The first FAQ for September 2018 is up for codex: chaos daemons.

Just 2 changes:

Page 126 – Warp Surge
Change the rules text of this Stratagem to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select a
unit of Daemons from your army; until the end of the
phase, you cannot re-roll saving throws for this unit, but
its invulnerable save is improved by 1 (to a maximum
of 4+).’

Page 130 – Hellforged Artefacts
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph
to read:
‘If your army is led by a Warlord with the Daemon
Faction keyword, you may give one of the following
Hellforged Artefacts to a Character with the Daemon
Faction keyword in your army.’


Ouch if you play Tzeentch and did they really need to clarify what they meant by Daemon Character in the codex?

Full FAQs are out:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/28/28th-sept-warhammer-40000-big-faq-2-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/

That "everyone is in cover" stratagem is a nice idea, but it should've been -1 to hit (not stacking with any other such abilities).

I think all the FAQs are fine. The stratagem changes are good for the game, especially the CP farming.

The only thing I don't like is the change to Fly. Measuring vertical is fine, but losing your ability to jump over screens during charges is disappointing.

Maybe I am missing something, did the points change on anything. I can't find that.

No points changed. They said they are saving points changes for Chapter Approved (which is what they originally said they were going to do anyway).

 Dynas wrote:
Maybe I am missing something, did the points change on anything. I can't find that.

With Chapter Approved coming in December, we’re not making any points changes in this Big FAQ – i

Based on your feedback, we’re making Tactical Reserves a lot simpler – basically, now, you can’t have ANYTHING come in from Reserves on the first turn. Because we’ve changed this rule from its earlier beta iteration, we’re keeping it as a beta rule to gather your feedback. As a beta rule, it’s not official yet – but we’d like you to try it out and send in your thoughts.

.. just like in the preceding 7 editions then -- few exceptions aside.

Funny that eh ?

As annoying as it is to "go back" to prior editions way of not allowing reserves until turn 2, it's still better than prior editions as you get to pick when and where they arrive and avoid the random chance that they don't come in at all.
I can live with that

-

 Galef wrote:
As annoying as it is to "go back" to prior editions way of not allowing reserves until turn 2, it's still better than prior editions as you get to pick when and where they arrive and avoid the random chance that they don't come in at all.
I can live with that

-

My thoughts exactly.

now that battle brothers became a normal rule without any changes, its time to just shelf my inquisition. I'm not paying a command point or unit taxs(to fill a small detachment) for my transports

Not really anything groundbreaking. I guess I will have to wait for CA to hopefully make some of my armies worth playing.

Funny that they didn't role all the daemon princes into one dataslate, they explicitly say they are considered as different princes (so you could take... 9 I think? ).

Q: If I use a Stratagem such as Auspex Scan or Forewarned
to shoot with a unit ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’, does the
restriction on not being able to target an enemy Character
with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less apply, even though
that Stratagem is being used in the Movement phase?
A: Yes.

Shame on whomever tried that one.

I mean, the question might as well be "When it says to follow the rules for the shooting phase, do I follow the rules for the shooting phase?".

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Funny that they didn't role all the daemon princes into one dataslate, they explicitly say they are considered as different princes (so you could take... 9 I think? ).

12...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Q: If I use a Stratagem such as Auspex Scan or Forewarned
to shoot with a unit ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’, does the
restriction on not being able to target an enemy Character
with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less apply, even though
that Stratagem is being used in the Movement phase?
A: Yes.

Shame on whomever tried that one.

I mean, the question might as well be "When it says to follow the rules for the shooting phase, do I follow the rules for the shooting phase?".

Eehhhhh... Not necessarily. I can imagine a situation where it's only the character deep-striking near supporting units, and so the dispute is to whether or not the 'special rule' of the stratagem overrules the general rule of the character targeting restrictions without anyone involved having to be That Guy...

Except it didn't say anything about overruling.

All looks good to me.

Removal of CP farming is brilliant.

The change to the AL / RG stratagems - is that a new one? Changing from infiltrate to basically a scout move?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Q: If I use a Stratagem such as Auspex Scan or Forewarned
to shoot with a unit ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’, does the
restriction on not being able to target an enemy Character
with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less apply, even though
that Stratagem is being used in the Movement phase?
A: Yes.

Shame on whomever tried that one.

I mean, the question might as well be "When it says to follow the rules for the shooting phase, do I follow the rules for the shooting phase?".

I suspect the submission was from a disgruntled gamer who's opponent is no fun at all

Wow, so they thought warp surge was an issue, but the imperial knights can still walk around with that 3++

Rotate ion shields should cap at a 4++ and further more normal knights should pay 2cp, but I guess we will have to tolerate that crap a bit longer.

They also failed to increase some other stratagems that really needed a bump in cost. Veterans of the long war should easily be 2CP OR forbid it's use on cultists (somehow a renegade marine can't use it but some scrub with a zip gun can)

The House raven rerolls for days also should have gone up.

Seems pretty reasonable. Nothing too crazy, saving those big hits for CA. I like that they nixed the weird 2+ invuln. saves you could get from Bullgryn and Crusaders from stratagems/gear, it's odd to see them somehow withstand anti-armour weapons more effectively than most force field protected units in the game.

My Harlequin friend isn't going to be happy with the changes to flip belts/Fly in general though, he always liked being able to basically say "no" to the rules and bounce around everywhere. Now he has to footslog it like everyone else during the charge phase! Take that poncy eldar

 ArbitorIan wrote:
All looks good to me.

Removal of CP farming is brilliant.

The change to the AL / RG stratagems - is that a new one? Changing from infiltrate to basically a scout move?

Yes, that is new and significantly weaker. Now you can't simply deploy a shooty unit 9" away on some deployment types. Yay for more nerfs to underperforming armies! Keep kicking those SM and CSM players, GW. We were obviously way too strong!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
All looks good to me.

Removal of CP farming is brilliant.

