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.

 Crazyterran wrote:
The Iron Hands change only affected one model. Only the Venerable Dreadnought had a FNP save to stack with the Iron Hand chapter trait. Let's not blow up the 'huge blow' Iron Hands were dealt. Especially since RG were just as survivable.

Getting indignant about this minor change is about as silly as people getting hugely indignant about the Roboute Guilliman price increase number 2.

I think changing the Deep Strike change to table half would be enough. It lets you catch out anyone who moves up. Maybe change the deep strike strategems in the various books to give a unit the ability to deep strike OR if they can already deep strike, deep strike outside of 9" on the first turn?

'Course, in that situation you just get boned if you play against DE, but such is life.

Table half is actually a terrible idea because then it is a straight nerf to only assault units that deepstrike and largely not shooty units. Take obliterators. If I can deepstrike them in my table half in 4/6 deployments I can basically shoot whatever I want as far as range is concerned. The change to deepstrike is fine.

I agree on the Iron hands front they were already not worth taking compared to other chapters. A venerable with 6+++/6+++ is still flat worse against most things than one that has -1 to hit.

"Chapters" are poorly balanced across all factions. Now I'm not sure if the intent from GW is "this is the competitive chapter" and everything else is just fluff, but that is the way things look right now. If you play codex marines you are playing either Ravenguard, or Ultra Marines that is it. No other chapter is worth considering on a large scale, and most are pretty bad (White Scars is probably the only other one I think might be worth it due to their strat).

Why is everyone up in arms over Iron Hands losing stacking FNPs, but nobody cared when Uthwe got told no even earlier?

Probably because CWE deserves all the hate it could possibly get.

I think it is because people don't like that there is a vast balance discrepancy in power of various traits, and so when a weak one gets even weaker those who were playing fluffy, but wanting to compete get upset. Honestly Most books have only 1 or 2 traits that are worthwhile, everything else is there for fluff. It would be nice if they were better balanced and led to different "optimal" builds being encouraged within books

Uthwe and IH have the same trait, in the same way that RG and Alaitoc have hte same trait. A 6+ FNP.

Uthwe has many other things - including probably their most iconic power - which explicitly does *not* stack with their 6+ FnP.

IH has two units that could potentially stack 2 FnP rolls, and even then it's a 6+++/6+++.

Uthwe is considered sub-par to Alaitoc.

IH is considered sub-par to Raven Guard.

Everyone is up in arms about IH. Nobody is up in arms about Uthwe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?

(Note: I still advocate trying them)

1) Nerf (= remove) Guard's command pts generation, or give all armies the same capacity to generate CP when sneezing
2) Keep deepstrike nerf turn 1, but nerf shooting turn 1 as well
3) No model can be deployed higher than 4" from the ground
4) release the Ork codex

Bharring wrote:
Uthwe and IH have the same trait, in the same way that RG and Alaitoc have hte same trait. A 6+ FNP.

Uthwe has many other things - including probably their most iconic power - which explicitly does *not* stack with their 6+ FnP.

IH has two units that could potentially stack 2 FnP rolls, and even then it's a 6+++/6+++.

Uthwe is considered sub-par to Alaitoc.

IH is considered sub-par to Raven Guard.

Everyone is up in arms about IH. Nobody is up in arms about Uthwe.

Marine players will be Marine players after all. I cannot explain why anyone bothers to be up in arms about a bad trait getting worse, when so many bad traits exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?

(Note: I still advocate trying them)

I like the rules as is if I were to tweak things I would go for

1.) Change tactical reserves to be no outside of your zone on the first turn. Not battle round. That way it ensures both players have exactly 1 turn of moving, shooting, assaulting prior to deepstrike alpha strike.

2.) If you want to combat soup, I would have gone for Remove the CP increases for Brigades and battalions. Reinstate those only if all detachments in your army share all keywords. So you get 3 CP for a Battalion and 9 for a brigade, unless all detachments in your army share all keywords, then you get 5 CP and 12 CP. This still gives bumps to Elite armies as they desire, without giving those same armies bumps for including cheap out of faction detachments.

Bharring wrote:
Uthwe and IH have the same trait, in the same way that RG and Alaitoc have hte same trait. A 6+ FNP.

Uthwe has many other things - including probably their most iconic power - which explicitly does *not* stack with their 6+ FnP.

IH has two units that could potentially stack 2 FnP rolls, and even then it's a 6+++/6+++.

Uthwe is considered sub-par to Alaitoc.

IH is considered sub-par to Raven Guard.

Everyone is up in arms about IH. Nobody is up in arms about Uthwe.

It's because the option was there originally and was even a highlight for the Iron Hands focus Community article. It's then removed for literally NO good reason.

