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.

From what I have seen, people have stated their displeasure with the new Raven Guard Chapter Tactics. I don't have the old(er) 8th edition codex on me, can someone please explain the changes, if there are any?

 Psionara wrote:
From what I have seen, people have stated their displeasure with the new Raven Guard Chapter Tactics. I don't have the old(er) 8th edition codex on me, can someone please explain the changes, if there are any?

If I recall correctly they had a to hit modifier outside of a short range. Now they get cover, or the to hit modifier depending on range and/or cover status. Truth be told, people are jumping the gun at being unhappy. For all we know Scions of Corax will synergize with it in amazing ways.

The old version simply gave a -1 to hit them outside of 12".

Breton wrote:

 Psionara wrote:
From what I have seen, people have stated their displeasure with the new Raven Guard Chapter Tactics. I don't have the old(er) 8th edition codex on me, can someone please explain the changes, if there are any?

If I recall correctly they had a to hit modifier outside of a short range. Now they get cover, or the to hit modifier depending on range and/or cover status. Truth be told, people are jumping the gun at being unhappy. For all we know Scions of Corax will synergize with it in amazing ways.

I'm still new to some of the rules, but can you double stack their chapter tactics with also being in cover? So basically a 4+ would be a 2+?

I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

 Psionara wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Psionara wrote:
From what I have seen, people have stated their displeasure with the new Raven Guard Chapter Tactics. I don't have the old(er) 8th edition codex on me, can someone please explain the changes, if there are any?

If I recall correctly they had a to hit modifier outside of a short range. Now they get cover, or the to hit modifier depending on range and/or cover status. Truth be told, people are jumping the gun at being unhappy. For all we know Scions of Corax will synergize with it in amazing ways.

I'm still new to some of the rules, but can you double stack their chapter tactics with also being in cover? So basically a 4+ would be a 2+?

No because you count as being in cover from the chapter tactic. That's why you get the -1 to hit in actual cover. So no, no "double cover".

Raven guard players are salty because they're the first to get the long needed -1 nerf and the other armies haven't got it yet. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Alpha Legion, Altaoic, and stygies get it too. I get them being mad because at the moment the rest all get to keep their -1's, but it had to happen.

I'm happy it's finally happening though, even if I just started seriously working on my alpha legion for a league. Army wide -1 was absolutely hell to fight with some armies. Play guard? Hope you like literally not even being able to shoot when you fight altaoic. It was a bad mechanic and needed to be changed. Plus now it actually gives traits like iron warriors and Imperial fists a reason to exist since they ignore cover.

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

ohh agreed, I'm just talking their chapter tactics but I'm sure once their supplement comes out it'll more then make up for it. I'm gonna take a wild guess as to the raven guard scions ability. they count as being in cover when in assault doctrine. It'd actually synergize with the RG set up VEEEERY well and force a hard choice to anyone fighting raven guard fight at range, or push into close range combat and risk them going assault doctrine.

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

ohh agreed, I'm just talking their chapter tactics but I'm sure once their supplement comes out it'll more then make up for it. I'm gonna take a wild guess as to the raven guard scions ability. they count as being in cover when in assault doctrine. It'd actually synergize with the RG set up VEEEERY well and force a hard choice to anyone fighting raven guard fight at range, or push into close range combat and risk them going assault doctrine.

I think their Scions will synergize with the Doctrine they want to be in. They'll get cover while in Assault doctrine or something similar. Not something they'd lose one they went to their preferred Doctrine.

I actually hope they change every „-1 trait“ to always cover...its annoying
and everything stacking it makes for a drag to play against

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

ohh agreed, I'm just talking their chapter tactics but I'm sure once their supplement comes out it'll more then make up for it. I'm gonna take a wild guess as to the raven guard scions ability. they count as being in cover when in assault doctrine. It'd actually synergize with the RG set up VEEEERY well and force a hard choice to anyone fighting raven guard fight at range, or push into close range combat and risk them going assault doctrine.

I think their Scions will synergize with the Doctrine they want to be in. They'll get cover while in Assault doctrine or something similar. Not something they'd lose one they went to their preferred Doctrine.

yeah I suggested cover in assault. there's still a degree of "raven guard are choppy" mentality out there and honestly that scion trait would synergize very very well with ravenguard over all. and conveniantly also synergize with some of their odder sucessor chapters (like caracadons)

They are angry because they have not received the extra rules and SM players are always angry for unknown reasons.
They forget that now their vehicles receive +1 to save

Marin wrote:
They are angry because they have not received the extra rules and SM players are always angry for unknown reasons.

The "anger" comes from the fact that a negative modifier to the opponent's hit values is generally preferable to a positive modifier to your save that can be mitigated by weapons.

They forget that now their vehicles receive +1 to save

Which can be immediately removed by AP values or rules that allow you to ignore Cover Saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

I think their Scions will synergize with the Doctrine they want to be in. They'll get cover while in Assault doctrine or something similar. Not something they'd lose one they went to their preferred Doctrine.

I'm actually thinking that their version of Scions will synergize with something other than the Doctrine. Their trait doesn't affect their weapons but rather the enemy kit.

Which can be immediately removed by AP values or rules that allow you to ignore Cover Saves.

Yes, you know.. Counterplay. The things that should be countering it. Rather then a pure buff that everyone used because of how much better then the rest it was.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Which can be immediately removed by AP values or rules that allow you to ignore Cover Saves.

Yes, you know.. Counterplay. The things that should be countering it. Rather then a pure buff that everyone used because of how much better then the rest it was.