The change to the AL / RG stratagems - is that a new one? Changing from infiltrate to basically a scout move?

Sure is, and thank god. It was way to easily abused turn 1. Anyone that has had a termite full of fulgarites or Dragoons mulch their front line right off can attest. That said a 9" scout is pretty generous, could have been base move, so still very good on certain units.

 ArbitorIan wrote:


The change to the AL / RG stratagems - is that a new one? Changing from infiltrate to basically a scout move?

Yes it's new and I quite like it (even though I'm building a Raven Guard army). I think they've tried to clamp down on being able to drop in a unit to wipe out another units before you get chance to do anything. Can see why some players are annoyed but I think it's a nice tweak

 beir wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
All looks good to me.

Removal of CP farming is brilliant.

The change to the AL / RG stratagems - is that a new one? Changing from infiltrate to basically a scout move?

Yes, that is new and significantly weaker. Now you can't simply deploy a shooty unit 9" away on some deployment types. Yay for more nerfs to underperforming armies! Keep kicking those SM and CSM players, GW. We were obviously way too strong!

It has nothing to do with overall power level. Those books need an entire rewrite to perform better. Relying on a cheap 1st turn gimmick wasn't really helping the game, all it did was bounce off good players lists but nuke casuals.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 beir wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
All looks good to me.

Removal of CP farming is brilliant.

The change to the AL / RG stratagems - is that a new one? Changing from infiltrate to basically a scout move?

Yes, that is new and significantly weaker. Now you can't simply deploy a shooty unit 9" away on some deployment types. Yay for more nerfs to underperforming armies! Keep kicking those SM and CSM players, GW. We were obviously way too strong!

It has nothing to do with overall power level. Those books need an entire rewrite to perform better. Relying on a cheap 1st turn gimmick wasn't really helping the game, all it did was bounce off good players lists but nuke casuals.

Sure, I agree with this. It just feels bad to get nerfs when SM are comparatively quite weak.

Yea tell me about it, my berserkers just took a massive hit but honestly the infiltrate ability was written super poorly. It already gets to be used multiple times being pregame, that alone means they should have been a bit more careful to begin with.


I have mixed feelings on the fly nerf. It punishes fly keyword which clearly are way too good currently. However it only punishes combat units, which I think most can agree suck compared to shooting units. Shooty flying units are still way too good this edition.

I also wish they would make pistols and grenades assault.

I do find it comical that they inadvertently (or on purpose) buffed Order of Companions again even after raising it to 3CP.

" If a rule allows me to re-roll Damage rolls of 1, and the
Damage characteristic for a weapon is D3, do I re-roll the D6
rolls of 1 and 2 (which are halved to get the D3 result) or only
the original D6 rolls of 1?
A: In this case, you re-roll the D3 result (so you re-roll
rolls of 1 or 2 made on the D6)."

Page 4 of the BRB errata. Everyone I know always played that as natural 1's before but now it significantly helps buffing siegebreakers

 Red Corsair wrote:
Wow, so they thought warp surge was an issue, but the imperial knights can still walk around with that 3++

Rotate ion shields should cap at a 4++ and further more normal knights should pay 2cp, but I guess we will have to tolerate that crap a bit longer.

They also failed to increase some other stratagems that really needed a bump in cost. Veterans of the long war should easily be 2CP OR forbid it's use on cultists (somehow a renegade marine can't use it but some scrub with a zip gun can)

The House raven rerolls for days also should have gone up.

With changes to cp farm and upping cost of raven strategem the 3++ isn't that bad. To combine those costs 6cp a turn. With 2 bat and lone cast you have 10 cp to start with. If you want the nerfed cp regen 8 to start with...so 1 turn. Even if you regen cp max

Brigade plus bat and lone castellan 2 turn max even with regen...

The fly change is a BIG one i think.

Also, I like the going 2nd Stratagem giving your entire army cover saves. Question though, would that stack with other cover save bonus for things like:

A.) already in actual cover
B.) Hive Fleet bonus like Jormagunder
C.) Unit abilities and other equipment that grant cover saves

That's a fair point however it isn't really a matter of how often it gets used as much as things like that shouldn't get to a 3++ period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dynas wrote:
The fly change is a BIG one i think.

Also, I like the going 2nd Stratagem giving your entire army cover saves. Question though, would that stack with other cover save bonus for things like:

A.) already in actual cover
B.) Hive Fleet bonus like Jormagunder
C.) Unit abilities and other equipment that grant cover saves

It specifically says right in the stratagem that it does not stack and you must be in your deployment zone to benefit.

On the alpha legion/raven guard infiltrate, am I right in thinking the model can move up to 9" regardless of its move characteristic? then assuming I go first can move my normal 6"?

There is no such thing as stacking cover saves anywhere in the game anyway. There is no reason to expect it to be different for this stratagem, even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the stratagem text.

Demon primarchs not being able to assault over a handful of chaf in a picket line is hilarious levels of absurdity. I look forward to witnessing that one go down initially /s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 orangebrushminiatures wrote:
On the alpha legion/raven guard infiltrate, am I right in thinking the model can move up to 9" regardless of its move characteristic? then assuming I go first can move my normal 6"?

That's how it reads to me. I'm guessing they didn't want to fully ruin assault centurions

PiñaColada wrote:
I do find it comical that they inadvertently (or on purpose) buffed Order of Companions again even after raising it to 3CP.

" If a rule allows me to re-roll Damage rolls of 1, and the
Damage characteristic for a weapon is D3, do I re-roll the D6
rolls of 1 and 2 (which are halved to get the D3 result) or only
the original D6 rolls of 1?
A: In this case, you re-roll the D3 result (so you re-roll
rolls of 1 or 2 made on the D6)."

Page 4 of the BRB errata. Everyone I know always played that as natural 1's before but now it significantly helps buffing siegebreakers

Huh i have never heard anybody playing otherwise. You are rolling dice with 3 results.

