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.

It's hard to take nerfs on already poor units when scatbikes exist. That's the problem.

Scatbikes are hardly the only competitive thing right now. Ever been hit in the face by a first turn thunderwolf star charge, or blasted off the table by Riptide Wings?

Yeah, I know, but tac marines and scatbikes are both TROOPS. That's the super insulting part.

Ushtarador wrote:
Seriously, how is everyone latching on the grenade thing (which is a very insignificant adjustment in the grand scheme of things) and ignoring all the awesome clarifications they delivered!?

Stopping special rules transferring to attached characters, stopping BB transport shenanigans, reigning in psychic powers, toning down warp spiders and coordinated firepower, nerfing cover rules for gargantuans..... it goes on and on. They toned down a lot of broken rules interactions, and clarified many other things very well. Please stop complaining about the contradicting 10% when 90% was great.

This. ^

 Azreal13 wrote:


That's an awful example, because the relationship between Mastery and number of powers cast is never defined.

As written, that rule doesn't define what that dependence is, is it 1 power per ML, 8? Banana?

How is it NOT defined? The NUMBER of powers depends on ML. So we are looking for a NUMBER. Conveniently, all psykers have a NUMBER listed next to their ML
Done, simple, and way more than just an assumption since that's the way GW wanted it the whole time.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:
Seriously, how is everyone latching on the grenade thing (which is a very insignificant adjustment in the grand scheme of things) and ignoring all the awesome clarifications they delivered!?

Stopping special rules transferring to attached characters, stopping BB transport shenanigans, reigning in psychic powers, toning down warp spiders and coordinated firepower, nerfing cover rules for gargantuans..... it goes on and on. They toned down a lot of broken rules interactions, and clarified many other things very well. Please stop complaining about the contradicting 10% when 90% was great.

This. ^

Agreed

-

Because having a number of powers equal to two times your mastery level, or your mastery level times your Leadership, or mastery level squared is still having a number of powers dependent on your mastery level and is no more of an assumption, given the actual wording of the written rule, than assuming it meant you got a number of powers equal to your mastery level.

Someone can say that the kinetic energy of an object depends on velocity and that is true. However that tells us absolutely nothing about the actual mathematical relationship between velocity and kinetic energy. Assuming that it is linear is a valid interpretation of the initial statement but is also completely wrong when it comes to the actual relationship as kinetic energy is directly proportional to the velocity squared.

Or we could look at gravitational strength and distance (inverse square law), acoustic power and distance (inverse square law), light intensity and distance (inverse square law), Radioactive decay (exponential), charging a capacitor (exponential) etc. You will find that things having a 1:1 relationship is not as common as you might expect.

The rule was absolutely appalling in terms of how much ambiguity there was.

 Galef wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


That's an awful example, because the relationship between Mastery and number of powers cast is never defined.

As written, that rule doesn't define what that dependence is, is it 1 power per ML, 8? Banana?

How is it NOT defined? The NUMBER of powers depends on ML. So we are looking for a NUMBER. Conveniently, all psykers have a NUMBER listed next to their ML
Done, simple, and way more than just an assumption since that's the way GW wanted it the whole time.

Show me, with page references, where in the rulebook it specifies that 1ML = 1 cast attempt. The fact that people assumed that it was a 1:1 relationship is likely down to precedent from earlier editions, were this first edition and people were learning it from new, I'm sure it would have been a lot more controversial.

Note, nobody is saying a 1:1 relationship isn't a reasonable assumption, but it remained an assumption until it was clarified. There is absolutely nothing in life that stipulates that the dependency of one factor on another is always a 1:1 relationship, and there was nothing in the rules as written that stipulated what the relationship between casts and ML should be.

This isn't an attempt to argue 1ML:1 power is wrong, only that the way it is phrased is highly ambiguous out of context, and an example of poorly worded writing.

OK, I think I see what you are saying.
The BRB says "the number of powers depends on your ML".
But what you want it to say is " the number of powers depends on the number expressed in ML"

I still don't get how anyone could have argued that before. "Levels" are expressed numerically in the context of the English language. So it is redundant to state "number" twice. If a NUMBER depends on a LEVEL and the LEVEL is always expressed by a NUMBER, than the NUMBER needed is the LEVEL.
I'm not trying to argue this as "a" reasonable assumption, I am arguing that this is "the only" reasonable assumption.

