40k FAQs updated : page 6 Alpha legion fix

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.

**gungo**

sm3g wrote:
gungo wrote:
I really don't see the tears about the knight change. It's a walker who cares. You move and pivot during the movement phase shoot at whatever the heck you want. If you get charged it can overwatch in any direction and always front facing armor.

So what's the big deal? Did you want to face your knight in one direction and shoot in another direction?

If you have a target directly infront of you, only one of your 2 arms will ever be able to shoot it, that is just silly IMO (I dont play knights so doesn't bother me too much). Also I cannot see my 30k mates applying this 40k FAQ ruling to our 30k games.

Yes but you move (with free pivot) and then shoot so it never matters.
Of great your opponent moved directly in front of you and you can't get a straight line of sight. In your turn you move (pivot) and shoot and he's now in your line of sight.

**insaniak**

gungo wrote:
Yes but you move (with free pivot) and then shoot so it never matters.
Of great your opponent moved directly in front of you and you can't get a straight line of sight. In your turn you move (pivot) and shoot and he's now in your line of sight.

What people are objecting to is that the 90 degree arc imposed by the FAQ means that unlike other walkers with a ranged weapon on each arm, a knight so equipped will only ever be able to fire both arms at a target that is large enough to span the large blind spot.

For other walkers, that blind spot disappears if the target is far enough away.

Given that most knights have a close combat weapon on the second arm instead of a second ranged weapon it's not, I think, a huge deal... but it is a bit silly.

**aushlo**

I have yet to read all of these but I see what looks like some Angels of Death FAQ with no mention of who does and does not get access to the new psychic powers. Am I missing something? It seems like they ought to settle the book vs. psychic cards debate.

**TheWaspinator**

The real problem with the Deathwatch thing is that they said no to something that you totally can do by RAW but didn't actually errata the relevant rules. They're posing it as a clarification question but it really should be an errata. Said errata (probably in the form of removing an entry from the upgrade list) would likely also avoid the stuff people are talking about with similar shotgun combos being still legal because they only said no to a specific one.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

or errata that once you've swapped out a piece of wargear you can't take it again

**LunarSol**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
or errata that once you've swapped out a piece of wargear you can't take it again

Then you just take it first and dual wield Bolters.

**gungo**

insaniak wrote:
gungo wrote:
Yes but you move (with free pivot) and then shoot so it never matters.
Of great your opponent moved directly in front of you and you can't get a straight line of sight. In your turn you move (pivot) and shoot and he's now in your line of sight.

What people are objecting to is that the 90 degree arc imposed by the FAQ means that unlike other walkers with a ranged weapon on each arm, a knight so equipped will only ever be able to fire both arms at a target that is large enough to span the large blind spot.

For other walkers, that blind spot disappears if the target is far enough away.

Given that most knights have a close combat weapon on the second arm instead of a second ranged weapon it's not, I think, a huge deal... but it is a bit silly.

Other walkers also have a much smaller frontal arc. The knight can shoot to the side with one weapon and still face forward and in the rare instance someone is fielding a knight with two arm weapons that they want to declare to shoot both at the same unit and that unit/model is to small to fit within both field of views is not a huge deal considering most of the time you gain more field of view.

Personally I find the shoulder mounted weapon with its 45 degree arc much more restrictive.

**Rod Hull**

I hope I can offer some clarification.

Before the FAQ:
A Knight could fire a 45 degree arc directly ahead of the gun. This arc covered the front of the model, and on the Knight Crusader the fire arcs would converge in front of the Knight in the same way a Predator's sponsons will eventually converge. Thereby allowing both weapons to fire at a target, regardless of size, directly in front of it.

After the FAQ:
The Knight cannot rotate its guns to fire fully perpendicular to its body as the new FAQ shows.
This makes the rule physically nonsensical.

The Knight can rotate its guns to converge in front of its body.
This makes the rule physically nonsensical.

A Knight can now no longer fire directly in front of itself, nor can a Crusader fire both main weapons at the same target most of the time. It's weapon arcs will never converge regardless of distance.

The Knight Crusader costs £95 and a minimum of 425 points. This arbitrary and inexplicable exception to the rules being inflicted on Knight weapons simply isn't acceptable for a model or unit at those price points.