Interesting differ in views. But then again there's huge amount of rule combinations people play with without even deliberate house rules

PiñaColada wrote:
I do find it comical that they inadvertently (or on purpose) buffed Order of Companions again even after raising it to 3CP.

" If a rule allows me to re-roll Damage rolls of 1, and the
Damage characteristic for a weapon is D3, do I re-roll the D6
rolls of 1 and 2 (which are halved to get the D3 result) or only
the original D6 rolls of 1?
A: In this case, you re-roll the D3 result (so you re-roll
rolls of 1 or 2 made on the D6)."

Page 4 of the BRB errata. Everyone I know always played that as natural 1's before but now it significantly helps buffing siegebreakers

It's always been the dice result of a one, independent of what's on the dice. Note that you cannot possibly roll a 1 on 2D3 (minimum result is a 2) or 3D3 (minimum result is a 3).

Never mind it was squirreled away at the bottom.

interesting they change the tac reserves from 'power' to points


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the lols alpha legion and ravenguard starts changed... does this mean you can use it multiple times on the same unit?

we know you can use it multiple times they faq'd that in a previous release but could i say (or should i say what stops me):

use the strat on some cultists move them 9" forward
use the strat again on the same unit and move them 9" again (just make sure 9" away from enemy)




Also with regaining CP
I deploy a char that can regen CP say ultamarine captain
I then deploy using CP ravenguard.
there is no battleround... so how can i regenerate or is there now no limit... um...

 Latro_ wrote:
interesting they change the tac reserves from 'power' to points


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the lols alpha legion and ravenguard starts changed... does this mean you can use it multiple times on the same unit?

we know you can use it multiple times they faq'd that in a previous release but could i say (or should i say what stops me):

use the strat on some cultists move them 9" forward
spent the strat again on the same unit and move them 9" again

I think you spend the points on the different units during deployment, and then when the first round begins move them, so the deployment phase would be over by the time you move them

actually yea i guess the trick is in the wording of 'when you deploy' you cant do it multiple times because you only deploy once

Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Poor balance GW....poor poor balance

No FAQ for Index Imperium 2, which is weird because many of those in it haven't received a codex (SoB, Inqu, SoS for instance)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
No FAQ for Index Imperium 2, which is weird because many of those in it haven't received a codex (SoB, Inqu, SoS for instance)

SoB will have their beta-codex in this CA. The same reason why orks, genestealer cultists, and point changes wheren't here.

Tournament soup builds have gotten a few corners shaved off (no more multiple-CP-regen-rolls and a few more expensive stratagems), but there's still nothing preventing you from taking ten extra CP from random Guardsmen in the first place, which means all the Imperial armies are going to continue being designed around the idea that you've got 3-400pts of random Guardsmen floating around plugging any holes in your list.

Woo. Such a fantastic set of changes setting us up for a whole new raft of army builds rather than the endless cookie-cutter sea of guardsmen-Dominus Knight-Marine characters soup lists.

Quite honestly the GW rules team just needs to be gutted and rehired from the ground up. It just doesn't seem like they have a grasp on their own rules and the implications of them across a multitude of armies.

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Poor balance GW....poor poor balance

You may just be the only human alive right now thinking that strat makes marines too good ( of any iteration). I honestly think it buffs guardsmen too much. The issue with first turn is having expensive things like tanks bight it, not chaf. Id have rather the stratagem gave out a 5++ because it would do nothing for cheap chaf but help marines and tanks from the alpha. As it is now, a castellan will still solo every important AT you have turn 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
No FAQ for Index Imperium 2, which is weird because many of those in it haven't received a codex (SoB, Inqu, SoS for instance)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_index_imperium_2_en-2.pdf

Agents of Vect available only for Black Heart. Hahaha! Some common sense.

The single biggest thing missing from this FAQ that I am super unimpressed by is that they didn't address farming the logical way, by tying your detachments CP's to the actual faction making it up or by limiting stratagems to the warlords faction keyword.

Instead they stopped imperial soup from gaining as many CP's back, but they never ran out anyway lol. They can easily start the game with 20 cp's. More then enough to table someone in the first two turns by burning all the guardsmens CP's on the knight with them. Want to adda knight to your army? Then you should leave the household Strats at home unless he's the warlord.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
No FAQ for Index Imperium 2, which is weird because many of those in it haven't received a codex (SoB, Inqu, SoS for instance)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_index_imperium_2_en-2.pdf

That's five months old, from the last FAQ cycle.

Index: Imperium 2
Updated 16/04/2018

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Poor balance GW....poor poor balance

This was a day 1 issue with the 8th edition cover system where going from a MEQ to TEQ was far more impactful than going from a T Shirt save to flak armor.

 Dynas wrote:
The fly change is a BIG one i think.

Also, I like the going 2nd Stratagem giving your entire army cover saves. Question though, would that stack with other cover save bonus for things like:

A.) already in actual cover
B.) Hive Fleet bonus like Jormagunder
C.) Unit abilities and other equipment that grant cover saves

You can't double-stack cover saves.

I like the strategem - paying 2 CP hurts, but the fact that my opponent might deploy assuming I'll spend the CP might make it worthwhile for the meta reasons alone.

The changes to CP regen and new strategem costs is hard to determine without playing a few games. It seems pretty crippling but I'll wait and see what it does to the meta.

At least they can't Agent of Vect my Teleportarium strike any more...

 Red Corsair wrote:
The single biggest thing missing from this FAQ that I am super unimpressed by is that they didn't address farming the logical way, by tying your detachments CP's to the actual faction making it up or by limiting stratagems to the warlords faction keyword.

Instead they stopped imperial soup from gaining as many CP's back, but they never ran out anyway lol. They can easily start the game with 20 cp's. More then enough to table someone in the first two turns by burning all the guardsmens CP's on the knight with them. Want to adda knight to your army? Then you should leave the household Strats at home unless he's the warlord.

I see a huge difference here.

