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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Confirmation bias? I don't know what you're blathering about.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

In other words - massive balance issues with the Flavor Of The Month is proof this pre-existing mechanic I hated - vehicles, strats, whatever - is what's wrong with the game.

And it's all well and good to blame a lack of play-testing, but the people writing the rules should know better. They've been at this for long enough.

They should. I'd say they don't. Irregardless, yet another badly written codex out of the gate is not proof that (insert pet peeve here) is at fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.

For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?

Why doesn't this appear to be the case with Imperial Knights or Chaos knights? Why wasn't this the case with any of this edition's space marine releases?

First, I'm not saying that the premise is accurate - I think some of it is each edition having their own "flavor of the month" when it comes to elements (flame, plasma, melta, grav, etc) but:

A) Knights only have what 3 kits? four?

B) What makes you think it didn't happen with Space Marines? Seen a lot of Inceptors and Hellblasters lately?

C) The real stumbling block for this theory that assumes malice aforethought instead of a general incompetence are the model kits that sink like a stone even on release. Gladiators do not fit in this model.

 Rihgu wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

I already have cited the relevant part. You muster your army (pick units, detachments, wargear options, etc) and then, once you've done that, you select your warlord. You only gain relic choices upon selecting a warlord, which you pick "once you've mustered your army" (per core rules).

So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

I think you need to explain whether or not is is legal for a tank commander to have a battle cannon and relic battle cannon. Then we can go from there.

If a Leman Russ Tank Commander replaces its battle cannon with a relic battle cannon then it no longer has a battle cannon and has no other weapons that can be replaced for a battle cannon. It's clearly not the same thing.

It's a problem unique to Tyranids as far as I can see, it just needs to be fixed by saying that all relics are still treated as the original weapon but with better stats, this is also why I always write my homebrew relics as being "add x to this or that weapon's Strength, Range or Damage". It's against the ITC code of conduct to rules lawyer like this though, so it should still be illegal at most tournaments and most independent judges won't let it fly either. Rule 1 should handle it for casual games, I'm certainly not going to play against someone who tries this now that I know the max 1 HVC rule exists.

Pancakey wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.

They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.

It isn't. When balance improves, sales improve. People forget that it takes 10 bandwagon players buying the new cheese to make up for 1 player who quits because of it. Further, when those things rotate out of effectiveness they don't get thrown away; they are sold off to other players who are buying them in lieu of buying new product from GW. The long term cost far outweighs the short term gain.

This is of course on top of the mountain of evidence that GW does not do this maliciously and is in fact just really bad at it. At most, they may intentionally avoid trying to do better.

Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?

Yes. One can find examples in literally any codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
It's against the ITC code of conduct to rules lawyer like this though

Well let's not pretend ITC has actual standards. Obviously they pretend as such, but we don't need to join them.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.

 vict0988 wrote:

If a Leman Russ Tank Commander replaces its battle cannon with a relic battle cannon then it no longer has a battle cannon and has no other weapons that can be replaced for a battle cannon. It's clearly not the same thing.

It's a problem unique to Tyranids as far as I can see, it just needs to be fixed by saying that all relics are still treated as the original weapon but with better stats, this is also why I always write my homebrew relics as being "add x to this or that weapon's Strength, Range or Damage". It's against the ITC code of conduct to rules lawyer like this though, so it should still be illegal at most tournaments and most independent judges won't let it fly either. Rule 1 should handle it for casual games, I'm certainly not going to play against someone who tries this now that I know the max 1 HVC rule exists.

Point well taken.

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.

Thank you for citing rules pages, which may make it easier for some people to follow. I am working off of a number of disparate rules sources (Grand Tournament packs, Core Rules, etc) all of which have different page numbers from other sources of rules so to me it didn't seem helpful, but the way you did it is easy to follow.

Tempest of War (which a few of us do play ) section 1 states

Details of how to Battle-forge an army, use a points limit, select a Warlord . . . can be found in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.

