reece will be around soon to tell us that we just haven’t been playing the army right and this beta rule actually helps GK because other armies can’t deepstrike on us.
I see Reece is the new Matt Ward. Always need that boogeyman!
BE CAREFUL! IF YOU SAY HIS NAME THREE TIMES, HE'LL APPEAR AND NERF YOUR ARMY!
greyknight12 wrote: I’m sure Reece will be around soon to tell us that we just haven’t been playing the army right and this beta rule actually helps GK because other armies can’t deepstrike on us.
I see Reece is the new Matt Ward. Always need that boogeyman!
After the beta smite rules (+1 each cast) came out he told me in another thread how GK actually got better because of that nerf, cause we won’t take as much damage from enemy smite (when every unit we have already denied it with a +1) and telling us that most of the problems GK are having are due to how they play the army.
And except for that bit of fluff about the sisters in 5th, GK players generally like Matt Ward
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: he directly said Grey Knights players were playing their army wrong. I'm livid FOR Grey Knights players for him being so dismissive of the problems of the codex.
This is spot on. It was a really absurd set of comments he made, and pretty clearly explains why GK are absolute garbage.
Crimson Devil wrote: So he has a different opinion on how to play GKs. That is certainly a reason to hate him.
It isn't just saying he would play them different. He is saying you were playing them wrong and that allies were available to use.
I understand that. And I also understand you all are seeking validation for hating him.
Ehh, you're reaching here. His comment was worse than some people on this very forum made/make and they get flamed for theirs. He doesn't get a fire shield just for being a 40k celebrity.
Crimson Devil wrote: So he has a different opinion on how to play GKs. That is certainly a reason to hate him.
It isn't just saying he would play them different. He is saying you were playing them wrong and that allies were available to use.
What happens is that as you ally on more good stuff to cover for grey Knights problems, you inevitably realize greyknights suck at everything, and at that point you might as well play guard.
I'm not giving him a pass. If you guys want to waste your time raging about it. You can join the legion of T'au conspiracy theorists, and the butthurt Blood Angels, and all the others who decided because he said something silly about your precious army he is the worst human being ever.
I'm entirely curious as to how our much despised celebrity friend [are there really celebrities in 40k?] thinks the army should be played.
I'm at a loss, and there's usually something nice I can find to say about armies.
He said the proper way to play GK is with AM allies, and that playing pure GK lists is the “wrong way to play”. He also said that GK should not be using Smite more than once or twice a turn, as they have other more useful powers to use instead. Not sure why anyone that plays GK in 8th would not have gotten a bit pissed off at being told that their army isn’t design to be an army, it’s designed to be a flavor element to a another more useful army. That’s not only a comment on bad game design, that’s a comment on bad community support.
It's a guy helping run big events with missions that cater to the army he wants to play, and then tells Grey Knights players in the Community they're playing their army wrong and to ally in an army he likes to play.
The reason why it matters is because GW has stated that they take the input of various TOs into heavy consideration when designing the rules. Reece Robbins, as the frontman for Frontline Gaming has had inputs into the rules...we've seen suggestions from their forums/podcasts end up as rules and one could argue that FLG's contribution is the biggest since ITC is such a major ruleset and used by several larger GTs. So when someone who is in effect a "rules writer" shows an ignorance about how an army functions and that same army gets crippled by back-to-back rules changes while his/her favorite army gets an extremely fluffy and powerful codex (and now a set of FAQs that make them better) it puts them in the same boat as any selfish/ignorant GW rules writer. The difference is that they should (and claim to) know the competitive scene better than GW.
There was an infamous statement by a rules writer regarding T-sons a few editions ago: "an army with two wounds has a lot going for it" (spoiler: it didn't). Reece's comment that the smite change helped GK is on the same level.
Crimson Devil wrote: So you're conflating his role in the process in order to validate your rage. If it was say Phil Kelley, or Alan Crudence I could sympathize with you.
You guys are blaming the equipment manager for an interception your quarterback threw.
If the equipment manager was buying gak gloves or a ball you'd be able to blame them, right?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: he directly said Grey Knights players were playing their army wrong. I'm livid FOR Grey Knights players for him being so dismissive of the problems of the codex.