Now with 2 detachments of guards (one of which is a brigade) and one of knights you can fuel a single knight for 2 turns.

Previously with a single battalion of guards you could fuel a knight and the smashers. I consider that a big improvement.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Agents of Vect available only for Black Heart. Hahaha! Some common sense.

Interesting though it's first strategem that requires specific faction detachment up to chapter/regiment/whateve. Hopefully in future they mark such clearly

I like the DW and SM changes. It's literally gakking nothing

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Eh, the stratagem will affect 3x more units on average in the horde armies. Your saves might not be as good but you lose a lot less with each failed one and this helps to mitigate biggest horde weakness, massed small arms fire. Each AP - gun is going to wound half the number of orks it would before, while not making a big difference against MEQ killer weapons like melta or plasma you'd expect to be pointed at DG. Anything that could limit wound spam is welcome to encourage a bit of variety.

Then there is the fact it's a lot harder to fit 30 strong mob in cover than 5 strong DG MSU, and orks/tyranids want to be deployed aggressively in front. Being able to do so and blunt enemy alpha strike at the same time is going to be big for them, IMO.

 Irbis wrote:
I like the DW and SM changes. It's literally gakking nothing

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Eh, the stratagem will affect 3x more units on average in the horde armies. Your saves might not be as good but you lose a lot less with each failed one and this helps to mitigate biggest horde weakness, massed small arms fire. Each AP - gun is going to wound half the number of orks it would before, while not making a big difference against MEQ killer weapons like melta or plasma you'd expect to be pointed at DG. Anything that could limit wound spam is welcome to encourage a bit of variety.

Then there is the fact it's a lot harder to fit 30 strong mob in cover than 5 strong DG MSU, and orks/tyranids want to be deployed aggressively in front. Being able to do so and blunt enemy alpha strike at the same time is going to be big for them, IMO.

Agree. Can't wait to try it out with my Nids. Not to mention the buff to Nidzilla units that don't have to be 50% obscured and in cover to get the save. Now I can put my big boys right out front with the other guys.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
No FAQ for Index Imperium 2, which is weird because many of those in it haven't received a codex (SoB, Inqu, SoS for instance)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_index_imperium_2_en-2.pdf

That's five months old, from the last FAQ cycle.

Index: Imperium 2
Updated 16/04/2018

Sure, but it's there. He said there was no FAQ, they may not have needed to FAQ anything afterall the index has been out for over a year through multiple iterations including CA.

If they think those armies need nothing...

 Vankraken wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Poor balance GW....poor poor balance

This was a day 1 issue with the 8th edition cover system where going from a MEQ to TEQ was far more impactful than going from a T Shirt save to flak armor.

If you have a 6+ save and it becomes a 5+ you have increased your save by 100%, a marine increases his save by 25%.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
If they think those armies need nothing...

Well again fair enough. I meant they need no further clarification based on whats there. Which isn't much, they need a codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The single biggest thing missing from this FAQ that I am super unimpressed by is that they didn't address farming the logical way, by tying your detachments CP's to the actual faction making it up or by limiting stratagems to the warlords faction keyword.

Instead they stopped imperial soup from gaining as many CP's back, but they never ran out anyway lol. They can easily start the game with 20 cp's. More then enough to table someone in the first two turns by burning all the guardsmens CP's on the knight with them. Want to adda knight to your army? Then you should leave the household Strats at home unless he's the warlord.

I see a huge difference here.

Now with 2 detachments of guards (one of which is a brigade) and one of knights you can fuel a single knight for 2 turns.

Previously with a single battalion of guards you could fuel a knight and the smashers. I consider that a big improvement.

Our definitions of big are different is all.

 Red Corsair wrote:

If you have a 6+ save and it becomes a 5+ you have increased your save by 100%, a marine increases his save by 25%.

But marines halve their casualties while orks only reduce casualties 20%

 Irbis wrote:
I like the DW and SM changes. It's literally gakking nothing

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Eh, the stratagem will affect 3x more units on average in the horde armies. Your saves might not be as good but you lose a lot less with each failed one and this helps to mitigate biggest horde weakness, massed small arms fire. Each AP - gun is going to wound half the number of orks it would before, while not making a big difference against MEQ killer weapons like melta or plasma you'd expect to be pointed at DG. Anything that could limit wound spam is welcome to encourage a bit of variety.

Then there is the fact it's a lot harder to fit 30 strong mob in cover than 5 strong DG MSU, and orks/tyranids want to be deployed aggressively in front. Being able to do so and blunt enemy alpha strike at the same time is going to be big for them, IMO.

That's not exactly how math works. an increase in armor save from 3+ to 2+ causes ap- guns to cause half the casualties, an increase in armor save from 6+ to 5+ does not.

Bolter vs an ork

2*.6666*.5*.83333 (6+ armor save): .555 unsaved wounds.
2*.6666*.5*.6666 (5+ armor save): .444 unsaved wounds.

It's about 20% less damage.

tneva82 wrote:
If they think those armies need nothing...

It's possible they will be receiving hefty points reductions in CA. They won't, but it's possible. I won't hold my breath.

The problem with SM and CSM continues to be overcosted basic units and significant power differences between Tactics. Add in the fact that, instead of fixing Soup armies, they just nerfed the gak out of the most useful aspects of SM and CSM armies.

The one of first places to start with fixing SM and CSM is to have their tactics affect ALL units, not just Infantry and Bikers. Practically every other army in the game gets that. No reason for SM not to have that. Especially when several of our models have actual SM pilots for them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tournament soup builds have gotten a few corners shaved off (no more multiple-CP-regen-rolls and a few more expensive stratagems), but there's still nothing preventing you from taking ten extra CP from random Guardsmen in the first place, which means all the Imperial armies are going to continue being designed around the idea that you've got 3-400pts of random Guardsmen floating around plugging any holes in your list.