As ToW is Matched Play we can refer to page 280, which states

Details of how to select a Warlord and what information your army roster must contain can be found on pages 238 and 251 respictively.

Page 238, under section 1

Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord.

This made me wonder about Stratagems that let you take extra Relics, perhaps they could work around this. So I checked Orks Extra Gubbins

Use this stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army, if your Warlord has the Orks keyword.

The Tyranid Stratagem Rarefied Enhancements also has the Warlord requirement.

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.

Honestly, don't even address the dude. Every sensible player knows hes wrong, he's just committed real hard to being TFG.

I do hope that they level out the releases when they do the next edition. The core of 9th was good, but it seems that for the last 18 months or so the power level has been on the rise. An interesting element for me is that the reasons each new release has been OP seem to vary. Makes it hard to pin down where their design blind-spot is. Sometimes its a sub-faction trait interaction; others it is a Stratagem; maybe a relic and warlord trait unintended combo; sometimes its just under-costed stuff. This book seems to be all of those. Perhaps their team is sifting through the data to learn from the last 18 months of releases to make improvements next time around.

Turning to the present, at least they are taking active steps to address balance issues. This does, though, erode trust in new releases.

I don't think they sit there looking at inventory levels and decide to make certain models more powerful to clear them out. Having said that, Harpies and Malceptor are sold out. I imagine, though, that the market for 3D printed Void Weavers crashed a month ago...I have a feeling that this book is a case of "Oops, I did it again" as opposed to a cunning plan to sell more models. Although selling models for them is never a bad idea!

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.

There's actually a subsection in the core rules about choosing a warlord that says it happens during Muster that technically overwrites the order of operations for all missions except 'Only War' which explicitly has you choose your warlord AFTER mustering your army.


Which is interesting because, per RAW, only war is the only mission that you actually CAN muster an army for and is thus the only mission that can be legally played.

So you either have the Core rules making it impossible to muster an army at all, or the Only War mission rules making it impossible to select army specific traits and relics. Either way, no HVC+Shardgullet.

So weird that they spent all those design resources on relics and warlord traits without giving you any legally way to use them :(

Oh well.

Care to provide a reference for that sub-section, ERJAK? Either a page reference, or which section of the rulebook (as that allows people using the BRB or the CE mini-rulebook to find it).

 Dysartes wrote:
Care to provide a reference for that sub-section, ERJAK? Either a page reference, or which section of the rulebook (as that allows people using the BRB or the CE mini-rulebook to find it).

In the mission section under subsection 9 as a special blurb.

The Warlord
While mustering your army, you can nominate one model (except a model with the FORTIFICATION keyword) to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If this model is a CHARACTER, you can also assign a Warlord Trait to it. Note, that more than one model in your army can have a Warlord Trait (e.g. by using Stratagems), but they are only considered your Warlord for the purpose of that trait.

I can't find that copy in my copy of the CE mini-rulebook - there's something similar on the page that talks about how to fill in an army roster, but that doesn't seem to be a sequence, given it is referring to points on the roster sheet and what you do with them.

I'm a little confused here, can anyone else find the copy ERJAK is referring to?

 Dysartes wrote:
I can't find that copy in my copy of the CE mini-rulebook - there's something similar on the page that talks about how to fill in an army roster, but that doesn't seem to be a sequence, given it is referring to points on the roster sheet and what you do with them.

I'm a little confused here, can anyone else find the copy ERJAK is referring to?

I assume it must be the Russian's commentary. Technically I don't think the core rules explain when to select a WL, it is explained in the Only War mission in a way that doesn't work. Since it isn't explained when to do it in the core rules I think it makes sense to just say it happens when the Russian says it happens, otherwise Relics and pre-game Strats don't work.

I control searched for Warlord and the quote does not appear, it'd have to be GW FAQ or Errata, but then the Russian wouldn't say it was his own commentary.

Actually, it is Wahapedia's commentary and is clearly labeled as such.

...so when I was asking for a page reference or section in the rulebook, the poster wasn't necessarily referring to the document in question? Oh dear.

