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.

10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.

 Asmodai wrote:
10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.

I think the reading most people would agree on would be that you use it immediately after the units destruction, i.e. at the time you remove the models from the table (picture them going into reserves again instead of into a metaphorical bin), with the most stretched definition you could maybe argue in good faith being that you can bring up the last unit that was destroyed in the current game, which is already something i'd personally not feel like argueing for. A reasonable compromise could be something like checking at the end of the phase or player turn, but then again RAW i'd say it's either immediately after the destruction or never.

 Asmodai wrote:
10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.

It's in my top 3 random gripes/wild claims so far.

Dudeface wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.

It's in my top 3 random gripes/wild claims so far.

People have no problem with the word 'just' in other contexts, i.e. 'may' re-rolls, where you have to decide on the spot. I'd argue the appropriate, and only appropriate time to use this stratagem is in the 'clean-up' step of an attack sequence, where you remove the models and other 'whenever a unit is destroyed' things trigger, and once both players agree that this step is over your chance to use it has passed.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
10th must be a really tight rules set if critics have to stretch the meaning of words that far to try to find holes in it.

It's in my top 3 random gripes/wild claims so far.

People have no problem with the word 'just' in other contexts, i.e. 'may' re-rolls, where you have to decide on the spot. I'd argue the appropriate, and only appropriate time to use this stratagem is in the 'clean-up' step of an attack sequence, where you remove the models and other 'whenever a unit is destroyed' things trigger, and once both players agree that this step is over your chance to use it has passed.

Fully agree, I think my top 3 are as follows:
3. "I can revive this unit that was just destroyed 7 games ago"
2. "I know how you make a critical wound, I know what it does but what is a critical wound"
1. "If my 6+" ruin happens to be conveniently at tabletop height at the 6" mark with a unit on top, so it's in a depression in the board, why does it get the benefit for firing at models on the table level with it?"

 AtoMaki wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What was the last thing that happened. What just happened before you play the strat that you can use at literally any time?

The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

You can absolutely make any argument you like.
Just don't be surprised when others laugh at you, think your being stupid, and if you try it in real life refuse to play you.

So do you want to make that argument?

Dudeface wrote:

Fully agree, I think my top 3 are as follows:
3. "I can revive this unit that was just destroyed 7 games ago"
2. "I know how you make a critical wound, I know what it does but what is a critical wound"
1. "If my 6+" ruin happens to be conveniently at tabletop height at the 6" mark with a unit on top, so it's in a depression in the board, why does it get the benefit for firing at models on the table level with it?"

I can kind of get behind number 2, sometimes one just struggles metaphysically with a concept without a clear reason why

 AtoMaki wrote:
The entire battle up to that point, obviously. Heck, an argument can be made that I can revive a unit that was just destroyed in the previous game of my Warhammer 40k career.

Please do not be the reason GW writes everything in stupidly wordy legalese to head off obviously unintended interpretations of simple, plain-English rules. 'Just destroyed' does not, never has, and never will mean 'any model that's ever been destroyed any time in the past'.

You can activate the strat as soon as a unit is destroyed, regardless of what phase that happens in, and put it in your strategic reserves. If you pass on that opportunity, it's gone. Period. Simple. No ambiguity.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Fully agree, I think my top 3 are as follows:
3. "I can revive this unit that was just destroyed 7 games ago"
2. "I know how you make a critical wound, I know what it does but what is a critical wound"
1. "If my 6+" ruin happens to be conveniently at tabletop height at the 6" mark with a unit on top, so it's in a depression in the board, why does it get the benefit for firing at models on the table level with it?"

I can kind of get behind number 2, sometimes one just struggles metaphysically with a concept without a clear reason why

I was very close to having "It's not hard to write rules, you just think of the whole game at once. You'll see the 3+ cover cap is stupid once you think about other profiles and weapons outside of marines" - in the context of the mathematical 100% increase in saves it allows marines.

Chaos daemons

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/09/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-chaos-daemons-2/

DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad. Nice of them to preview the KoS though, I have one sitting on my desk while I decide what weapons to give it.

 Valkyrie wrote:
DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.

Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).

Voss wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.

Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).

Bodes well for that when Be'Lakor lost his ignore invuln.

Voss wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.

Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).

On the other hand, they fumbled using the opportunity to giving the Invulnerable save a keyword like [Psychic] and letting select stuff ignore that. Ah well, there's always another edition for them to get it right, for now the solution is at least as uncomplicated as it can be. And probably easier to balance, otherwise you'd run into weird dynamics with e.g. Grey Knights again.

Who knows, GK might get an army rule that they reduce invulnerable saves our something. Very effective against daemons but doesn't mean that they only work against daemons.

This is obviously just off the top of my head, but there's ways of balancing invuln saves.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GK might get an army rule that they reduce invulnerable saves our something. Very effective against daemons but doesn't mean that they only work against daemons.

