Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
|
2018/04/20 12:24:13
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon
Tied and gagged in the back of your car
|
Except GW placing restriction on force compositions is not a new thing. Prior to 7th edition, the belt was kept pretty tight, and the current composition rules are still largely open compared to those days. This is nothing new, it's been this way for decades.
I'll be among the first to say that the FAQ was scatterbrained and an absolute mess, but the problems with these changes, and the 0-3 restriction itself, have more to do with their interactions being poorly thought out with the current state of the game and its armies than the nature of the changes to the core systems themselves.
Unit restrictions in themselves are not a bad thing. 40k opens itself up to a huge problem with spam where certain units increase in effectiveness near exponentially with redundancy, and a lot of times the only way to curb that is with such limits. Linking stratagems to unit abilities can help at times (see Riptide double roid mode, for example), since stratagems are limited in spam potential themselves, but tying command point use to a much broader redevelopment towards how stratagems work and command points are cultivated. And as much as I think that's a good idea that organically helps to reduce the effectiveness of unit redundancies, often you just need to deal in raw numbers.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 12:25:15
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 12:36:31
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Henshini wrote:I think a better example for the chaos+daemons thing is if servitors didn’t have the chapter trait or if ratlings and ogryn didn’t have the regiment trait. Chaos space marines have always had the option of splashing a few daemons in. I don’t understand why the basic daemons didn’t have the same rule fallen get in CSM. Now they have difficult summoning rules AND remove you legion traits? I think GW just wants you to spend more money and start a daemon army.
????
First, if you summon them, Daemons don't break your Legion trait.
Second, in most previous editions, you were FORCED to summon daemons. It was the only way you could get them on the table in a pure Chaos Space Marines army. Now summoning is optional, even if you take some disadvantages for just fielding them without summoning in ways you couldn't possibly ever do in 4th, 5th, etc...
In 7th, there were ways to get mixed Daemons/ CSM to the table with with formations, etc.., but guess what, these formations were far more restrictive in other ways and breaking the far more specific formation rules also meant you lost the associated benefits. Going straight-up unbound Daemons/ CSM mix without following the guidelines of formations or "decurions" was far more costly in 7th than losing a legion trait is in 8th.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/20 12:37:48
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 13:25:13
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Confessor Of Sins
|
I wonder if GW would do such a cruel thing to any other codex than a Chaos Codex (looks sideways at Codex Adeptus Mechanicus)?
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 13:30:53
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Mighty Vampire Count
|
topaxygouroun i wrote:Crazy_swede wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
They are my favorite model in the game. Also I really liked the hit and run playstyle. I did it in WHFB with Wood Elves, I did it in 40k with Lictors. While it lasted, that is.
Also, I have been telling GW many things multiple times. for example the fact that Rubric marines currently have two different datasheets (with the same name but different rules), both of them 100% valid at the same time. And two FAQs later, this has not been addressed.
Did it ever dawn on you that your situation might be rather rare?
Do you seriously belive that GW can ever make EVERYONE, including those that bought nine lictors, happy?
The current rules changes.
text removed.
Reds8n
/ Best regards, Fredrik
It's not about making people happy, it's about the same company that sold you physical copies of models is now forbidding you to use them in their official ruling. Not a tournament comp, not a third party or FLGS house ruling, the actual company that makes the game.
MtG does the same by rotating out cards from past years I suppose, so that makes a precedent. And sure, they give you alternative formats to use your old cards, just as you are allowed to play 9 lictors in narrative play. However, warhammer and MtG are not the same. In MtG you get 15 cards for 3 bucks and that's the end of it (of course you should always draft your packs otherwise you are an uncivilized brute). In warhammer you spend 30 bucks for one model and then an extra 10-15 bucks on paints and 5-10 hours to prepare, paint and base it. It's a HUGE slap to the face if you are not allowed to bring your nicely painted models in a tournament by orders of the same company that encourages you to buy more models.
They could have any other kind of restriction to limit spam. Points penalties, diminishing returns, you name it. But banning physical models is insane. This is not a video game, it's not like we can cancel our models and instantly get our money back.
Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no restrictions to anything, ever? If not where are you drawing the line? What models is banned by the FAQ ?
MTG is a truly worthless comparison - do you buy booster packs of models hoping for the right rare? No you choose specific models and buy them.
I really can't see what the problem is here other than you want to play a specific list and are not allowed to?
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
|
|
2018/04/20 14:49:26
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Ship's Officer
London
|
Sunny Side Up wrote:Henshini wrote:I think a better example for the chaos+daemons thing is if servitors didn’t have the chapter trait or if ratlings and ogryn didn’t have the regiment trait. Chaos space marines have always had the option of splashing a few daemons in. I don’t understand why the basic daemons didn’t have the same rule fallen get in CSM. Now they have difficult summoning rules AND remove you legion traits? I think GW just wants you to spend more money and start a daemon army.
