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.

harlokin wrote:That's an interesting idea.

yukishiro1 wrote:If they're really committed to DT being what it is, they could also just make it so that in addition to being unable to reroll the hit roll for weapons that roll to hit, it also causes auto-hitting weapons to not auto-hit any more, so you have to roll to hit as normal.

That would lower the output by 1/3 on average plus allow the mortal wounds on self to trigger, which might be enough to make it not an issue.

It's interesting but super clunky.

So if I don't power up my flamer auto hits, but when I power up it suddenly misses?

Good luck wrapping your head around that one. Especially when the unit decides to overwatch an goes from 100% accuracy down to 16%.

We have the answer, wound rolls of 1, lol.

Am I missing something obvious? There's no FAQ upload on WarCom, nor does there appear to be any leak (or discussion) from the usual suspects.

Where's this coming from?

Sterling191 wrote:
Am I missing something obvious? There's no FAQ upload on WarCom, nor does there appear to be any leak (or discussion) from the usual suspects.

Where's this coming from?

I think the official GW app updated.

CORRECTION: The app sent some kind of message saying it updated but there's nothing there currently. No idea where this came from.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We have the answer, wound rolls of 1, lol.

That fixes nothing. The problem with DT and liqs isn't that you get to ignore the MW bit, that's almost totally irrelevant. Liq wracks are still just as broken even if they lose an average of one member of the squad each time they fire.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We have the answer, wound rolls of 1, lol.

That fixes nothing. The problem with DT and liqs isn't that you get to ignore the MW bit, that's almost totally irrelevant. Liq wracks are still just as broken even if they lose an average of one member of the squad each time they fire.

It means you have a risk to use DT, right now there is literally no risk. With a risk and other players learning they need to actually take a TAC list instead of a anti-marine and DG only list it will do wonders.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We have the answer, wound rolls of 1, lol.

That fixes nothing. The problem with DT and liqs isn't that you get to ignore the MW bit, that's almost totally irrelevant. Liq wracks are still just as broken even if they lose an average of one member of the squad each time they fire.

It means you have a risk to use DT, right now there is literally no risk. With a risk and other players learning they need to actually take a TAC list instead of a anti-marine and DG only list it will do wonders.

The risk is essentially microscopic. an average of 1 dead per squad of wracks, zero risk of losing a liquifier - it only takes a single shot to pay for a DT wrack squad against most units. I dont' give a single feth if my wrack squad goes into the turn after they delete 100 points of enemy models as a 4-man instead of a 5-man squad. it literally could not matter to me less.

Yeah, the problem with DT on liqs is how much it improves the profile; it has nothing to do with the auto-hitting per se. If liqs didn't auto-hit DT would still improve them by the same amount, just from a lower base.

The fundamental issue is how +1 to wound and +1 damage interacts with a S4 -2AP 1D profile, boosting the damage by almost 150%. The damage boost to a DL is miniscule by comparison, even without figuring in the limitation on rerolling to-hit rolls.

tl;dr +to wound and +to damage are much better on lowish S, low D weapons than on high S, high D weapons.

DE FAQ up, remember this is the Codex faq, not the Book of Rust faq so no CoS supplement faqs just yet.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/4Tc2U2f19rzoqerz.pdf

It's weird that they mentioned Caltrops and Grav Talons when those haven't changed.... am I missing something?

 harlokin wrote:
It's weird that they mentioned Caltrops and Grav Talons when those haven't changed.... am I missing something?

Just poor copy and paste most likely.

Incidentally...they just made Heat Lance Reavers 20ppm.

god dammit gw you can keep fifty seven bolt weapons straight but you cant take five seconds to have someone who knows the FIVE weapon options available for a non-marine unit correct the points values?

Looks like DT Liquifiers and mixed detachments stay on the menu (Cult of Strife crazy options still pending but outlook now changed to optimistic for those lovers of Competitive Edge and Razorflails).

Sterling191 wrote:
Incidentally...they just made Heat Lance Reavers 20ppm.

the more reasonable assumption is simply that their points did not change.