This is spot on. It was a really absurd set of comments he made, and pretty clearly explains why GK are absolute garbage.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: he directly said Grey Knights players were playing their army wrong. I'm livid FOR Grey Knights players for him being so dismissive of the problems of the codex.
This is spot on. It was a really absurd set of comments he made, and pretty clearly explains why GK are absolute garbage.
Does he have any sway over the GW balance team?
All we know is he was one of the beta rules tester (that GW used to make the Indices) and might still give feedback to GW as an ongoing rules tester. I think he might've said he also made suggestions for the Astra Militarum Codex directly but I can't remember that last part.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: he directly said Grey Knights players were playing their army wrong. I'm livid FOR Grey Knights players for him being so dismissive of the problems of the codex.
This is spot on. It was a really absurd set of comments he made, and pretty clearly explains why GK are absolute garbage.
Does he have any sway over the GW balance team?
Reece and Frankie, as well as many other TOs (NOVA, AdeptiCon, etc) are on the playtest team. And they have worked on all of the codexes and Beta rules to date, according to my understanding. How the playtests are actually done and how feedback works is unknown because of NDAs. So unless GW decides to tell us how much influence any given Playtester has, it's all speculation and rumor.
If I remember correctly Reece's comments on Grey Knights were along the lines of this "In the current meta, to play GK effectively and competitively they should be played as an allied force to another army. Probably one that can provide a screen that GK lack, such as Guard."
As I understood his comments were entirely regarding how to play GK successfully (in his opinion) in the current competitive setting.
Let's not make it something it isn't. There's no need to demonize someone who has undoubtedly done a ton of good for the game and community. It's weird that it happens at all, this singling out of one individual who happens to do a video cast every week.
The playtesters are just that. They don't tell GW what to do and I suspect their level of influence is extremely low.
If you want a real reason for the way GK are now you need look no further than Custodes. GW obviously wanted them to be the elite army of choice and their resource in terms of rules writing went to them.
Indont think GK are dead but they just got smacked with the Nerf bat. It will be a uphill struggle to win. I think the CP increase is nice but it gives IG a massive advantage.
That was an unfortunate way to word the question. Of course it's usable, everyone agrees with that, the question is whether it let's you leave your deployment zone.
I dont think GK are dead but they just got smacked with the Nerf bat. It will be a uphill struggle to win. I think the CP increase is nice but it gives IG a massive advantage.
Ecclesiarch 616 wrote: I dont think GK are dead but they just got smacked with the Nerf bat. It will be a uphill struggle to win. I think the CP increase is nice but it gives IG a massive advantage.
The worst army in the game got nerfed harder than anyone else by the change. The only thing that could make us worse at this point is if they literally made us unplayable.
This reminds me of the discussions we had around if Grey Knights could use the additional powers added in 7th edition. The community page said everyone can use them, and "they are for everybody," and went on to explicitly state other factions could use them.
However, this very community argued that it wasn't a rule, so even if the warhammer community response is accurate in what you believe it says, you won't convince everyone here that it's a valid source for rules information anyway. This solves nothing.
And Grey Knights players have every right to be salty. The idea that you can't play an elite army without AM support would be fine but then you have Custodes. Custodes really feel like a "lessons learned" army that was made after they observed Grey Knights failing badly.
Barring all of that salt, at the end of the day, it's just fundamentally not good for Grey Knights to be as bad as they are. This "Big FAQ" was an opportunity to address their horrible issues, but nothing was done. It's unfortunate but that's how it goes.
With the new deep strike rule, a lot of people I know are just shelving their miniatures until it goes away. Grey Knights were already horrible, and this makes them even worse.
It seems the deep strike nerf was suposed to nerf deep striking shooting alpha strikes. Deep striking assault units still had the 9" hurdle to clear.. but they were an unintended causality. Maybe better described as a victim of circumstance. Deep striking assault oriented units were not a problem. Deep striking a unit that could shoot half your gak off the table was. I would ASSUME they will fix this in the official FAQ as these are still just BETA rules. Maybe some penalty to shooting after deep strike to simulate the unit gathering there bearings after being teleported/dropped from orbit.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: It seems the deep strike nerf was suposed to nerf deep striking shooting alpha strikes. Deep striking assault units still had the 9" hurdle to clear.. but they were an unintended causality. Maybe better described as a victim of circumstance. Deep striking assault oriented units were not a problem. Deep striking a unit that could shoot half your gak off the table was. I would ASSUME they will fix this in the official FAQ as these are still just BETA rules. Maybe some penalty to shooting after deep strike to simulate the unit gathering there bearings after being teleported/dropped from orbit.