Woo. Such a fantastic set of changes setting us up for a whole new raft of army builds rather than the endless cookie-cutter sea of guardsmen-Dominus Knight-Marine characters soup lists.

Yeah. And if anything, they doubled down on guardsmen farms being all but required by raising the cost of strategems so a pure army is going to have a lot less to work with. If anything, Imperial soup gained an even bigger advantage over mono-dex armies.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tournament soup builds have gotten a few corners shaved off (no more multiple-CP-regen-rolls and a few more expensive stratagems), but there's still nothing preventing you from taking ten extra CP from random Guardsmen in the first place, which means all the Imperial armies are going to continue being designed around the idea that you've got 3-400pts of random Guardsmen floating around plugging any holes in your list.

Woo. Such a fantastic set of changes setting us up for a whole new raft of army builds rather than the endless cookie-cutter sea of guardsmen-Dominus Knight-Marine characters soup lists.

Yeah. And if anything, they doubled down on guardsmen farms being all but required by raising the cost of strategems so a pure army is going to have a lot less to work with. If anything, Imperial soup gained an even bigger advantage over mono-dex armies.

They increased the cost of ONE stratagem by ONE CP, for non IK players.

Sure, pure IKs are more likely to soup true. But is quite a different statement than "Imperial soup gained an even bigger advantage over mono-dex armies", which is false. This change has brought down the power of soup considerably. The next top lists IMHO will not be soups, at least not all of them.

"Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem? A: Yes."
Do we have to pay the CP again?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
"Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem? A: Yes."
Do we have to pay the CP again?

No.

the_scotsman wrote:
That's not exactly how math works. an increase in armor save from 3+ to 2+ causes ap- guns to cause half the casualties, an increase in armor save from 6+ to 5+ does not.

Bolter vs an ork

2*.6666*.5*.83333 (6+ armor save): .555 unsaved wounds.
2*.6666*.5*.6666 (5+ armor save): .444 unsaved wounds.

It's about 20% less damage.

Wrong. I like how you tried to muddy the issue by throwing variables that have nothing to do with the stratagem into the above. If you want to take everything, even the color of the table, into equation, how about you do actually correct version and include the point costs of the DG and horde models, then multiply expected wpp in both cases by stratagem change - suddenly, it will be just like I described

Hagon wrote:
The first FAQ for September 2018 is up for codex: chaos daemons.

Just 2 changes:

Page 126 – Warp Surge
Change the rules text of this Stratagem to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select a
unit of Daemons from your army; until the end of the
phase, you cannot re-roll saving throws for this unit, but
its invulnerable save is improved by 1 (to a maximum
of 4+).’

Page 130 – Hellforged Artefacts
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph
to read:
‘If your army is led by a Warlord with the Daemon
Faction keyword, you may give one of the following
Hellforged Artefacts to a Character with the Daemon
Faction keyword in your army.’


Ouch if you play Tzeentch and did they really need to clarify what they meant by Daemon Character in the codex?

Nope. Warp Surge changes the actual save value; being ephemeral adds one to your save rolls. Tzeentch still gets a 3+; they just removed the ability to get a 2+.

 Irbis wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
That's not exactly how math works. an increase in armor save from 3+ to 2+ causes ap- guns to cause half the casualties, an increase in armor save from 6+ to 5+ does not.

Bolter vs an ork

2*.6666*.5*.83333 (6+ armor save): .555 unsaved wounds.
2*.6666*.5*.6666 (5+ armor save): .444 unsaved wounds.

It's about 20% less damage.

Wrong. I like how you tried to muddy the issue by throwing variables that have nothing to do with the stratagem into the above. If you want to take everything, even the color of the table, into equation, how about you do actually correct version and include the point costs of the DG and horde models, then multiply expected wpp in both cases by stratagem change - suddenly, it will be just like I described

It is...a very weird thing to be accused of "adding variables" when my response was literally to your claim that "Each AP - gun is going to wound half the number of orks it would before" and I chose for my example....the most ubiquitous Ap- gun in the entire game to demonstrate that no, it's not HALF, it's 80%. What does the "wounds per point" have to do with "NUMBER OF ORKS"?

Works for any ap- weapon you like, too. Lasgun? .2777 dead orks with no strat, .221 with strat, 20% less. Scatter laser? 1.47 dead orks no stratagem, 1.18 with stratagem, 20% less. See, it's always 20% less, no matter what Ap- weapon you choose to use to illustrate it, because that's how math works. It's remarkably consistent that way.

I was not the one that introduced the variables "ap- weapon" or "ork" into this equation. You were. I just showed how you were incorrect by choosing one particular ap- weapon to illustrate my point.

Irbis, the scottsman is talking about that statement of yours:

 Irbis wrote:
Each AP - gun is going to wound half the number of orks it would before

The rest of your points stand, but that one was inaccurate.

tneva82 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

If you have a 6+ save and it becomes a 5+ you have increased your save by 100%, a marine increases his save by 25%.

But marines halve their casualties while orks only reduce casualties 20%

this is the correct way to evaluate this value.

Look out for Land Raiders!

All right, did Ogryn really need a nerf? Now they need a points slashing.

 cuda1179 wrote:
All right, did Ogryn really need a nerf? Now they need a points slashing.

My understanding is that it's not really a nerf but it nerfs something that soup was doing?

Slabshields grant +2 to your save rolls. People were using ways to grant Ogryn Bodyguards and Bullgryn Invulnerable Saves(I think one of the Knights has a stratagem for that?) and then stacking it with "Take Cover!", the Psyker power in the Guard book, and Slabshields' text...at least that's the impression I've been given.

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Poor balance GW....poor poor balance

Wut lol?

What's everyone's take on the changes to flipbelt?

I personally am pretty upset at the change to flip belt and fly.

Make them always measure distance, done. One of the main reasons I play pure harlequins is because I can leap into the middle and slam into support units. I like forcing my opponents to think about positioning and movement because turn two I can be ANYWHERE.