**gnome_idea_what**

cuda1179 wrote:
plagueknight wrote:
I'm suprised no one has mention this awesome change

Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.

Thank god, if you filthy xenos can one shot most of my army I should at least have a slim chance of one shotting your super suit if I can miraclously get a tank close enough to tank shock some Xenos scum into fishy pulp

I'd love to see an army of mounted orks try this. If there are 15 or so trucks with rams speeding across the table at least one will make it before being destroyed.

Or ram it with Zhadsnark like I've brought up before to one-shot it with a bike. He even can get scout to make it closer.

**reds8n**

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/03/traitor-legions-faq-update-for-chaos-cultists/

A few weeks back, we released loads of FAQs for our Warhammer 40,000 codexes: literally hundreds of questions we’d been sent from you guys about some of the more unusual rules interactions between the hundreds of units, formations and abilities in the game.

The FAQ cleared up quite a lot of stuff (you guys picked the questions after all), but one thing we did get asked a lot following the release was about the Alpha Legion Insurgency Force Detachment in the new(ish) Traitor Legions supplement.

Our rules guys took another look at this one and we’ve updated the answer to make the rule work differently. You can download that updated version in the usual places, but to save you the trouble, here’s the updated bit:

Page 82, Command Benefits, Cult Uprising

Replace the rule for Cult Uprising with the following:

‘Cult Uprising: When a unit of Chaos Cultists from this Detachment is completely destroyed, you may add 1 to the dice roll for the A Tide of Traitors special rule when determining whether or not a new unit is placed into Ongoing Reserves.’

So basically, to represent the Alpha Legion’s methodical and masterful infiltration of an enemy populus ahead of an invasion, they have access to even more cultist reinforcements than most of their Traitor Legion kin. As it should be.

For those of you who fancy trying this out in your games. Chaos Cultists can be found in the Dark Vengeance set, in packs of 5 models, or as part of the Cultist Assault (that also contains a Chaos Champion, who looks great painted up in Alpha Legion colours).

Happy gaming folks.

**Mymearan**

That's very nice and a great resolution to that problem, on the other hand it shows that they really didn't think this through before printing the rule

**Matt.Kingsley**

I mean, that was a bit obvious from the get go, but it's nice they fixed it.

**Davor**

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I mean, that was a bit obvious from the get go, but it's nice they fixed it.

Yeah it didn't take a year to fix. That is the amazing part.

**MajorWesJanson**

If GW is now willing to do errata, that opens up so many possibilities!

**BomBomHotdog**

A Tide of Traitors is the special rule from the Cultist formation right?

So basically the AL detachment ability does nothing unless you bring that specific formation right?

**Inevitable_Faith**

Anyone else feel that this was kind of a kick in the teeth? Like are cultists really that big of an OP unit that the possibility of getting 2 units back when one died was going to break the game? The precedent that you can have more models than you started with is already in place, daemon summoning lists are still very strong. Lastly as far as a detachment bonus goes this is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to some of the other very strong detachments in the traitors legions book.

The rules for alpha legion weren't ambiguous at all in the case of cultists, two separate rules that do similar things but from two sources, there was no reason they needed a FAQ much less a complete nerf.

On the flipside I am happy that they seem to be at least partially communicating with the player base on this and giving responses in relatively good time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
A Tide of Traitors is the special rule from the Cultist formation right?

So basically the AL detachment ability does nothing unless you bring that specific formation right?

Yes you are correct BomBomHotdog.

**Matt.Kingsley**

BomBomHotdog wrote:
A Tide of Traitors is the special rule from the Cultist formation right?

So basically the AL detachment ability does nothing unless you bring that specific formation right?

That was true in the first place though anyway, as the only way to take Cultists in their detachment was that specific Formation.

**MajorWesJanson**

Inevitable_Faith wrote:
Anyone else feel that this was kind of a kick in the teeth? Like are cultists really that big of an OP unit that the possibility of getting 2 units back when one died was going to break the game? The precedent that you can have more models than you started with is already in place, daemon summoning lists are still very strong. Lastly as far as a detachment bonus goes this is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to some of the other very strong detachments in the traitors legions book.