You can deep strike anywhere but when shooting, a roll of 6 is required to hit, like overwatch, and cannot be modified.
To be fair, assault units can suffer a similar penalty, where they need a 9+ on 2D6 to charge successfully, as that is incredibly difficult to achieve with any reliability.
An Actual Englishman wrote: If I remember correctly Reece's comments on Grey Knights were along the lines of this "In the current meta, to play GK effectively and competitively they should be played as an allied force to another army. Probably one that can provide a screen that GK lack, such as Guard."
As I understood his comments were entirely regarding how to play GK successfully (in his opinion) in the current competitive setting.
Let's not make it something it isn't. There's no need to demonize someone who has undoubtedly done a ton of good for the game and community. It's weird that it happens at all, this singling out of one individual who happens to do a video cast every week.
The playtesters are just that. They don't tell GW what to do and I suspect their level of influence is extremely low.
If you want a real reason for the way GK are now you need look no further than Custodes. GW obviously wanted them to be the elite army of choice and their resource in terms of rules writing went to them.
I'm dragging the comments over here for people who don't want to bother and read them, because many people above misrepresented the tone and intention of Reece's comments by a good mile.
But, it may feel like a nerf but in our experience it isn't, particularly for GK. If you were relying on their baby smite to win games you were probably doing something wrong (not to be rude). We use GK loads here and rarely even cast their smite unless playing Daemons, of course.
And, in reverse, it means you are getting hit with less Smites which for an army like GK is actually a big deal as you are so low model count. It helps you more than hurts you in that scenario.
Most successful, competitive GK players use lots of Strikes, sometimes Dreadknight Grand Masters and Interceptors but not always, moderate character support, and deep strike in using things like Astra Aim and Psilencers to lay down a boatload of multi-damage firepower. Same goes with their Devastator squad (the name of which escapes me).
If you play them with a detachment of say, Astra Militarum to compliment them, they work very well together. Playing pure GK is very challenging but that is not because they aren't good, just because they (like most elite armies) lack some of the essential tools you need to succeed in the hyper-aggressive 8th ed competitive meta. You have to be able to screen effectively, and elite armies by their nature aren;t good at that unless they have a hyper-durable unit like Bullgryn, or some Nurgle units that can take a vicious punch.
Lacking that, you are just waiting to get alpha struck out of a tournament. That is why GK struggle and why they can be tough to play pure in a competitive setting.
They have amazing units and elements to them, but their 1 damage smite is certainly not a cornerstone of their competitive strategy. Their other powers are better by a mile. The baby smite is something you do when you don't have anything else to do, not something you rely on to win games.
I didn't say GK couldn't play as a stand alone army nor did I mean to imply it.
What I was trying to say was that if you want to compete at the highest level, playing ANY army pure that doesn't have effective screening mechanisms is playing on hard mode. GK are one of these.
They play just fine on their own in 8th and even competitively, in most games in a tournament, you'll do fine with pure GK. However, at the upper level of competitive play, they (and any army without effective screens) is vulnerable to alpha strike shooting/melee armies. It just is what it is, to compete you have to make some concessions in any list. I just used AM as an example, you can do it with Scouts too, or whatever.
And trust me, lol, I work my ass off to try and do whatever I can to help bring balance to the game. My (and all the play testers) efforts are just not always evident.
Worst army is by far Corsairs, since the only way to run the army after the FAQ is to take 3 Auxiliary Support Detachments of Troops, and then run out of detachment slots.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: It seems the deep strike nerf was suposed to nerf deep striking shooting alpha strikes. Deep striking assault units still had the 9" hurdle to clear.. but they were an unintended causality. Maybe better described as a victim of circumstance. Deep striking assault oriented units were not a problem. Deep striking a unit that could shoot half your gak off the table was. I would ASSUME they will fix this in the official FAQ as these are still just BETA rules. Maybe some penalty to shooting after deep strike to simulate the unit gathering there bearings after being teleported/dropped from orbit.