This is obviously just off the top of my head, but there's ways of balancing invuln saves.

dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO

Tsagualsa wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
DSv is gone, not sure if that's good or bad.

Very good. Daemonic saves were spaghetti code for countering counters that had gotten out of hand. They just also have to yank out the hard counters they stupidly wrote into 9th, long after rerollable 3++ was already gone (and what they were likely written to deal with).

On the other hand, they fumbled using the opportunity to giving the Invulnerable save a keyword like [Psychic] and letting select stuff ignore that. Ah well, there's always another edition for them to get it right, for now the solution is at least as uncomplicated as it can be. And probably easier to balance, otherwise you'd run into weird dynamics with e.g. Grey Knights again.

That's... not a missed opportunity. It can sounds good fluffwise, but game-wise, specific weapons or factions ignoring defenses is absolutely wretched. The 'leave that at home unless you know Timmy is fielding X, in which case you just ruin his fun' kind of wretched.

VLadimirHerzog wrote:dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO

Exactly. Bad game design from top to bottom.

I'm not liking that we're seeing so much model/unit resurrection. I'm getting a real 7th edition Chaos Daemons summoning vibe.

Tyranids, Endless Swarm
Necrons, Reanimation Protocols (granted this has always been their thing, but it's different this time around in that it's not akin to save, it just happens, there isn't a trigger)
AM, Reinforcements
Daemons, Daemonic Manifestation (this one seem the least egregious)

Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.

Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.

 oni wrote:
I'm not liking that we're seeing so much model/unit resurrection. I'm getting a real 7th edition Chaos Daemons summoning vibe.

Tyranids, Endless Swarm
Necrons, Reanimation Protocols (granted this has always been their thing, but it's different this time around in that it's not akin to save, it just happens, there isn't a trigger)
AM, Reinforcements
Daemons, Daemonic Manifestation (this one seem the least egregious)

So far I think it can be ok IF the regen of CP is limited and there is counterplay, which there seems to be. The actual application could wind up being entirely different though. Rezzing sentinels or field guns is kind of scary.

Voss wrote:


That's... not a missed opportunity. It can sounds good fluffwise, but game-wise, specific weapons or factions ignoring defenses is absolutely wretched. The 'leave that at home unless you know Timmy is fielding X, in which case you just ruin his fun' kind of wretched.

VLadimirHerzog wrote:dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO

Exactly. Bad game design from top to bottom.

I partially agree, but not fully - imho, 'hate' rules are only fair (or not more unfair than having e.g. anti-tank, anti-infantry etc. specialists) when they

a) are not overly effective against any particular faction
b) everybody has about equal-ish access to it in some way or form

In combination, this leads to the problem that you can't really phase them in with normal codex rotations, as you will have horrible imbalances for years that way, so 'resets' are the only time you can introduce something like that, which is why imho now is a missed opportunity. I see that this is not a uncontested point of view, but we need not discuss it further. I'm fine with leaving stuff like that out, too, it's hard to balance and GW are bad at balancing in general.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Who knows, GK might get an army rule that they reduce invulnerable saves our something. Very effective against daemons but doesn't mean that they only work against daemons.

This is obviously just off the top of my head, but there's ways of balancing invuln saves.

dear god, please don't add army-hate rules, nothing worse than that IMO

Tyel wrote:Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.

Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.

I completely agree, and I believe it should always be a "works against pretty much all factions, but works especially well against this one" approach. Singling out daemons would be awful, but reducing invulns across the board is pretty reasonable.

oni wrote:I'm not liking that we're seeing so much model/unit resurrection. I'm getting a real 7th edition Chaos Daemons summoning vibe.

Tyranids, Endless Swarm
Necrons, Reanimation Protocols (granted this has always been their thing, but it's different this time around in that it's not akin to save, it just happens, there isn't a trigger)
AM, Reinforcements
Daemons, Daemonic Manifestation (this one seem the least egregious)

So far they've only given the rule to factions it kind of makes sense on. I can see Orks getting a similar rule, but can't really see anyone else getting it. Maybe chaos cultists having one?

If every schmuck gets it then that's pretty dumb.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

So far they've only given the rule to factions it kind of makes sense on. I can see Orks getting a similar rule, but can't really see anyone else getting it. Maybe chaos cultists having one?

If every schmuck gets it then that's pretty dumb.

Reinforcements/Endless Swarm/ Green Tide whatever is an okay-ish way to make horde armies feel like actual hordes without needing to buy and paint hundreds of chaff models to shovel them on and off the table for hours. I guess they'll restrain it to these armies, and maybe select units from other armies like GSC or CSM, which i think is fine. If it is any good in practice remains to be seen, your returning unit still need a way to get into the fray again, but that may be solved via other unit's skills or by mission objectives.