If Ulthwe had it originally (where would it stack?) and then it were removed I'd be annoyed on their behalf too. In fact I was already irritated at the inconsistency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Why is everyone up in arms over Iron Hands losing stacking FNPs, but nobody cared when Uthwe got told no even earlier?

Probably because CWE deserves all the hate it could possibly get.

Your army has been at MINIMUM Tier 1.5 at worst. Get over it.

For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.

I liked stacking FNPs.

Sure, a 6+++ rerollable doesn't feel great, but mathematically it's not bad - and rolling more dice is always fun.

I'd rather roll for a 6 on two dice, than a 5+ on one.

Breng77 wrote:
For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.

That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.

I think until the FAQ has been out for a while this is really premature. As of right now the FAQ does seem to fix a lot of the previous issues. Most of the people knocking it just see, to want to punish players and armies they personally dislike.

I played a game last night using the beta rules.

I had 2 units of 3 inceptors in reserve, he had Abaddon, 7 Terminators & 3 obilerators in reserve.

We both found it made the game longer and made it less about the turn one finisher, instead we both had time to position and prepare for the deep strike.

fe40k wrote:
I liked stacking FNPs.

Sure, a 6+++ rerollable doesn't feel great, but mathematically it's not bad - and rolling more dice is always fun.

I'd rather roll for a 6 on two dice, than a 5+ on one.

No at some point Rolling more dice isn’t more fun, it just slows the game down for minimal gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.

That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.

I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.

Breng77 wrote:

fe40k wrote:
I liked stacking FNPs.

Sure, a 6+++ rerollable doesn't feel great, but mathematically it's not bad - and rolling more dice is always fun.

I'd rather roll for a 6 on two dice, than a 5+ on one.

No at some point Rolling more dice isn’t more fun, it just slows the game down for minimal gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.

That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.

I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.

You keep saying it slows the game, but are you being honest with yourself in how much?

It isn't like you have to only reroll a specific number like 1. You're just rerolling anything not a 6. This is how many seconds if you know how to count?

But only if you're Iron Hands or Nids or somesuch?

Most FnP already had this rule. This just standardized it. It shouldn't be such that some armies can stack it, others can't, at the whim of whether the writer thought about stacking while writing that codex.

Bharring wrote:
But only if you're Iron Hands or Nids or somesuch?

Most FnP already had this rule. This just standardized it. It shouldn't be such that some armies can stack it, others can't, at the whim of whether the writer thought about stacking while writing that codex.

It. Was. Literally. A. Selling. Point.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/20/chapter-focus-iron-hands-july20gw-homepage-post-3/
Like, within the first few paragraphs.

So was being able to play more than 2 units of Corsairs in an army.

To that end, so was Windriders being troops with amazing firepower. I'm glad that's not the rules anymore, either!

Bharring wrote:
So was being able to play more than 2 units of Corsairs in an army.

To that end, so was Windriders being troops with amazing firepower. I'm glad that's not the rules anymore, either!

I'm annoyed Windriders aren't troops anymore either.

Also just because one army was screwed over it's okay for an army to go from bad to worse?

No. I'm saying that sometimes rules change, with the intention of improving the game. So a highlight of what's awesome about one unit in one faction might not be accurate a year later, when the rules change.

I agree IH are a worse tactic than RG. I'm saying that other factions have tactics just as bad. I'm saying that there's benefit in the rules being consistant.

Let me see if we're closer in agreement if I bring it up another way.

I don't want someone to be able to give a Hemlock Uthwe and Fortune, and have it have 3 FnP rules in effect at the same time. I also want FnP to stack in the same way whether it's IH or Uthwe. I don't want IH to get worse.

Of those 3, if they can't be reconciled in the scope of the new rule, which is best to drop? Certainly not substantially buffing Uthwe is more important than not slightly nerfing IH. For simplicity, though, I'd rather FnP were consistent across the game over not slightly nerfing IH.

Wait, the beta rules don't work? For which armies? The one's that min-max reapers and ones that spam plasma command squad deepstrikes?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

fe40k wrote:
I liked stacking FNPs.

Sure, a 6+++ rerollable doesn't feel great, but mathematically it's not bad - and rolling more dice is always fun.

I'd rather roll for a 6 on two dice, than a 5+ on one.

No at some point Rolling more dice isn’t more fun, it just slows the game down for minimal gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.

That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.

I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.

You keep saying it slows the game, but are you being honest with yourself in how much?

It isn't like you have to only reroll a specific number like 1. You're just rerolling anything not a 6. This is how many seconds if you know how to count?