 Ordana wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
Incidentally...they just made Heat Lance Reavers 20ppm.

the more reasonable assumption is simply that their points did not change.

This is why we cant have nice things. The FAQ is for things that changed...if it hasn't changed, it stayed the same. Simple.

Octovol wrote:

This is why we cant have nice things. The FAQ is for things that changed...if it hasn't changed, it stayed the same. Simple.

And yet, Grav Talons and Caltrops are in there unchanged.

I understand the argument (and frankly I agree with it, just like we all knew Reavers were 20ppm post-MFM-FAQ but pre-Codex-FAQ), but GW needs to get its house in order when it comes to pointing nomenclature so gak like this doesn't keep recurring. If they don't want ambiguity in rules interpretations, they need to stop introducing ambiguity with simple fixes.

Octovol wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
Incidentally...they just made Heat Lance Reavers 20ppm.

the more reasonable assumption is simply that their points did not change.

This is why we cant have nice things. The FAQ is for things that changed...if it hasn't changed, it stayed the same. Simple.

But they did reprint things that stayed the same. Obviously they didn't mean to make heat lances zero points, but they have created the implication they are by what they chose to reprint. At best it's lazy and inconsistent and you have to read between the lines to figure it out.

Someone on Reddit pointed out that something similar occurred in the Death Watch FAQ. Apparently the precedent was set there that the prior entry persists unless the FAQ specifically states that the entry is deleted or replaced.

Thus (sensibly) Heat Lances remain +10 points over base.

So admittedly, I often read things overly literally, but I'm confused by lists like the one on WarCom ( https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/15/metawatch-are-raiding-forces-the-future-of-competitive-drukhari-play/ ) where you take Drazhar as Warlord, but still somehow get to use the Dark Lotus Toxin from The Book of Rust:

"If your army is lead by a Cult of Strife Warlord, you can, when mustering your army, give one of the following Artefacts of Cruelty Relics to a Cult of Strife Character model from your army." (this is above the section describing the relics including Dark Lotus Toxin)

Are people (and tournaments) just saying, "If Battlescribe allows it, it's legal"? Or is there something I'm missing?

I don't think you're reading too much into anything unfortunately.

The wording is clear insomuch as your Warlord must be from CoS in order to access the supplement relics.

Draz is clearly not a CoS Warlord, so the list is invalid. I don't think it's enough to simply have a restricted CoS detachment - though that does work for the strats.

Battlescribe is great, but not without errors. An individual recently had to drop out of a tournament after it turned out his Drukhari list was illegal due to a Battlescribe points error. Innocent mistake, but likely cost him the tournament from what I hear.
A really useful tool, but it's not an authority - nor should it ever be viewed as one.

 StrayIight wrote:
I don't think you're reading too much into anything unfortunately.

The wording is clear insomuch as your Warlord must be from CoS in order to access the supplement relics.

Draz is clearly not a CoS Warlord, so the list is invalid. I don't think it's enough to simply have a restricted CoS detachment - though that does work for the strats.

Battlescribe is great, but not without errors. An individual recently had to drop out of a tournament after it turned out his Drukhari list was illegal due to a Battlescribe points error. Innocent mistake, but likely cost him the tournament from what I hear.
A really useful tool, but it's not an authority - nor should it ever be viewed as one.

I read it clear as day that you only need your WL to get the "FREE" relic and its just another detachment that acts as normal so the stratagems to unlock more WL traits and Relics works. There is no rule to say you need a CoS WL other than the free relic.

The very first rule for CoS is

"Over the following pages you will find Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems for Drukhari units that are drawn from the Cult of Strife" then goes to say "Codes: Drukhari describes how certain Drukhari units belong to a Wych Cult, and how you can use <Wych Cult> keywords to specify where such a unit is drawn from. The following rules section are for units drawn from the Wych Cult of the Cult of Strife"

So to me this doesn't say you need a WL in CoS to unlock any of the rules just to have a CoS detachment. This includes relics, Next is the relic part.

"If your army is led by a Cult of Strife Warlord, you can, when mustering your army, give one of the following Artefacts of Cruelty Relics to a Cult of Strife Character model from your army. Name characters cannot be given any of the following Relics."