Summoning is a problem as written, especially summoning heavy lists. As a rule it sells more models, but from a balance perspective, it's a pain to go from a game where each side has 1500 or 2000 points, but one army can end up with twice that by the end of the game. (Free upgrades and vehicles are also stupid for balance)

Cultists are not an individually strong unit, but from a gameplay perspective, there is a problem when a player wants their own unit to die, not because it opens up a strategic or tactical opportunity, but because it means they have a chance of getting twice as many of that same unit back. (See also Horrors new splitting mess)

It was poor writing/ideas from the start in this case, but it is always better to see bad/overpowered ideas removed or nerfed than see the rest of the game have to get into an arms race to match, where multiple armies are going to be left behind badly.

**BomBomHotdog**

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
BomBomHotdog wrote:
A Tide of Traitors is the special rule from the Cultist formation right?

So basically the AL detachment ability does nothing unless you bring that specific formation right?

That was true in the first place though anyway, as the only way to take Cultists in their detachment was that specific Formation.

CAD with Cultist for Troops

**Matt.Kingsley**

BomBomHotdog wrote:
Matt.Kingsley wrote:
BomBomHotdog wrote:
A Tide of Traitors is the special rule from the Cultist formation right?

So basically the AL detachment ability does nothing unless you bring that specific formation right?

That was true in the first place though anyway, as the only way to take Cultists in their detachment was that specific Formation.

CAD with Cultist for Troops

Yes, but a CAD isn't the Alpha Legion Meta-detachment (which is what has the Cult Uprising rule)

**Inevitable_Faith**

MajorWesJanson wrote:
Inevitable_Faith wrote:
Anyone else feel that this was kind of a kick in the teeth? Like are cultists really that big of an OP unit that the possibility of getting 2 units back when one died was going to break the game? The precedent that you can have more models than you started with is already in place, daemon summoning lists are still very strong. Lastly as far as a detachment bonus goes this is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to some of the other very strong detachments in the traitors legions book.

Summoning is a problem as written, especially summoning heavy lists. As a rule it sells more models, but from a balance perspective, it's a pain to go from a game where each side has 1500 or 2000 points, but one army can end up with twice that by the end of the game. (Free upgrades and vehicles are also stupid for balance)

Cultists are not an individually strong unit, but from a gameplay perspective, there is a problem when a player wants their own unit to die, not because it opens up a strategic or tactical opportunity, but because it means they have a chance of getting twice as many of that same unit back. (See also Horrors new splitting mess)

It was poor writing/ideas from the start in this case, but it is always better to see bad/overpowered ideas removed or nerfed than see the rest of the game have to get into an arms race to match, where multiple armies are going to be left behind badly.

I actually agree with every point you just made in their own respects however In this case I feel the nerf was not needed. The ability to double down on some cultists every once in a while (remember it's not guaranteed and you're just as likely to get 0 cultists back as you were to get 2 in the last ruling) was a decent rule but now with the FAQ it puts AL well under the power curve compared to many of the other legions rules. Keep in mind too that these AL rules are still attached to the overpriced and underpowered 6th edition chaos codex units. The bonuses from these formations and detachments are the crutch the army needs to stand on to at least be competitive with the newer 7th edition dexes in normal play, not to mention even trying competitive play. It may just be my opinion but I feel that ability to double down on cultists was something that helped AL stand out and be more competitive, now with our 3+ cultist roll we get what... a slightly better version of a rule any other legion that takes the formation can get? I feel it really doesn't make the insurgency force very appealing at all anymore. It just irks me too that this FAQ never needed to happen in the first place, too many people couldn't read the names of the two rules and see they were indeed different rules and that it was legal as it was written. Add to this that in the time up until this FAQ I never heard a single person decry it as OP, I just question why this 180 from GW was necessary at all.

**Eldarain**

Just happy the Traitor Legion book will most likely be backwards compatible with 8th. Not enough 7th left to get pissed off.

**MrMoustaffa**

Good, knew there was no way cultists doubling was going to stay in. Now if we can just get rid of summoning in general the game will immediately improve.

The AL one wasn't even that bad, just annoying, and I say this as a guy building alpha legion