The way FNP works in this edition slows the game down in general so doing it 2 (or more) times does in fact slow the game down. The reason for that is how it interacts with multiple damage weapons and needing to make rolls for every individual model. Especially when you have multiple wound model units with multiple FNP rolls. Those rolls aren’t always 6s (Iron hands are but nurgle for instance is not). So part of my aversion is how these type of save work in general and doubling up on that just makes it more annoying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you realize there is not difference in speed of re-rolling 1s and not re-rolling 6s except you roll more dice more often.

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

fe40k wrote:
I liked stacking FNPs.

Sure, a 6+++ rerollable doesn't feel great, but mathematically it's not bad - and rolling more dice is always fun.

I'd rather roll for a 6 on two dice, than a 5+ on one.

No at some point Rolling more dice isn’t more fun, it just slows the game down for minimal gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.

That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.

I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.

You keep saying it slows the game, but are you being honest with yourself in how much?

It isn't like you have to only reroll a specific number like 1. You're just rerolling anything not a 6. This is how many seconds if you know how to count?

The way FNP works in this edition slows the game down in general so doing it 2 (or more) times does in fact slow the game down. The reason for that is how it interacts with multiple damage weapons and needing to make rolls for every individual model. Especially when you have multiple wound model units with multiple FNP rolls. Those rolls aren’t always 6s (Iron hands are but nurgle for instance is not). So part of my aversion is how these type of save work in general and doubling up on that just makes it more annoying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you realize there is not difference in speed of re-rolling 1s and not re-rolling 6s except you roll more dice more often.

Sorry but it's only a slow process if you have trouble counting. You look for anything not a six and just do the reroll as necessary. It isn't hard.

But FNP changes aren't in the beta rules... It was in the errata.

No one step is hard. But an added step that you might need to iterate a dozen + times is.

There are some rules that mean you can't just roll all the FnP at once in many situations. Sometimes, you must do it unsaved-by-unsaved.

Consider Asurmen hitting a unit of 3W 6+++/6+++ models. For each wound, you need to roll the save. Then for each save, you roll d3 damage. Then, you must roll that many FnP. Then, you must reroll all the failures. Then remove if necessary. Then resolve the same minus the save if the to-wound was a 6.

And that's just for one successful wound.

The compounded FnP is only one step, but there are a lot of steps.

Bharring wrote:
No one step is hard. But an added step that you might need to iterate a dozen + times is.

There are some rules that mean you can't just roll all the FnP at once in many situations. Sometimes, you must do it unsaved-by-unsaved.

Consider Asurmen hitting a unit of 3W 6+++/6+++ models. For each wound, you need to roll the save. Then for each save, you roll d3 damage. Then, you must roll that many FnP. Then, you must reroll all the failures. Then remove if necessary. Then resolve the same minus the save if the to-wound was a 6.

And that's just for one successful wound.

The compounded FnP is only one step, but there are a lot of steps.

That's ONE instance. Your excuse is pitiful.

An example, by it's nature, is one example. There are plenty of other multi-wound weapons that can hit multi-wound models.

Your complaint is only ~2 units in IH that can possibly be impacted. Is it really worth the complexity of having every FnP behave differently just so two IH units can get a second 6+ FnP?

It’s not just multi-wound models. Over the weekend I played a game with Custodes against Death Guard. Every Custodes weapon bar Hurricane Bolters and Misericordia is multi-damage. So when shooting Poxwalkers, you have to roll a FNP independently for every single model. It’s not already bad with flat 2 damage Guardian Bolters, but with random damage weapons like Guardian Spears it’s arduous. With a second roll on FNP it’s horrendous.

Iron Hands losing a second 6+++ on their Warlord if they pick that trait and a couple of subtypes of Dreadnought is hardly the worst they (or many other Marine Chapters) have suffered.

kombatwombat wrote:
It’s not just multi-wound models. Over the weekend I played a game with Custodes against Death Guard. Every Custodes weapon bar Hurricane Bolters and Misericordia is multi-damage. So when shooting Poxwalkers, you have to roll a FNP independently for every single model. It’s not already bad with flat 2 damage Guardian Bolters, but with random damage weapons like Guardian Spears it’s arduous. With a second roll on FNP it’s horrendous.

Iron Hands losing a second 6+++ on their Warlord if they pick that trait and a couple of subtypes of Dreadnought is hardly the worst they (or many other Marine Chapters) have suffered.

No other chapters suffered a literal direct nerf with the FAQ.

Also I'm sorry but it really isn't hard to roll what you're talking about. First time? Maybe. By the third time you should be slow though.

My Black Templars weep for your loss. Do not talk about nerfs to the vanilla Codex Chapter that has fallen furthest.

On that, Templars did get an indirect nerf - our Chapter Tactic made us the only Chapter in the book to be able to semi-reliably charge first turn off Deep Strike.

And yes, you do get faster at it. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t take a while or stop the groan from both players when you say ‘time to do the Poxwalker/Guardian combat...’