You can deep strike anywhere but when shooting, a roll of 6 is required to hit, like overwatch, and cannot be modified.
To be fair, assault units can suffer a similar penalty, where they need a 9+ on 2D6 to charge successfully, as that is incredibly difficult to achieve with any reliability.
I think this is a FANTASTIC idea. Assaulting from deep strike already has a low probability (28%). A penalty for shooting should have a similar penalty. And using a mechanic in the game (overwatch) is a neat way to do it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Worst army is by far Corsairs, since the only way to run the army after the FAQ is to take 3 Auxiliary Support Detachments of Troops, and then run out of detachment slots.
Not sure how much I would want to include Index armies, but sure we can say Inquisition and Corsairs are worse off.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Worst army is by far Corsairs, since the only way to run the army after the FAQ is to take 3 Auxiliary Support Detachments of Troops, and then run out of detachment slots.
Not sure how much I would want to include Index armies, but sure we can say Inquisition and Corsairs are worse off.
Well what do you define as an army? At least 1 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Heavy, 1 Fast Attack, and 1 Elite available? Or just HQ? Just troop?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Worst army is by far Corsairs, since the only way to run the army after the FAQ is to take 3 Auxiliary Support Detachments of Troops, and then run out of detachment slots.
Not sure how much I would want to include Index armies, but sure we can say Inquisition and Corsairs are worse off.
Well what do you define as an army? At least 1 HQ, 1 Troop, 1 Heavy, 1 Fast Attack, and 1 Elite available? Or just HQ? Just troop?
Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition. Unsure how to tackle that definition but I'm of the mind that, for the most part, the Codices have helped at least.
While I don't consider the 3 floating inquisitors an army...
Deathwatch is probably worse than GK. However, GK has their codex, and deathwatch does not, which means Deathwatch has space to move ahead.
Speaking on Inquisition, I consider GK, SoB, and Deathwatch to be "Inquisition", and the 3 free-floating Inquisitor models to be kind of homeless floating people without an army who really should be part of Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, and Xenohunters. Alternatively, because we're all short on options, we could all just be "Inquisition" together, which would probably solve a great many problems.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition.
The army has been spread far and wide, reliant on some creative souping to field what was once a single faction. But the pieces are still there.
Much of this problem comes down to GW forgetting the faction while tagging things up. GK should have been tagged <ORDO MALLEUS>, deathwatch <ORDO XENOS>, and sisters <ORDO HERETICUS>. Then all they would have needed to do is give the scions the option to trade their regiment for ORDO/quarry and tag up a few WH/DH strays like the death cultist/crusader.
Instead the inquisitors can't even be fielded in a detachment with the models they were sold boxed with. Certainly trumps 'my army is dead because I can't deepstrike assault on turn 1' and 'my army is dead because I can't get more than two saves against every wound' IMHO.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition.
The army has been spread far and wide, reliant on some creative souping to field what was once a single faction. But the pieces are still there.
Much of this problem comes down to GW forgetting the faction while tagging things up. GK should have been tagged <ORDO MALLEUS>, deathwatch <ORDO XENOS>, and sisters <ORDO HERETICUS>. Then all they would have needed to do is give the scions the option to trade their regiment for ORDO/quarry and tag up a few WH/DH strays like the death cultist/crusader.
Instead the inquisitors can't even be fielded in a detachment with the models they were sold boxed with. Certainly trumps 'my army is dead because I can't deepstrike assault on turn 1' and 'my army is dead because I can't get more than two saves against every wound' IMHO.
I agree that the setup for the Xhunters Codices was solid (and with the amount of units available for the militant organizations you'd have some solid choices to make several lists) but what's done is done. One thing 6th/7th did right though was how easily you could throw even a single Inquisitor in your list without breaking anything
Marmatag wrote: This reminds me of the discussions we had around if Grey Knights could use the additional powers added in 7th edition. The community page said everyone can use them, and "they are for everybody," and went on to explicitly state other factions could use them.
