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.

New FAQ and bunch of Erratas

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/23/updated-faqs-and-boots-on-the-groundgw-homepage-post-2/

Lots of nerfs!

Flyers
Tank Commanders
Razorflock

On one hand, I find it amusing that the team realized that flyerspam is better than they intended. On the other hand, I find their nerf very kludge-tastic/gamey in its implementation, and is easy to work around ("Fine, I take a solo Astropath and place it out of Line of Sight.")

Flyers in 8th are a shining example of what goes wrong when you simplify the core rules. Removing fire arcs removed the core disadvantage of said flyers (minimum speed + limited fire arcs), while removing the exceptions for flyers and movement means aircraft act as a mobile forcefield preventing non-fly units from moving past them!

Of course, you could always luck out, play an army of Space Marines and get an Orbital Bombardment and go "your solo character is dead. I win," but such a victory is so artificial as to really kill the "immersion" aspect of the game, or the satisfaction of being a better general. Might as well just flip a coin.

If 8e had a proper system for Overwatch, alternating activations, or other core mechanics that prevented such alphastrike builds from becoming a thing, rather than mechanical restrictions like "Flyers do not count as models for determining if you're tabled" (meaning no "dropship lists" ever), this would be a better edition overall. (Hint hint, GW)

"Q: When I manifest the Warptime psychic power, can I select a
unit that arrived on the battlefield as reinforcements this turn?
A: Yes."

I have never been happier with a FAQ in my life. I had hoped that this was the way to play it but the wording was rather ambiguous in my opinion.

"[...] they cannot hold territory without ground support."

Well they can certainly clear it of any possible threat...

I for one find the flyer nerf elegant.

Highlights i found

The flyer nerf :

Page 215 – Sudden Death
Change point 2 to read:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate
within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot
hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do
not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield
Role unless they have a unit embarked inside – even the
most formidable bastion requires a garrison if it is to
pose a threat.’

Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such
as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor
Warlord Trait, can I use them both?
A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

Pages 13 and 41 – Tank Commander and Knight
Commander Pask, Wargear Options
Add the following bullet point:
‘• This model may take a hunter-killer missile.

Q: Can a Tank Commander or Knight Commander Pask issue
a Tank Order to themselves?
A: No.

OFFICIO ASSASSINORUM
Q: If a unit of Dark Reapers (which have the Inescapable
Accuracy ability) shoots at a Culexus Assassin (which has the
Etherium ability), what roll do the Dark Reapers require to
successfully hit the Assassin?
A: 3+.
This is because while the Dark Reapers treat their
Ballistic Skill as 6+ because of the Etherium ability,
they always score a hit on rolls of 3+ because of their
Inescapable Accuracy ability, which is irrespective of
their Ballistic Skill characteristic or any modifiers.

Page 76 – Army of the Reborn
Replace this paragraph with the following:
‘If the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the
Visarch or the Yncarne then – with the exception of
<Haemonculus Coven> units, Urien Rakarth, Drazhar,
Mandrakes and the Avatar of Khaine – any Aeldari
unit can also be Ynnari.

Page 118 – Units table, Razorwing Flocks
Change the models per unit value to read ‘3-12’ and the
points per model value to read ‘14’.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On one hand, I find it amusing that the team realized that flyerspam is better than they intended. On the other hand, I find their nerf very kludge-tastic/gamey in its implementation, and is easy to work around ("Fine, I take a solo Astropath and place it out of Line of Sight.")

Flyers in 8th are a shining example of what goes wrong when you simplify the core rules. Removing fire arcs removed the core disadvantage of said flyers (minimum speed + limited fire arcs), while removing the exceptions for flyers and movement means aircraft act as a mobile forcefield preventing non-fly units from moving past them!

Of course, you could always luck out, play an army of Space Marines and get an Orbital Bombardment and go "your solo character is dead. I win," but such a victory is so artificial as to really kill the "immersion" aspect of the game, or the satisfaction of being a better general. Might as well just flip a coin.

If 8e had a proper system for Overwatch, alternating activations, or other core mechanics that prevented such alphastrike builds from becoming a thing, rather than mechanical restrictions like "Flyers do not count as models for determining if you're tabled" (meaning no "dropship lists" ever), this would be a better edition overall. (Hint hint, GW)

I actually think their fix is superb. The solo astropath example you mention is only going to mean that it is good to have a unit or two that allow for mobility or are deep striking to take out that solo unit. Flyers are obviously meant as support and not the primary force.

Also, talking about game breaking immerson: 4-5 Storm Ravens hovering around without any troops or tactics isn't exactly immersion enhancing.

Yeah one Tau commander (not even a spam list) would make short of that and win the game.

If you don't put enough guys on the ground to survive an alpha/beta strike deep strike you will get tabled.

This would probably result in cutting down flyers by one or two models in an army possibly three.

Q: Can Necrons that have fled the battlefield return using Reanimation Protocols?

A: No. This ability only allows models that were slain to return, not models that have fled.
You may find it useful to place Necron models that flee to one side as a reminder that they cannot return using their Reanimation Protocols ability (eh)

Page 102 – Monolith, Damage Table Change the values under ‘BS’ to read ‘3+’, ‘4+’ and ‘5+’. (yay!)

Pages 96 and 128 – Voidblade Add the following ability: ‘Each time the bearer fights, it can make one additional attack with this weapon.’ (power swords that give +1 attack? yes please. Hyperphase swords are just meh now)

Neat. So all-flyer lists just need to have their ground forces eliminated, that's ez-pz.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
and is easy to work around ("Fine, I take a solo Astropath and place it out of Line of Sight.")
Flyers in 8th are a shining example of what goes wrong when you simplify the core rules. Removing fire arcs removed the core disadvantage of said flyers (minimum speed + limited fire arcs), while removing the exceptions for flyers and movement means aircraft act as a mobile forcefield preventing non-fly units from moving past them!