@vict0988 - The first reference to selecting a WARLORD in the mini-rulebook seems to be on pg 50, which is the Open War mission set-up. This is the page referred back to by the Eternal War (Matched Play) set-up sequence.

It does seem a little odd that OW doesn't include the "this is when you do pre-battle stratagems" section post-selecting-a-WARLORD within step 2.

Equally, talk about Command Points doesn't seem to crop up until we hit the Battle-Forged Armies section a few pages later, so that might be a factor, and the requirement of a BF army in the EW mission pack isn't there in the OW mission pack.

Eternal War is specifically referring back to OW for "hot to WARLORD", and you then come back to EW for further steps, which does include spending CP on pre-battle upgrade Strats (such as extra Relics or Traits).

As has been noted, the wording in a Codex indicates you have to have a WARLORD before the first Relic can be awarded, which is why we can start to hash out a working sequence of events, even if people paraphrase things on a day-to-day basis.

I have no comment on any of these list building or codex power level issues in this thread.

I just wanted to pop in and say I thought it was cool that a nid list full of raveners, my favorite nid models, won something. They were so meh for so long.

Auspex Tactics just put out a video with an overview of the last three weeks of major events. Tyranids have 42 top 10% placing in that period, or over 1/3rd of all the top 10% placings. The next closest was Tau with 12. I assume that these results are pre-Nerf, but these numbers indicate the bonkers-level power of this book.

 Rihgu wrote:
Actually, it is Wahapedia's commentary and is clearly labeled as such.

Oh, oops. My bad. My contributions were almost entirely worthless before that though so now I just feel like I've been more consistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arschbombe wrote:
I have no comment on any of these list building or codex power level issues in this thread.

I just wanted to pop in and say I thought it was cool that a nid list full of raveners, my favorite nid models, won something. They were so meh for so long.

Now they're super OP and kind of toxic! Talk about a glow up!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Auspex Tactics just put out a video with an overview of the last three weeks of major events. Tyranids have 42 top 10% placing in that period, or over 1/3rd of all the top 10% placings. The next closest was Tau with 12. I assume that these results are pre-Nerf, but these numbers indicate the bonkers-level power of this book.

Almost certainly pre-nerf. Most tournaments this past weekend did not apply the FAQ.

Breton wrote:
In other words - massive balance issues with the Flavor Of The Month is proof this pre-existing mechanic I hated - vehicles, strats, whatever - is what's wrong with the game.

I was talking about a ruling in an FAQ changing something the way something works just for Tyranids - psychic actions counting as casting a power - as the problem. What that has to do with "confirmation bias" I simply don't understand.

Let me see if I'm following you correctly, HBMC:

Rulebook - Cannot have the same unit do a psychic action and cast any powers in the same turn.
Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey - Can do an action and cast in the same turn, no mention as to it costing one cast of a power
FAQ - Using a psychic action while the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey in play uses one of your opportunities to cast a power.

Your concern appears to be that the Maleceptor is being singled out here. The only other examples people have presented so far of models being able to cast & do a psychic action in a turn (Eldar via Stratagem, Thousand Sons via Stratagem or Legion upgrade) would both imply that same action-replaces-one-cast approach.

The Legion upgrade, going by Daedalus81's quote, is also explicitly a case of performing a psychic action replacing a cast.

This does depend on who the stratagems can target (i.e., are they limited to models who can already cast two or more powers, for example) - not having either book, I can't confirm either way. I don't see an equivalent stratagem in the Death Guard book, so can't look for a pattern there.

At this point, it seems like the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey is being brought back into line with other abilities that function the same way, though I'd appreciate some confirmation on whether any of the models that could benefit from the Eldar or Thousand Sons stratagems could only cast one power in the first place to confirm.

Am I missing anything, at this point?

For the Eldar and Thousand Sons stratagem, there are a few units it could target that can only manifest 1 power to begin with.

The Legion upgrade is a trade of a power attempt for an action. The stratagem is more like an additional manifest type effect.