Now, every form of bubble wrap will stop me dead. I never once thought that units with "fly" ignored vertical distance, they just moved at an angle or simply skirted around obstacles.

If I am outside half range for fusion pistols (3") then what wizzardry would I need to then claim I am close enough to guarantee a charge? You can't be over nine inches away, within 12 inches, outside 3" AND within one inch of a unit!

I wonder why they changed it to movement phase only... seems like a fairly major need for a somewhat average army... pity, but maybe it was a more powerful army than I thought.

Lemondish wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Am I the only one who sees an issue with the new fortify defenses stratagem?

Ins't it disproportionately far more powerful for armies such as DG in comparison to other armies, say Orks/GSC for instance.

A 2+ save for your ENTIRE army is far more significant than a 5+ or 4+, but of course it costs both armies the same to accomplish.

Poor balance GW....poor poor balance

Wut lol?

I think I know what hes getting at. Take an army like Harlequins for example.

If they go second that stratagem pretty much does nothing for them. They don't really rely on armour saves at all, so don't gain anything from a cover bonus.

Oh well its not like anyone's losing anything with this new stratagem being a thing.

Spoletta wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Tournament soup builds have gotten a few corners shaved off (no more multiple-CP-regen-rolls and a few more expensive stratagems), but there's still nothing preventing you from taking ten extra CP from random Guardsmen in the first place, which means all the Imperial armies are going to continue being designed around the idea that you've got 3-400pts of random Guardsmen floating around plugging any holes in your list.

Woo. Such a fantastic set of changes setting us up for a whole new raft of army builds rather than the endless cookie-cutter sea of guardsmen-Dominus Knight-Marine characters soup lists.

Yeah. And if anything, they doubled down on guardsmen farms being all but required by raising the cost of strategems so a pure army is going to have a lot less to work with. If anything, Imperial soup gained an even bigger advantage over mono-dex armies.

They increased the cost of ONE stratagem by ONE CP, for non IK players.

Sure, pure IKs are more likely to soup true. But is quite a different statement than "Imperial soup gained an even bigger advantage over mono-dex armies", which is false. This change has brought down the power of soup considerably. The next top lists IMHO will not be soups, at least not all of them.

One? The holy trio(IG+knight+BA) got at least 2 strategems upped. Nevermind other armies like agents of vect

Am I missing something on the Fly Rule?

To me, it looks like they just clarified it as a Movement Phase only thing.
I have never played it as anything other than a Movement Phase ability. Fly isn't even mentioned in the BRB rules for charging.
I saw the Vertical Distance thing, but Am I missing this Big Bad Nerf somewhere?

FLy rules didn't specify it was only for movement phase but when it's moving. It's hard to arque charge move isn't movement. Thus fly WAS usable in charge phase(proof also being how before GW specified that if you are 10" up but 2" horizontally you need 2" charge due to fly allowing to ignore vertical distance...).

So you played it actually wrong. Before you ignore horizontal distance and could fly over intervening models. No more those.

So, they clarified the rule to be used only in the movement phase, the way I played it, and not for any other "movement".
Meaning I was playing it correctly and others were not.
You can still move over intervening models in the movement phase.
They just added the vertical distance measurement for charges back in.

Not that much of a big deal if you plan your movements correctly.

Grappling Hooks still let you ignore vertical distances when Charging?

 helgrenze wrote:
So, they clarified the rule to be used only in the movement phase, the way I played it, and not for any other "movement".
Meaning I was playing it correctly and others were not.
You can still move over intervening models in the movement phase.
They just added the vertical distance measurement for charges back in.

Not that much of a big deal if you plan your movements correctly.

Umm no they CHANGED it. If it was originally like that how come they clarified you needed 2" to charge if you were 12" up but 2" horizontally?

This was change to nerf slamquinus.

If you think location of rule is more important than actual text of rule as to where rule can be used do you use rerolls only in psychic phase? After all rerolls are only mentioned on psychic phase section but not elsewhere...

Before fly rule said it works when moving. That was only requisite. You move. Ergo you used fly whether it was movement, psychic, shooting, assault or fight phase. GW now errata'ed it to be only in movement phase.

If rules would need to be everywhere it might apply that would be lots of copy&pasting! 8th ed has that already too much but even to that some limits tyvmj

 AduroT wrote:
Grappling Hooks still let you ignore vertical distances when Charging?

Yeah. Grappling Hooks and Grey Knight Interceptors can still do the vertical charge-trick.

Reivers could never charge/consolidate/pile-in over models though. Grey Knight Interceptors are now the sole masters of that particular stunt.

#greyknightstotallyOP

tneva82 wrote:


Before fly rule said it works when moving. That was only requisite. You move

Agreed that this is a change. GW are pretty good with things like this nowadays: they tend to use ‘Movement phase’ (with the capitalisation) whenever they want to restrict things to specific phases.

The fly rule change was probably made to nerf smash captains abit. Consider how small the footprint a smash captain is, and yet, that thing hits so hard if you pour enough CP into it, it can even take down a knight. This fly rule change makes it so that you can bubble wrap against a flying smash captain. Otherwise, its exceedingly difficult to prevent a smash captain from a flying charge right past any bubble wrap directly into your key units.

On the chaos side though, daemon princes are now even more nerfed due to the fly nerf.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The fly rule change was probably made to nerf smash captains abit. Consider how small the footprint a smash captain is, and yet, that thing hits so hard if you pour enough CP into it, it can even take down a knight. This fly rule change makes it so that you can bubble wrap against a flying smash captain. Otherwise, its exceedingly difficult to prevent a smash captain from a flying charge right past any bubble wrap directly into your key units.

On the chaos side though, daemon princes are now even more nerfed due to the fly nerf.