????
First, if you summon them, Daemons don't break your Legion trait.
Second, in most previous editions, you were FORCED to summon daemons. It was the only way you could get them on the table in a pure Chaos Space Marines army. Now summoning is optional, even if you take some disadvantages for just fielding them without summoning in ways you couldn't possibly ever do in 4th, 5th, etc...
In 7th, there were ways to get mixed Daemons/ CSM to the table with with formations, etc.., but guess what, these formations were far more restrictive in other ways and breaking the far more specific formation rules also meant you lost the associated benefits. Going straight-up unbound Daemons/ CSM mix without following the guidelines of formations or "decurions" was far more costly in 7th than losing a legion trait is in 8th.
GW put the rules for nurgle daemons in the DG codex so you didn't have to buy the daemon codex to use your DG characters' abilty to summon daemons.
You can also build totally legal detachments using plaguebearers. They just don't get the DG legion trait. That might not matter too much though, if say you build a battalion with a daemon prince and a chaos lord as characters. They don't lose much. I'd probably go for a daemon detachment instead, but the option is there and it's not awful.
The point is, putting the rules in the book is better than not putting them in. It's good to have the option available, even if you don't take it.
As for the changes, I really like them. The only one I'm a bit wary of is the deep strike change. I like it in principle, but in practice it obviously changes the value of lots of deep strike units, which should result in their points being adjusted downwards. It's ironic to see hive tyrants hit by the 0-3 nerf, the tactical reserve nerf and have their points go up as well. Bit harsh.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 14:51:49
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Rough Rider with Boomstick
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
They dont. Only if they are part of the detachement in army list creation. Notice that nurglings, plaguebearers and beast of nurgle dont have a points cost only power level for summoning in Codex: Death Guard. On the other hand chaos spawn have the Death Guard keyword and a points cost.
|
With the galaxy as large as it is the odds of the average guardsmen seeing and fighting a marine or MEQ are relatively slim. Unfortunately the guardsmen in your (and anyone else who plays IG's) army are the REALLY, REALLY LUCKY ones that fight marines ALL the time... |
|
|
|
2018/04/20 15:37:29
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Ship's Officer
London
|
Banesword wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:
Do you think it is good that the Deathguard forget who they are when they summon Daemons?
They dont. Only if they are part of the detachement in army list creation. Notice that nurglings, plaguebearers and beast of nurgle dont have a points cost only power level for summoning in Codex: Death Guard. On the other hand chaos spawn have the Death Guard keyword and a points cost.
I hadn't noticed they don't have a points value. They actually do have one in the enhanced edition, if you click on their force org icon, but there's nothing in the back of the book.
That's actually unhelpful. You still need to pay reinforcement points to summon them, so it would be handy if the book said how much they cost!
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 15:52:12
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 16:11:52
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
|
I think it might be time to let this thread die. All that's left is the crying, and that's saved for a Discussions thread.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 16:25:17
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Moustache-twirling Princeps
|
pizzaguardian wrote:https://scontent-frt3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31064292_10155420303642196_1896295934552178688_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=35edf133b5b387a1b70ddd02f46ac906&oe=5B5D9C34
Check this out, posted to wh40k official page and deleted.
It's back - https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3&theater
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 16:30:17
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Stubborn Prosecutor
|
Well that's a surprisingly backhanded way to resolve a bunch of strategem arguments. Still, nice to have the clarifications
|
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
https://www.victorwardbooks.com/ Home of Dark Days series |
|
|
|
2018/04/20 16:53:03
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Water-Caste Negotiator
United States
|
Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 17:00:58
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Nevermind wrote:Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
|
|
2018/04/20 17:08:41
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
|
This still doesn't fix the emergency invasion beamer issue. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 17:14:26
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Nevermind wrote:Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
As is Upon Wings of Fire for Blood Angels (with more CP in the back pocket anyhow). Basically .. lists stay as they are. Automatically Appended Next Post: tneva82 wrote: Nevermind wrote:Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
No it's not. RAW you need to resolve unclear situations in 40K by intent, for failing that by rolling a D6. Textualism, the textual interpretation of rules is not allowed in 40K. Intent is clear from the facebook page.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 17:24:19
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 17:39:10
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
Sunny Side Up wrote: Nevermind wrote:Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
As is Upon Wings of Fire for Blood Angels (with more CP in the back pocket anyhow). Basically .. lists stay as they are.
Na, not really. Is not the same to have an unsupported unit of 30 ork boyz in your face turn 1, or 1-2 squads of Blood Angels without support character, than what we had previously.