However, this very community argued that it wasn't a rule, so even if the warhammer community response is accurate in what you believe it says, you won't convince everyone here that it's a valid source for rules information anyway. This solves nothing.
Well seeing warhammer community themselves notes they are not official source of rule answers....They are basically suggestions hired guy from GW comes up. Unlikely even to have consulted rule developers. Most likely just looked up what rules say and gave answer based on what he thought was.
As it is assuming rule CAN be found correct answer the you make da call section here is more likely to give you official answer to rule question as the questions there go through quite a search with relevant rule quotes pulled up so answer comes strictly from the rulebook. Assuming it's unclear rule to begin with(like this) at which point it goes to HIWPI which is what warhammer community answers are as well. Certainly not official so player treating them as such is mistreating them even against their wishesh.
As of now, I don't think GK has different brotherhoods, and I don't think Deathwatch will have sub-organizations. Only the Sisters have different Orders.
Ordo Malleus, Ordo Xenos, and Ordo Hereticus would have worked far better.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition.
The army has been spread far and wide, reliant on some creative souping to field what was once a single faction. But the pieces are still there.
Much of this problem comes down to GW forgetting the faction while tagging things up. GK should have been tagged <ORDO MALLEUS>, deathwatch <ORDO XENOS>, and sisters <ORDO HERETICUS>. Then all they would have needed to do is give the scions the option to trade their regiment for ORDO/quarry and tag up a few WH/DH strays like the death cultist/crusader.
Instead the inquisitors can't even be fielded in a detachment with the models they were sold boxed with. Certainly trumps 'my army is dead because I can't deepstrike assault on turn 1' and 'my army is dead because I can't get more than two saves against every wound' IMHO.
This has pretty much always been my dream. Alas, I fear its never meant to be.
Deathwatch have access to Primaris and therefore will blow Grey Knights out of the water effortlessly, codex or no codex. Also they have better psykers because they get real librarians.
Death watch are strictly superior in an army vs army fight.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition.
The army has been spread far and wide, reliant on some creative souping to field what was once a single faction. But the pieces are still there.
Much of this problem comes down to GW forgetting the faction while tagging things up. GK should have been tagged <ORDO MALLEUS>, deathwatch <ORDO XENOS>, and sisters <ORDO HERETICUS>. Then all they would have needed to do is give the scions the option to trade their regiment for ORDO/quarry and tag up a few WH/DH strays like the death cultist/crusader.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition.
The army has been spread far and wide, reliant on some creative souping to field what was once a single faction. But the pieces are still there.
Much of this problem comes down to GW forgetting the faction while tagging things up. GK should have been tagged <ORDO MALLEUS>, deathwatch <ORDO XENOS>, and sisters <ORDO HERETICUS>. Then all they would have needed to do is give the scions the option to trade their regiment for ORDO/quarry and tag up a few WH/DH strays like the death cultist/crusader.
I’ve wanted this so bad since 7th ed.
They could easily make special rules in the Imperial Agents codex to allow that kind of thing. Genestealer cults have "Brood Brothers" which lets them take AM detachments despite not having shared keywords.
Example:
Grey Knights units may take the <Ordo Malleus> keyword when sharing the same detachment as an <Ordo Malleus> inquisitor.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think Inquisition only has a couple of Elite choices like for last edition.
The army has been spread far and wide, reliant on some creative souping to field what was once a single faction. But the pieces are still there.
Much of this problem comes down to GW forgetting the faction while tagging things up. GK should have been tagged <ORDO MALLEUS>, deathwatch <ORDO XENOS>, and sisters <ORDO HERETICUS>. Then all they would have needed to do is give the scions the option to trade their regiment for ORDO/quarry and tag up a few WH/DH strays like the death cultist/crusader.
Instead the inquisitors can't even be fielded in a detachment with the models they were sold boxed with. Certainly trumps 'my army is dead because I can't deepstrike assault on turn 1' and 'my army is dead because I can't get more than two saves against every wound' IMHO.
This has pretty much always been my dream. Alas, I fear its never meant to be.
GK have 8 different brotherhoods with different skills and peculiarity.
Jaxler wrote: Honestly, I feel like necroing my thread about grey Knights getting nerfed in the translation over to 8th, just so I can go “lol I told you so”
