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.

The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

The FAQ's are not official and have no effect on the rules yet. (Unless I missed a release)

It's perfectly possible that this will change so I would relax and wait until things are official. The army you just bought is perfectly usable.

Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

Fickle are the whims of GW - still, they have your money now and so it's not their problem.

Which, let's face it, sucks. I've had similar happen to me with two armies which have been invalidated by rules changes and codex unit/character removals - so you're not alone.

You can ask people to allow you to play with the pre-FAQ rules, or use the models as proxies - though expect some people to be a pain about it (for reasons that escape me).


Probably not the advice that's particularly popular with some on here - but have you considered other games? I've found trying other war games to be good for the soul while GW tries to sort itself out.

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

We'll see how it turns out, but I wouldn't count on this list being usable after it is finalized.

The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

It is unwise to base your army around a single, and fickle, linchpin.

One-trick-ponies are not useful for very long.

It's like atm how DE players are throwing their toys out of the pram over jinking transports being clarified....

Was it really that amazing taking advantage of an extremely obvious oversight? From what I've seen DE mostly play exactly the same as before.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

We'll see how it turns out, but I wouldn't count on this list being usable after it is finalized.

You mean until. The FAQ means nothing until then. Any rule changes based on it are house rules and nothing more.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

Traditio wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

They don't have them do they?

I don't think holofields are an option for DE, no.
I think there's something called a night shield, but that just gives stealth, iirc.

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

They don't have them do they?

No, they apparently don't.

Venoms have flickerfields, which confer a 5+ invuln.

Raiders can purchase night-shields to gain stealth.

Night-shields can also purchase night-shields.

At any rate, I stand by what I said. Pay for night-shields; use cover. Enjoy your 4+ cover saves without having to jink.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The saddest part? I just had to shelve my dark eldar because it was largely based on Warriors in raiders, and the recent FAQ took the teeth out of my list. It's at least playable, but not in the slightest competitive.

Way'da kick me while I'm down.

Pay the points for holo-fields.

They don't have them do they?

No, they apparently don't.

Venoms have flickerfields, which confer a 5+ invuln.

Raiders can purchase night-shields to gain stealth.

Night-shields can also purchase night-shields.

At any rate, I stand by what I said. Pay for night-shields; use cover. Enjoy your 4+ cover saves without having to jink.

That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

I'm not purchasing the GSC until these FAQs are properly released. Like you I got really excited about a fluffy fun genestealer army but GW have really taken the wind out of my sails. I won't be purchasing them unless the FAQ is changed. Sorry that you got them beforehand, I feel your pain.

Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is suspect they will go through, though. We are already playing with them in effect. There's no reason not to get ready.

I think if they were going to do that they would have released the first draft as an official release not a draft.

We'll see how it turns out, but I wouldn't count on this list being usable after it is finalized.

You mean until. The FAQ means nothing until then. Any rule changes based on it are house rules and nothing more.

If you say so. It seems foolish to ignore the coming FAQ. Most of it will be the same, if not all.

pm713 wrote:That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

Standard table set-up is 9 pieces of terrain, with a roughly equal amount of LOS blocking and non-LOS blocking terrain.

If the DE player is unwilling to pay for nightshields and use cover, and still doesn't want to jink (and so snapshoot), I really don't know what to say to him.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

Standard table set-up is 9 pieces of terrain, with a roughly equal amount of LOS blocking and non-LOS blocking terrain.

If the DE player is unwilling to pay for nightshields and use cover, and still doesn't want to jink (and so snapshoot), I really don't know what to say to him.

There is no such thing as "Standard table set up"

CrownAxe wrote:There is no such thing as "Standard table set up"

Warhammer 40k BRB, 4th edition, p. 78:

"As a general rule, about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it, and there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which blocks line of sight and provides cover..."

If you then look at the following page, you'll find that they envision dividing a 6 x 4 foot table into a 6 squared grid and putting a terrain piece in each.

At my FLGS, the standard is a grid of 9 squares with a terrain piece in each.

That said, if you look at the pictures on p. 79 of the 4th ed rulebook, the terrain pieces seem fairly large.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:That is really not going to help your AV 10 vehicle. If you're lucky enough to get cover for the thing. Really fits their theme of fast moving doesn't it?

Standard table set-up is 9 pieces of terrain, with a roughly equal amount of LOS blocking and non-LOS blocking terrain.

If the DE player is unwilling to pay for nightshields and use cover, and still doesn't want to jink (and so snapshoot), I really don't know what to say to him.

No idea where you got that from. Standard here is 4 and won't help the DE player much. You mean a person who doesn't want to either play a different army (in fact the opposite of Dark Eldar) or have no shooting power in a shooting based book is somehow being irrational?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Isn't that all about what DE players are upset about anyway? The fact they can no longer jink (thus gain a 4+ cover save) and then shoot with their warriors.

If anything it's better to use normal cover saves seeing some units can ignore specifically jink saves, but not general cover saves.

Which, imho, was stupid to begin with. If the vehicle is moving so fast and pulling such fancy maneuvers that: 1. it confers a 4+ cover save and 2. it is forced to fire snapshots in the following phase, why should the passengers be able to fire at full BS?

It makes as much sense as immobilized vehicles being able to jink: none at all.

Irrelevant. Jink overall makes no sense. They have chosen to attempt balance over fluff and should continue that.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:There is no such thing as "Standard table set up"

Warhammer 40k BRB, 4th edition, p. 78:

"As a general rule, about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it, and there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which blocks line of sight and provides cover..."

If you then look at the following page, you'll find that they envision dividing a 6 x 4 foot table into a 6 squared grid and putting a terrain piece in each.

At my FLGS, the standard is a grid of 9 squares with a terrain piece in each.

That said, if you look at the pictures on p. 79 of the 4th ed rulebook, the terrain pieces seem fairly large.

Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

In all honesty I haven't seen a game without at least 6 pieces of scenery since playing games and school. Albeit we played with none at all back then xD

Traditio wrote:

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

Yeah, I've never had a standard "must use" terrain minimum or limit. For us it usually end up being however much we have on hand that fits the bill. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it becoming more standardized in terms of volume and type, but I definitely don't see it as a must. Besides which, those passages you just listed seem more like a guideline than a hard and fast rule.

Traditio wrote:

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

How is it standard practice to use terrain rules from over 10 years ago?

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The new Genestealer cult downgraded GSC to allies of convenience to Tyranids, which i agree stops possible telepathy abuse but it also 100% invalidates my army.

I was really excited to run a 100% infiltrating vanguard nid list, Broodkin alongside manufactorum alongside deathleapers brood. But as Allies of convenience infiltrators treat other infiltrators as enemy units, meaning they must be 18'' away from each other if they can see each other :( Just spent like £200 on space hulk genestealers and lictors and the like and on a students salary that is all my warhammer for a while, unusable. That'll teach me to get excited about a fluff themed army...

It just seems to unnecessarily restrictive, and I get the feeling they didn't even consider the ramifications of the change.

and this is why being overly dependant on allies is a risky no matter what your army. there's no telling when GW'll change the allies matrix, change the allies rules or just introduce 8th edition and say "ya know what? allies where a bad idea!"

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Lord Corellia wrote:Ok, so you use a houserule based on a rule from 3 editions ago. Nothing wrong with that, but why would you think that everyone else would play as such?

I was under the impression that it's standard practice.

I could be in error.

How is it standard practice to use terrain rules from over 10 years ago?

This article from Bell of Lost Souls is from 2011.

This article is more recent.