Blood Angels can put you a squad of Death Company with the 2CP stratagem and one of Sanguinary Guard with Upon Wings of Fire. But they will have 0 character support until turn 2.
This "clarification" means that... theres still ways to make turn one charges, but they have been nerfed. They are now a tool to use carefully, not a thing you do every single game.
|
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 17:56:58
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Water-Caste Negotiator
United States
|
tneva82 wrote: Nevermind wrote:Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
This is wrong like almost everything you add to these FAQ and rumor threads.
1. Ork Weirdboyz
Using Da Jump, you'll still be able to deliver your favourite infantry unit to the enemy frontlines in your first turn. Like any ability that lets you move an already-deployed unit, it's unaffected by the new beta rule.
Please reread the second sentence and stop with this false narrative. It's sad.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:11:09
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Courageous Beastmaster
|
I'd advise you download that image and remind the TFG's out there this was co-written by the GW design team. You can argue RaW all you want. RaI has been made very obvious.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 18:12:11
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:13:26
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
docdoom77 wrote:This still doesn't fix the emergency invasion beamer issue. Sigh.
What issue?
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:28:37
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Stubborn Prosecutor
|
Nevermind wrote:tneva82 wrote: Nevermind wrote:Looks like Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, etc. are back on the menu, boys!
At least once they put it somewhere in official. Until then it's up to agreement with opponent.
This is wrong like almost everything you add to these FAQ and rumor threads.
1. Ork Weirdboyz
Using Da Jump, you'll still be able to deliver your favourite infantry unit to the enemy frontlines in your first turn. Like any ability that lets you move an already-deployed unit, it's unaffected by the new beta rule.
Please reread the second sentence and stop with this false narrative. It's sad.
Damn. Not exactly gracious in victory are we?
|
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
https://www.victorwardbooks.com/ Home of Dark Days series |
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:30:58
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Lethal Lhamean
Birmingham
|
I would imagine if you go first and move a Night Scythe up the table which is then destroyed in your opponents turn, are you allowed to use the Emergency Invasion Beamer stratagem or not, since you'll then be deplying a unit from reserves outside of your deployment zone turn 1? RAW I'd say no though that looks more like an unintended consequence than anything.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:35:47
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Courageous Beastmaster
|
That's one I'd send to GW's mail adres at the least.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:37:18
Subject: Re:40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
|
He's not wrong though. Trying to claim that a post on the official facebook page somehow isn't official is the epitome of being a poor loser.
Also this thread needs to be taken out back and humanely put down already.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:44:22
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
They don't. The DO have a rule that states you effectively ignore them for the purposes of Regiments.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/20 18:44:56
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:50:48
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Washington State
|
Manfred von Drakken wrote:I think it might be time to let this thread die. All that's left is the crying, and that's saved for a Discussions thread.
My thoughts on the whole FAQ issue summed up nicely in a Reddit post:
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:51:00
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Imateria wrote:
I would imagine if you go first and move a Night Scythe up the table which is then destroyed in your opponents turn, are you allowed to use the Emergency Invasion Beamer stratagem or not, since you'll then be deplying a unit from reserves outside of your deployment zone turn 1? RAW I'd say no though that looks more like an unintended consequence than anything.
That's not an issue, if you read the rule it is clear in the RAW, the limitation is only "On the player's first turn". Whatever happens during your opponent turn is unrestricted, including deathmarks.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:54:15
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 18:57:26
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Tyr13 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army. Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army. Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks. Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ. Pretty sure the Auxillia are allowed.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 18:59:59
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 19:01:02
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Platuan4th wrote: Tyr13 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army.
Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army.
Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks.
Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ.
Pretty sure the Auxillia are allowed.
Sure, but that doesn't change that anything with <Regiment> breaks the Tempestus.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/20 19:04:26
Subject: 40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Kanluwen wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Tyr13 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:You're missing the point. Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are different armies. There's no such thing as an Ultramarine Imperial Fist army. Technically there's no such thing as an 'Ultramarine' army either. Ultramarines are a special rule applied to a Space Marine army. Death Guard is an army though, they have special rules, special rules that go away when they take a unit from their own Codex. The equivalent would be Space Marines infantry squads losing their rules if you took any vehicles, of Blood Angels losing their special rules if they took Scouts, or Grey Knights losing their rules if they brought Razorbacks. Same thing with a pure Stormtrooper IG army. Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? No bonus for you. And this hasnt changed since before the FAQ. Pretty sure the Auxillia are allowed.
Sure, but that doesn't change that anything with <Regiment> breaks the Tempestus. Which isn't what he said: Take something that doesnt have the tempestus keyword? However, re-reading the relevant rules, Tyr is actually correct. Which means by RaW, Tempestus that want to use Storm Troopers can't have Commissars. Hilarious.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/20 19:07:02
|
|
|
|
|