Yes but in typical GW style fixing the trouble of smashhammer they took a giant hammer and swung it hard hitting not only original target but also stuff that DIDN'T need nerf.

tneva82 wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The fly rule change was probably made to nerf smash captains abit. Consider how small the footprint a smash captain is, and yet, that thing hits so hard if you pour enough CP into it, it can even take down a knight. This fly rule change makes it so that you can bubble wrap against a flying smash captain. Otherwise, its exceedingly difficult to prevent a smash captain from a flying charge right past any bubble wrap directly into your key units.

On the chaos side though, daemon princes are now even more nerfed due to the fly nerf.

Yes but in typical GW style fixing the trouble of smashhammer they took a giant hammer and swung it hard hitting not only original target but also stuff that DIDN'T need nerf.

Yeah, nerfing smashcap by nerfing fly and conversely buffing cheap chaff bubble wrap in 8th freaking edition....did we REALLY need a buff to cheap chaff bubble wrap....

When using abilities that allow you to Move As If It's The Movement phase, do you Fly normally? For example, Swarmlords Hive Commander on Gargoyles, or Warp Time or Teilight Pathways on a unit in the psychic phase?

I think the change to Fly was the only real misstep with this FAQ. Like others have said, they want to nerf smash captains which is fine, but it hurts other units too much that were not a problem. The ability to ignore vertical distance when charging was the only thing that made Assault Marines even marginally useful in friendly games. If you cannot use them(or other similar flying assault units) to target units in high up cover locations or to jump over a line of chaff to hit a support unit what purpose do they serve at all?

In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

Hopefully they learn and CA2 course corrects. Because as of now, the list they didn't like from NOVA, ended up stronger. It's MORE important to have cheap screening guard that prvide your castellan CP's then ever.

EDIT Oh and how terrible is it that the only list that challenged that build using morty and magnus just took double the hit lol Now they cannot charge over the screen, and their horrors are less durable.

Yeah the fly assault nerf was the most harmful and dumbest way of addressing what they were trying to fix. Especially with them not backing down on the horrific "can't assault the marine on the barrel because he has a wide stance on his base, no wobbly model syndrome" position they took earlier this year.

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

Right because theres really any of those around lol.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

Right because theres really any of those around lol.

Perhaps if they fixed the problem at the source, then you WOULD see other captains around? I'm not sure if the issue could be put down to the stratagem, the wargear or what, but changing the way all FLY units work to get at one specifically unbalanced variety of a BA captain does seem to be a bit of an overstep?

Right, that's literally what I said and he decided to get hung up on semantics.

For the record I could care less how they balance each problem. Points, nerf the relics etc.

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

GW has bespoke rules, but they're still using the same old pendulum for balance changes.

They need bespoke pendulums.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

If the fly of that captain is problem howabout up the price of the jump pack and thunder hammer of that captain?

tneva82 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

If the fly of that captain is problem howabout up the price of the jump pack and thunder hammer of that captain?

Here is something better. Give Relics prices again. They should never have been free in the first place. It clearly hasn't worked well since all relics are not created equal.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
In classic fashion, rather then simply adjust the cost of blood angel captains, they decide to use a broad stroke and hit everything with similar movement. When they first started FAQ'ing things this edition I gave them some wiggle room for making that error, but at this point it is pretty embarrassing for them. If you don't like the way a unit you create is being exploited then target that unit, what was the point in everything having unique bespoke rules all on their own sheet if your still patching the problems with a shotgun approach?

the problem is with ONE specific build of the Blood Angels Captain. A price change nerfs the other, completely non-problematic builds of the Blood Angels Captain.

If the fly of that captain is problem howabout up the price of the jump pack and thunder hammer of that captain?

Here is something better. Give Relics prices again. They should never have been free in the first place. It clearly hasn't worked well since all relics are not created equal.

That too though I'm not sure how big part of slamquinus is really relics and how much of it is fly, 3++, thunderhammer and strategems allowing DS(and even T1 if so want)+charge 3d6" past screens.

But yeah relics and warlord traits should have cost points. Ditto for chapter traits etc as they aren't equal to each other anyway and top of that don't affect each units equally but ah well. All of those aren't changing any time soon.

 ProtoClone wrote:
What's everyone's take on the changes to flipbelt?

Personally I would have left them in the special category like Reivers and GK Interceptors as still getting all the goodness. The designers thought otherwise, to the extent that Reivers and GK needed the help more than almost anything in the game they were correct but I do not think harlequins really needed to take the hit.

Oh boy. Some of those FB comments... They nerfed my Broken combo! Waaah!!

I had to stop reading. I'm dizzy from all the eye rolls.

Havs no fear, ladies and gentlemen, the Warhammer (player) Community is working diligently on the new Fall broken meta changer, ready to ruin your table top games, internationally, for half a year at a time.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All right, did Ogryn really need a nerf? Now they need a points slashing.

My understanding is that it's not really a nerf but it nerfs something that soup was doing?

Slabshields grant +2 to your save rolls. People were using ways to grant Ogryn Bodyguards and Bullgryn Invulnerable Saves(I think one of the Knights has a stratagem for that?) and then stacking it with "Take Cover!", the Psyker power in the Guard book, and Slabshields' text...at least that's the impression I've been given.

Wasn't a soup thing, it was a Ogryn bodyguard with a slabshield and the Deathmask of Ollanius to get a 4+ inv save, with +2 to the role (plus regain a wound each turn).
In at least one of the games they showed from Nova had an invulnerable Ogryn bodyguard running around on his own as a tarpit unit.

Not a massive nerf at all, just that combo on the bodyguard and the ogryns just so the rule is consistent across the two units.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Oh boy. Some of those FB comments... They nerfed my Broken combo! Waaah!!

I had to stop reading. I'm dizzy from all the eye rolls.

Havs no fear, ladies and gentlemen, the Warhammer (player) Community is working diligently on the new Fall broken meta changer, ready to ruin your table top games, internationally, for half a year at a time.

Don't blame players for breaking the game balance. Fault lies 100% on GW fair and square. GW holds 100% responsibility, players 0%.

tneva82 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Oh boy. Some of those FB comments... They nerfed my Broken combo! Waaah!!