So That part says when mustering your army for the free relic I don't see anything that says you have to have a CoS WL to unlock the relics as the first 2 rules already said it unlocks them.


Edit: PS the free CoS relic is worded the same as the Free Drukhari relics

"If your army is led by a Drukhari Warlord, you can, when mustering your army, give one of the following Artefacts of Cruelty to a Drukhari Character model in your army. Named characters cannot be give any of the following Relics."

Which makes it even more clear its only the free relic for CoS that you need a CoS warlord.

I think that's an interesting take, but I don't believe that's the intention at all here. I think we're getting hung up on standard wording also.

This context of this entire rules section is clearly designed only to apply to CoS. I don't think because they used the standard template wording for warlord traits, the intent is that the rules only apply to the 'free' relic. If that's actually the case, why not specifically call that out?

Goonhammer agree:

'The warlord traits can be stuck on a Cult of Strife Character in a Raid, but you still need a full Cult of Strife detachment to unlock the Stratagems, and the Relics need you to take a Cult of Strife Warlord, which removes your ability to use a Raid at all.'

https://www.goonhammer.com/war-zone-charadon-the-book-of-rust-review-the-matched-play-rules/

I'm open to being wrong, but I think your argument hangs on legalese and is in no way what the writer is intending in the wider context of these rules. I would not take these relics in good conscience without having a primary warlord from CoS.

You do you in your games though. And a TO is free to make any ruling they wish for their event.

The "buy an extra relic" stratagems have always allowed you to get the respective relics regardless of your warlord and the relic blurp has always talked about how you need an X warlord to get a free X relic.

How is this situation different from every other codex in 8th and 9th?

 Ordana wrote:
The "buy an extra relic" stratagems have always allowed you to get the respective relics regardless of your warlord and the relic blurp has always talked about how you need an X warlord to get a free X relic.

How is this situation different from every other codex in 8th and 9th?

Because we're not generally talking about content from a completely separate book, designed to support a very specific sub-faction of an army - not the complete army itself.

You could make a similar argument to yours regarding stratagems too, but that isn't the case here. You cannot use them outside of an accompanying restricted detachment.

Again, though we can certainly be wrong, I'm not alone in this interpretation - some of the best rules and theory analysts in the community apparently see it the same way.
At the end of the day, I won't play it without this restriction, you probably will, and in both cases no one is hurt right?

Hopefully a Charadon FAQ references it in a manner which satisfies everyone.

 StrayIight wrote:
I think that's an interesting take, but I don't believe that's the intention at all here. I think we're getting hung up on standard wording also.

This context of this entire rules section is clearly designed only to apply to CoS. I don't think because they used the standard template wording for warlord traits, the intent is that the rules only apply to the 'free' relic. If that's actually the case, why not specifically call that out?

Goonhammer agree:

'The warlord traits can be stuck on a Cult of Strife Character in a Raid, but you still need a full Cult of Strife detachment to unlock the Stratagems, and the Relics need you to take a Cult of Strife Warlord, which removes your ability to use a Raid at all.'

https://www.goonhammer.com/war-zone-charadon-the-book-of-rust-review-the-matched-play-rules/

I'm open to being wrong, but I think your argument hangs on legalese and is in no way what the writer is intending in the wider context of these rules. I would not take these relics in good conscience without having a primary warlord from CoS.

You do you in your games though. And a TO is free to make any ruling they wish for their event.

Point where it says you need a CoS WL, i literally gave the rules and it says its a normal detachment in the same way as other DE detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StrayIight wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
The "buy an extra relic" stratagems have always allowed you to get the respective relics regardless of your warlord and the relic blurp has always talked about how you need an X warlord to get a free X relic.

How is this situation different from every other codex in 8th and 9th?

Because we're not generally talking about content from a completely separate book, designed to support a very specific sub-faction of an army - not the complete army itself.

You could make a similar argument to yours regarding stratagems too, but that isn't the case here. You cannot use them outside of an accompanying restricted detachment.