"Counterplay" implies that you have to utilize a unit or item to do so.

You simply being Iron Warriors, Imperial Fists, or having a weapon that ignores cover saves doesn't really feel counterplay-ish. It's the exact same thing as why these stacking negative modifiers(which really only applied to Alaitoc at this point) were so detrimental to the game.

Army wide ignores cover is a terrible game design. Regardless of how powerful it exactly is, it completely eliminates an important strategic element from the game. Terrain matter too little as it is. Complete BS.

Armywide -1 to hit was BS too, it was simply so much better than anything else. Good thing it got nerfed.

 Crimson wrote:
Army wide ignores cover is a terrible game design. Regardless of how powerful it exactly is, it completely eliminates an important strategic element from the game. Terrain matter too little as it is. Complete BS.

Armywide -1 to hit was BS too, it was simply so much better than anything else. Good thing it got nerfed.

"Important strategic element"
In 8th, terrain is no existent, unfortunately. It used to be an important element

 godardc wrote:
In 8th, terrain is no existent, unfortunately. It used to be an important element

""Important"" in that 3/4 of the armies in the game simply laughed and ignored it completely? I mean, if you had any ++ or 2-4 armour save it might as well not exist, now that +1 to armour might matter even for models with 2+ saves in a lot of cases...

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:
In 8th, terrain is no existent, unfortunately. It used to be an important element

""Important"" in that 3/4 of the armies in the game simply laughed and ignored it completely? I mean, if you had any ++ or 2-4 armour save it might as well not exist, now that +1 to armour might matter even for models with 2+ saves in a lot of cases...

Tell that to any player who had charge fail due to difficult terrain, a vehicle immobilize itself trying to cross a river, or losing a key model cause they tried to move through dangerous terrain. There was a lot more to terrain than just cover saves.

how many people have rivers on their game boards?

I have one both on my personal table at times and two of the gaming stores I frequent have them as an option. I also own three bridges so you can walk/ drive across them or risk getting swept down stream.

It kinda shocks me sometimes how little effort players put into making a good table with a variety of terrain.

Modifiers to hit wind up being less good against marines now that the rerolls aren't truncated. Before a 3 would be an auto-miss with a -1, now the 3 gets to reroll.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

Which could come out tomorrow or 2032.

ERJAK wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

Which could come out tomorrow or 2032.

worst case scenerio is proably by christmas

Breton wrote:

 Psionara wrote:
From what I have seen, people have stated their displeasure with the new Raven Guard Chapter Tactics. I don't have the old(er) 8th edition codex on me, can someone please explain the changes, if there are any?

If I recall correctly they had a to hit modifier outside of a short range. Now they get cover, or the to hit modifier depending on range and/or cover status. Truth be told, people are jumping the gun at being unhappy. For all we know Scions of Corax will synergize with it in amazing ways.

People jumped the gun at begin unhappy because they don't really know what they are supposed to feel if they don't do the math.

And unless I'm mistaken, the math suggests that guaranteed cover is actually better than -1 to hit in the open.

ERJAK wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't belive so no. but they do get the -1 to hit if they're in cover. Raven Guard got sloightly nerfed in the new codex but it's a minor nerf and one most people agree was nesscary. the army is still good.

Most people say that not having seen the other half of their codex. I keep saying, wait for Scions of Corax.

Which could come out tomorrow or 2032.

More accurately, it could come out in a fortnight, or in 2032...

Lemondish wrote:


And unless I'm mistaken, the math suggests that guaranteed cover is actually better than -1 to hit in the open.

Its not guaranteed cover. Unless you get seriously pedantic, anything that ignores cover ignores this. And I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. Every hit a -1 to hit prevents is also a successful armor save.. in other words you get more bang for your buck on the to-hit roll than the armor save roll because you'll be seeing more to-hit rolls - and a missed Hit is better than rolling a 1 on a 1+ armor save - it's also far easier to roll a 1 on a 1+ than it is to roll a 7 on a 7+

 Dysartes wrote:

More accurately, it could come out in a fortnight, or in 2032...

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Psionara wrote:
From what I have seen, people have stated their displeasure with the new Raven Guard Chapter Tactics. I don't have the old(er) 8th edition codex on me, can someone please explain the changes, if there are any?

If I recall correctly they had a to hit modifier outside of a short range. Now they get cover, or the to hit modifier depending on range and/or cover status. Truth be told, people are jumping the gun at being unhappy. For all we know Scions of Corax will synergize with it in amazing ways.

People jumped the gun at begin unhappy because they don't really know what they are supposed to feel if they don't do the math.

And unless I'm mistaken, the math suggests that guaranteed cover is actually better than -1 to hit in the open.

No the -1 to hit would always be the superior option, except against the odd autohit weapon, hence why it was so powerful and why any faction with access to it tends to use it. -1 just straight up knocks a 1/6th off any dice coming at you. That's 16% less hits that can roll to wound, try to make it past armor, and then roll damage. And it works on everything, even stuff that's ap 5 or something. There's a reason a lot of players hated it. Except in practical terms it's probably more than just 1/6th.

Take an average guard army for example. Ignoring rerolls, you're not knocking their accuracy by a 1/6th, in reality you're knocking more like a 1/3rd of it off, because they're going from hitting on 4's to 5's, or a 1/3rd of what normally hits for them now misses. +1 armor is cool and all, but it could never match that. Hence the need to nerf it, and why I hope Eldar- I mean all the -1 traits get the same treatment.

-1 to hit also messed with rerolls, and makes plasma explode more frequently.