I had to stop reading. I'm dizzy from all the eye rolls.

Havs no fear, ladies and gentlemen, the Warhammer (player) Community is working diligently on the new Fall broken meta changer, ready to ruin your table top games, internationally, for half a year at a time.

Don't blame players for breaking the game balance. Fault lies 100% on GW fair and square. GW holds 100% responsibility, players 0%.

If a game mostly runs fine, then the people breaking it are at fault. Not saying that 8th is great, but it does hold better in decent metas than in horrible ones.

It's fault of GW for breaking it with their bad rules and worse playtesting.

GW is the one creating rules. THEY are fault regardless of how much white knights might try to excuse them.

GW's official stance on game balance is:

"Our game has a large social contract attached to it. When you go into a game, you talk with your opponent about the kind of game you want to play. If you can't agree on the kind of game you want to play, then don't play with that person."

Taking this into account, GW is under no obligation to create a balanced game. Their motivation is to create a game that also happens to sell models. It's 100% the fault of the players to expect a perfectly balanced game from a company that's making a game to sell models.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine. Just keep in mind that you're 100% in control of the games you play. You don't have to play against that WAAC gamer that keeps frequenting your store to test out his Eldar soup lists. You might have more fun playing the other guy that just wants to make his Iron Hands army work in a casual setting.

If you go to a tournament, it's 100% on you to bring the most cheesy, broken, spammy garbage you can put together and play, and if you don't like those sorts of games, why are you playing them?

Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

“WE WANT BALANCE!”

<GW does some balancing>

“NO NOT LIKE THAT! Balance the other armies not mine!”



Love it.

From my understanding, when concerned with Flip Belts, it took away some of the appeal of Harlequins, their mobility. As someone who wants to play them, that was a selling point on getting them. So yeah, I am a little bummed at the nerf we received. Good thing I only really invested in them as a Kill Team.

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

How on Earth was charging over screens an exploit?

Why should a few guardmen on the ground stop a daemon prince flying over their heads?

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

How on Earth was charging over screens an exploit?

Why should a few guardmen on the ground stop a daemon prince flying over their heads?

Hmm, Can the jumped over unit fire Overwatch? Since THEY are not being charged, the BRB says no.
It's an exploit. The Jumping unit avoids what could be a catastrophic encounter to gain an advantage. It's an exploit due to there being an unclear rule concerning the Fly mechanic. That's what they did, clarified the Fly rule, eliminating the exploit.

 helgrenze wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Seems like some people just want to whine about how their army got nerfed.
Big Deal.

In video games, MMOs and such, when players find an exploit, they use it. Until the Devs fix it.
That's basically what GW did here with the Fly rule. They fixed an exploit.
"Boohoo, now my army is trash"
Heard it last FAQ.
How about "Adapt and overcome"?
Nope.....
"Just gonna wait til someone else puts up the next Weblist that I'm gonna copy."

How on Earth was charging over screens an exploit?

Why should a few guardmen on the ground stop a daemon prince flying over their heads?

Hmm, Can the jumped over unit fire Overwatch? Since THEY are not being charged, the BRB says no.
It's an exploit. The Jumping unit avoids what could be a catastrophic encounter to gain an advantage. It's an exploit due to there being an unclear rule concerning the Fly mechanic. That's what they did, clarified the Fly rule, eliminating the exploit.

Just because you say 'since I can't fire overwatch it's an exploit' doesn't make it so. There was no exploit, the unit being jumped is not being charged and has no reason to think that it could fire overwatch.

You're just happy you got a buff.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:
You're just happy you got a buff.

What Buff? I run 2 units with Fly, an Assault Squad with a LT, and a Vanguard Vet Squad with a Chaplain. I have never used the "Jump over units on a charge" exploit because I never needed to.

You are just annoyed that you can't do that anymore because they clarified the Fly rule.
Would you rather they changed the Overwatch Rule to allow the overflown unit to shoot?

 helgrenze wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:
You're just happy you got a buff.

What Buff? I run 2 units with Fly, an Assault Squad with a LT, and a Vanguard Vet Squad with a Chaplain. I have never used the "Jump over units on a charge" exploit because I never needed to.

You are just annoyed that you can't do that anymore because they clarified the Fly rule.
Would you rather they changed the Overwatch Rule to allow the overflown unit to shoot?

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. 'Exploit' doesn't mean 'rule I don't like'. Charging over top of things in the charge phase was a feature, not a bug. It was the 0" charges that were the problem. GW's typical 'We need to change the bathwater, so screw the baby' style of rules writing is why suddenly daemonprinces forget they have wings for 2 full phases of the game now.

I just want to say....do we really want to just see big guns/knights surrounded by circles of cheap troops? Is that what this game is? Because it looks and plays terrible if so. Allowing units to fly over screens is not a gimmick, it was part of the rules. The battlefield is very dynamic, it should be, you have jet fighters, guys with jump packs, flying bikes, monsters with wings, and dancing acrobats.. You should set up units to countercharge, or put bigger gaps in screens etc. Why is it OK to nerf a rule just so you can sit there and point and click shoot with no repercussions? Dull and boring.
My biggest pet peeve with 8th is the need to screen. It just looks terrible on the tabletop and sucks for armies that don't have cheap throw away troops. At least by removing Turn 1 deepstrike it is mitigated for alpha strikes, but with the nerf to fly, screens will be back in spades as it now has become cake to let the guns sit and shoot without any counter threat.

 bullyboy wrote:
At least by removing Turn 1 deepstrike it is mitigated for alpha strikes, but with the nerf to fly, screens will be back in spades as it now has become cake to let the guns sit and shoot without any counter threat.

All according to Reece's plan...

 bullyboy wrote:
Allowing units to fly over screens is not a gimmick, it was part of the rules.

Or it's an oversight they just corrected.

You don't know the intent of the rules writers.