Again, though we can certainly be wrong, I'm not alone in this interpretation - some of the best rules and theory analysts in the community apparently see it the same way.
At the end of the day, I won't play it without this restriction, you probably will, and in both cases no one is hurt right?

Hopefully a Charadon FAQ references it in a manner which satisfies everyone.

PA worked like that, we could take Relics from PA too, that was an supplement as well.

PS: I don't care what Goon says, i have read many rules from him that he has gotten wrong. I also only care if someone points out the rules like how I did, he can say "it works this way" but he gave no reasoning, i did. I literally laid out the rules and they are black and white clear.

I have completely stopped reading goon for his miss understandings of rules, army tactics, and stupidity for certain things hatred, i actually tell new players now to avoid him. But I play AOS and 40k and his AoS is 10x worst than 40k he literally tells people to play some of the worst units in the game saying they are great, or to play armies completely wrong.

I'll be honest, it's a bit tiring seeing folks point to Goonhammer or similar articles like they are the authority. If anything I see more issues coming from the competitive media circle due to the fact they are always trying to lead everyone and in their haste often get things wrong, which irritatingly leads so many others to follow suit.

Goonhammer is a them, not a him. I'd allow some latitude too around reading them - you're free not to of course - but you'll stop reading everything in time if you drop a source because you find mistakes or things you disagree with. Everyone eventually makes them, and avoiding disagreement is going to make your worldview incredibly narrow.

We disagree, and that's ok! I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't worry about that - I'm not particularly important! I actually don't fault your literal reading of the wording used, I think it's a reasonable black and white reading, I just don't trust it as the correct intent within the context of the book, so do not want to use it personally. Others apparently feel the same. I don't think that requires further justification - I've deliberately said I'm prepared to be wrong.

I'm not prepared to play it in the way you describe in case I'm right. I don't feel that's fair to an opponent.

In a competitive setting, it doesn't matter. The TO's ruling stands anyway, so everyone plays by that.

Finally, remember too, 'Black and white' readings are where we've got 10 point Reavers and 40+ attack Razorflail Succubus's. We need to temper them with common sense, and be unafraid to ask questions where there is ambiguity - there are enough people with different ideas here that ambiguity does exist.

Anyway. You do you, I'll do me, and fingers crossed for clarity down the line eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I'll be honest, it's a bit tiring seeing folks point to Goonhammer or similar articles like they are the authority. If anything I see more issues coming from the competitive media circle due to the fact they are always trying to lead everyone and in their haste often get things wrong, which irritatingly leads so many others to follow suit.

It's not necessary to see them as an authority. They may or may not be one. Here, they're a useful example of how another group of people, with good knowledge of the rules, also make the same interpretation. That's important because it's evidence of things not necessarily being absolutely clear when there are obviously multiple opinions around a given rule.

We knew Reavers are not 10pt b.c of the last faq and we knew the book was already printed when the Munitorum Field Manual was printed, it was only WAAC players that wanted them at 10pts so that is a poor example.

Also again I quoted the rules and showed other rules that do the same thing. If you want to show me why you don't think that is the case then i'll be fine with you believing it that why, but don't say he cheated or its an "illegal" list when for many thats not cheat b.c it is clear you don't need a WL to use CoS relics/wl traits.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We knew Reavers are not 10pt b.c of the last faq and we knew the book was already printed when the Munitorum Field Manual was printed, it was only WAAC players that wanted them at 10pts so that is a poor example.

Also again I quoted the rules and showed other rules that do the same thing. If you want to show me why you don't think that is the case then i'll be fine with you believing it that why, but don't say he cheated or its an "illegal" list when for many thats not cheat b.c it is clear you don't need a WL to use CoS relics/wl traits.

Oh boy, why are we still discussing this?.. I did tell you why I don't think it's the case. I'm not alone in my opinion. I'm not convinced that - based on the context of all the elements in that book - the intent is for you to have access to those relics without a CoS Warlord. I also said I may be wrong. What more are you looking for here?

Thank you for offering to 'be fine' with me believing something different to you. That's most generous...

We disagree. That's all. We really can move on, I promise!