ERJAK wrote:

Now they're super OP and kind of toxic! Talk about a glow up!

Toxic? Super OP? Do they need a points hike? Sure. But feth off if you want to modify their profile. Raveners are one of those hapless units (like Ogryns or something) that have been perpetually gak when considering both internal and external balance. Yeah, they should be toned down some but they're not that degenerate.

Somehow I suspect if OP had been talking about Sacresants, you would be singing a different tune...

Yea I just figured they were similar to Spawn+. I imagine walking through walls with 9 of them on top of transhuman makes them more like spawn++.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Now they're super OP and kind of toxic! Talk about a glow up!

Toxic? Super OP? Do they need a points hike? Sure. But feth off if you want to modify their profile. Raveners are one of those hapless units (like Ogryns or something) that have been perpetually gak when considering both internal and external balance. Yeah, they should be toned down some but they're not that degenerate.

Somehow I suspect if OP had been talking about Sacresants, you would be singing a different tune...

Sacrosancts are an "OP" unit in a codex or army full of mid tier units. Raveners, like everything bigger in the tyranid codex, are a good to OP unit in a codex full of undercosted and OP options. That is the difference. The tyranid codex is unfixable same way the DE or Eldar book is unfixable. Now you can make all of those unplayable with points hikes or contrustice additional core rules to make the books bad, but in general when problem units reach a 10+ number from a codex, and GW generaly doesn't rewrite entire books after puting them out, we are stuck with what is there till the end of edition. And unlike with DE, we have a smaller chance that other books like csm, knights or IG, will "balance" out tyranids. Because historialy this never worked, and at best everyone who was then top army, will now be worse then two armies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I just figured they were similar to Spawn+. I imagine walking through walls with 9 of them on top of transhuman makes them more like spawn++.

Raveners do not have access to transhuman.

 Tyran wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I just figured they were similar to Spawn+. I imagine walking through walls with 9 of them on top of transhuman makes them more like spawn++.

Raveners do not have access to transhuman.

Leviathan ones that are in synapse range ignore 1s and 2s. So somewhat?

Getting a box or two of them is on my to-do list. Love the snake guys, need something between rippers and trygons.

They're awesome models, I have 18. Because you really needed that many in previous editions, T4 with a 5+ (even with 3w) was such a crap profile. And they didn't hit hard either, that was the real issue.

 Dysartes wrote:
Let me see if I'm following you correctly, HBMC:

Rulebook - Cannot have the same unit do a psychic action and cast any powers in the same turn.
Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey - Can do an action and cast in the same turn, no mention as to it costing one cast of a power
FAQ - Using a psychic action while the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey in play uses one of your opportunities to cast a power.

Your concern appears to be that the Maleceptor is being singled out here. The only other examples people have presented so far of models being able to cast & do a psychic action in a turn (Eldar via Stratagem, Thousand Sons via Stratagem or Legion upgrade) would both imply that same action-replaces-one-cast approach.

The Legion upgrade, going by Daedalus81's quote, is also explicitly a case of performing a psychic action replacing a cast.

This does depend on who the stratagems can target (i.e., are they limited to models who can already cast two or more powers, for example) - not having either book, I can't confirm either way. I don't see an equivalent stratagem in the Death Guard book, so can't look for a pattern there.

At this point, it seems like the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey is being brought back into line with other abilities that function the same way, though I'd appreciate some confirmation on whether any of the models that could benefit from the Eldar or Thousand Sons stratagems could only cast one power in the first place to confirm.

Am I missing anything, at this point?

It seems pretty straightforward- a general rules change is being applied to a Codex FAQ.
If any supplements or future Codexes also provide Psy-actions and multi-casting (or any unintended interactions from relics, traits, crusade rules, whatever), they will all also have to be spot fixed.

The proper place to do this was a fix in to the general rule, not the codex. (though maybe a note in the announcement of the codex FAQ).
'Fixing' things this way is how you get swiss-cheese rules, a lack of future proofing and an overall mess.