Tsagualsa 809431 11531295 wrote:

I partially agree, but not fully - imho, 'hate' rules are only fair (or not more unfair than having e.g. anti-tank, anti-infantry etc. specialists) when they

a) are not overly effective against any particular faction
b) everybody has about equal-ish access to it in some way or form

In combination, this leads to the problem that you can't really phase them in with normal codex rotations, as you will have horrible imbalances for years that way, so 'resets' are the only time you can introduce something like that, which is why imho now is a missed opportunity. I see that this is not a uncontested point of view, but we need not discuss it further. I'm fine with leaving stuff like that out, too, it's hard to balance and GW are bad at balancing in general.

I did not find an edition of Abhore the Witch double dipping a good or fun rule to use. It was an auto take vs GK, and often vs 1ksons. Especialy outside of stuff like events, where people just know who they are going to play against. It took GW an entire 9th edition to just find out that non GK/1ksons could double dip on kill secondaries and AtW. I don't think they lost the mind set with 10th.

Tyel wrote:
Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.

Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.

So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.

wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons

 Daedalus81 wrote:


So far I think it can be ok IF the regen of CP is limited and there is counterplay, which there seems to be. The actual application could wind up being entirely different though. Rezzing sentinels or field guns is kind of scary.

It can become a problem, when Inari suddenly resurect a big unit of bikers. But who knows maybe GK will get to summon their Ghost Terminators and their perpetual Justicar terminator. And it will be making a terminator army fun. One does have to give GW point for noticing, that maybe resurecting a squadron of lemman russes for 2CP isn't the right thing to do. Although who knows maybe 20 regular IG dudes with a command squad and a character attached, will count as a single unit.
IMO resurection should have either stayed a chaff only thing, or be limited to stuff like Celestine and be super rare.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.

Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.

So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.

wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons

Reducing a save by a point is only ignoring them altogether if they only have a negligible save in the first place. To say its specifically faction hate is a bit much. My Orks don't get saves against most weapons, is that faction hate?

If a rule says "reduce invuln saves for daemons and daemons only", then yeah its faction hate. Saying "reduce invuln saves for everyone across the board" then it's just a generic and generally applicable rule.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.

wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons

That doesn't really work though. Because one were super fast and didn't allow for use range weapons, unless they wanted it, on top of that they were very resilient with their high inv and debuffs to shoting, and demons were codex flamers, shoting or melee didn't work against them.

Maybe me mr Tyel is thinking about large efficient mechanics and not being stricktly anti army X, if they work against either a more broad type of army building. For example very good vs swarms. Although in some cases it is hard to avoid. If a faction is 100% skimmer mounted, an over all efficient army that hard counters skimers, will hard counter that specific army really well.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


So far I think it can be ok IF the regen of CP is limited and there is counterplay, which there seems to be. The actual application could wind up being entirely different though. Rezzing sentinels or field guns is kind of scary.

It can become a problem, when Inari suddenly resurect a big unit of bikers. But who knows maybe GK will get to summon their Ghost Terminators and their perpetual Justicar terminator. And it will be making a terminator army fun. One does have to give GW point for noticing, that maybe resurecting a squadron of lemman russes for 2CP isn't the right thing to do. Although who knows maybe 20 regular IG dudes with a command squad and a character attached, will count as a single unit.
IMO resurection should have either stayed a chaff only thing, or be limited to stuff like Celestine and be super rare.

Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?

The article seems to clearly define it. Am I missing something?

What sorts of units have the REGIMENT keyword, you ask? Your core infantry squads, of course, but also the big guns of Heavy Weapons Squads and Field Ordnance Batteries, elites like Tempestus Scions, and even fast-moving Rough Riders and Sentinel teams!

 Afrodactyl wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Faction hatred is a bad road to go down.

Weapons that acted like AP-1 into Invuls however could be potentially interesting if properly pointed. Sure probably quite good into Daemons, Harlequins etc. But also not doing much at all into certain other factions.

So that would basically act like faction-hate, and would mean that invulns don't actually matter. its the same thing as ignoring them altogether.

wanna know how to counter demons/harlequins? bring high RoF weapons

Reducing a save by a point is only ignoring them altogether if they only have a negligible save in the first place. To say its specifically faction hate is a bit much. My Orks don't get saves against most weapons, is that faction hate?

If a rule says "reduce invuln saves for daemons and daemons only", then yeah its faction hate. Saying "reduce invuln saves for everyone across the board" then it's just a generic and generally applicable rule.

Its faction hate when it only realistically affects the two factions that don't get regular saves with their invulns.

And even without that argument, i think it's bad design to start modifying an unmodifiable save


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Why do people keep saying tanks can get resurrected?

The article seems to clearly define it. Am I missing something?

you misread what they said.

Karol said he's giving points to GW for noticing bringing back tanks might be too much.

So that its a good thing that they CANNOT