Of course, you could always luck out, play an army of Space Marines and get an Orbital Bombardment and go "your solo character is dead. I win," but such a victory is so artificial as to really kill the "immersion" aspect of the game, or the satisfaction of being a better general. Might as well just flip a coin.

Maybe don't take all flyers if you want to prove you're a better general?

If 8e had a proper system for Overwatch, alternating activations, or other core mechanics that prevented such alphastrike builds from becoming a thing, rather than mechanical restrictions like "Flyers do not count as models for determining if you're tabled" (meaning no "dropship lists" ever), this would be a better edition overall. (Hint hint, GW)

All dropship lists are out anyway, because you can't have more than half in reserve. If THAT was a balancing mechanic then this flyer patch is no less in the same vein.

Lots of people talk about points being just one factor of balance. I'll give GW credit for taking an approach that still gives people some flexibility without hiking points.

I'm not sure they should've acted to fix it so fast. We're still figuring things out.

That said, this is a fairly elegant solution to the flier lists and I'm O.K. with it.

Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, can I use them both?

A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

For example, if a model had the two aforementioned abilities and lost a wound, you could roll a D6 due to the Disgustingly Resilient ability and on a roll of 5+ that wound would be ignored. If you rolled less than 5, you could then roll another D6 because of the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, and this time the wound would be ignored on a 6.

This will make Iron Hands venerable dreads happy.

Holy hell this is great for the ITC where lists are already set.

All the WAAC flyer spam lists are now at a supreme disadvantage, and they've already submitted their lists to the event

There is no way they will apply the FAQ for this tourney.

 Melissia wrote:

Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, can I use them both?

A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

For example, if a model had the two aforementioned abilities and lost a wound, you could roll a D6 due to the Disgustingly Resilient ability and on a roll of 5+ that wound would be ignored. If you rolled less than 5, you could then roll another D6 because of the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, and this time the wound would be ignored on a 6.

This will make Iron Hands venerable dreads happy.

Ironhands venerable chaplain dreadnought with the tenacious survivor trait.

roll 3d6 when you take a wound, on a single 6 ignore the wound.

In general my wolves got buffed, individual wolf claws cost more but a pair got cheaper.

And models that were illegal are once more legal.

GAdvance wrote:
Ironhands venerable chaplain dreadnought with the tenacious survivor trait.

roll 3d6 when you take a wound, on a single 6 ignore the wound.

Yep. And the opponent will be salty indeed!

That's every single wound!

May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

I'm definetly very salty about this faq and I probably won't be playing much of 8th because of it.

I run a mobile strike corsairs force, and 75% of my army is fliers, pheonix bomber, pair of nightwing and a vampire. The rest is jetbikes elements with a farseer pretending to be a prince because they took that option from me already. But now I'm on a situation where I lose just a few jetbikes I auto lose the game. It would have been much more just to knock down the op flyers and then say they can't grab objectives auto losing is just awful.

I play what I feel is a very thematic list and not just 5 empty buffed stormravens but now I'm going to be tabled every game turn 1 or turn 2.

"If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment."

Great, elegant change that fixes matched play abuses without affecting casual gaming.

+1 GW

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

Sorta? Some of these are more "the game isn't quite working how we thought due, better FAQ to make the rules match our intent better". It's hard to argue razorflocks were a more pressing issue than say conscripts or brimstones were, in the really cheap and hard to kill department, for example.

Or necrons not being able to reanimate from morale losses, creating another set of units more or less discouraged from taking anything more than the smallest unit possible. Someone on the design team really doesn't want people to use large squads, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

However, having units eternally embarked in the flyers makes the transport flyers even more expensive while doing feth-all to add to their firepower or durability.

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

Units embarked in transports are NOT on the battlefield. Already established in transport rules. So, not "written poorly."

 davou wrote:

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

They count as being deployed on the battlefield when applying the tactical reserves rule.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! EAT THIS FAQ ETC!!! BUUUUUURN!!!

sossen wrote:

 davou wrote:

sossen wrote:
The flyer errata rule is written poorly imo. It doesn't appear to specifically rule out the possibility of units embarked in flyers counting as being on the battlefield.

embarked units are not on the battlefield ever; thats pretty specific in the general rules

They count as being deployed on the battlefield when applying the tactical reserves rule.

How does that apply to this situation? If units embarked on transports were intended to 'count as' being deployed on the battlefield, then GW would have wasted time and ink on writing the rule. Stormravens with 1 acolyte in them would be 100% as valid as they were a day ago.

I'm glad to see the Solitaire and Visarch buffs. And the nerf to the ridiculous Razorwing Flocks as well. All those steps in the right direction.

Also, on the last local tournament I saw but thankfully did not fight a 6-Flyers IG army. Now I know what to do should someone try that army post-FAQ

SilverAlien wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
May I just say I love this from GW. Quick repsonses on rules questions and unbalanced units. This is really really impressive by them.

Sorta? Some of these are more "the game isn't quite working how we thought due, better FAQ to make the rules match our intent better". It's hard to argue razorflocks were a more pressing issue than say conscripts or brimstones were, in the really cheap and hard to kill department, for example.

Or necrons not being able to reanimate from morale losses, creating another set of units more or less discouraged from taking anything more than the smallest unit possible. Someone on the design team really doesn't want people to use large squads, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

That's because they aren't slain. Isn't difficult to figure out. It makes they don't reanimate.