The reason I used this as an example of how many of the FAQs are not changes is because I truly believe that this is how GW writes their rules. X = X and could not be anything else, so why expand on the rule and waste ink/paper. When GW writes a rule, they assume everyone reading it knows their intent. Is this flawed? Heck, yes. But after a few years, you start to learn what their intent is (as proven by their FAQs). Then you are able to read their "intent" more clearly

-

 Galef wrote:
OK, I think I see what you are saying.
The BRB says "the number of powers depends on your ML".
But what you want it to say is " the number of powers depends on the number expressed in ML"

I still don't get how anyone could have argued that before. "Levels" are expressed numerically in the context of the English language. So it is redundant to state "number" twice. If a NUMBER depends on a LEVEL and the LEVEL is always expressed by a NUMBER, than the NUMBER needed is the LEVEL.
I'm not trying to argue this as "a" reasonable assumption, I am arguing that this is "the only" reasonable assumption.

The reason I used this as an example of how many of the FAQs are not changes is because I truly believe that this is how GW writes their rules. X = X and could not be anything else, so why expand on the rule and waste ink/paper.

-

No, it should have said: "The number of powers is equal to your mastery level". It being "the number of powers depends on the number expressed in ML" still does absolutely nothing to define the numerical relationship between number of powers and mastery level. If they meant it to be a 1:1 ratio then "equal to" makes way more sense than "depends on".

The fact that they then used "depends on" instead of "equal to" would suggest that the relationship is not 1:1 as why would they use a more ambiguous term when they already had the pefrect words which would not take more ink or paper? So with how they wrote it, assuming a 1:1 relationship is not the only reasonable assumption as if that is what they meant they would have used "equal to", which would have zero ambiguity.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I can think of three and two fly.

Technically the C'tans are in that boat.

And they've got a 4++ which is what matters.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


Technically the C'tans are in that boat.

And they've got a 4++ which is what matters.

You are correct. But a 4++ hardly matters, since Krak Grenades will still kill the crap out of it. Or, they would have, I should say.

 Galef wrote:
OK, I think I see what you are saying.
The BRB says "the number of powers depends on your ML".
But what you want it to say is " the number of powers depends on the number expressed in ML"

I still don't get how anyone could have argued that before. "Levels" are expressed numerically in the context of the English language. So it is redundant to state "number" twice. If a NUMBER depends on a LEVEL and the LEVEL is always expressed by a NUMBER, than the NUMBER needed is the LEVEL.
I'm not trying to argue this as "a" reasonable assumption, I am arguing that this is "the only" reasonable assumption.

The reason I used this as an example of how many of the FAQs are not changes is because I truly believe that this is how GW writes their rules. X = X and could not be anything else, so why expand on the rule and waste ink/paper. When GW writes a rule, they assume everyone reading it knows their intent. Is this flawed? Heck, yes. But after a few years, you start to learn what their intent is (as proven by their FAQs). Then you are able to read their "intent" more clearly

-

But considering they'd like new people to pick up the game every once in a while, reading their intent is not a skill the new players would have, so maybe they could just be specific. "is equal to" doesn't take up much more space on ink and paper than "depends on." They didn't say "X=Y," the way it's worded could mean "X+1=Y" or "X^7=Y" (where X is mastery level and Y is the number of powers a psyker can cast). In all examples, Y is dependent on X.

It was not unambiguous, it was not specific, and interpreting it differently than their RAI is NOT a failure in reading comprehension. It could be argued that not understanding it to be ambiguous is more of a reading comprehension failure, pretty easily. That interpretation just ended up being correct.

I've always read "depends on" to be synonymous with "equals to", so I guess that is why I had problems seeing the ambiguity.

 Galef wrote:
I've always read "depends on" to be synonymous with "equals to", so I guess that is why I had problems seeing the ambiguity.

The amount of tax you pay depends on your income. I hope you haven't been giving away all your money to the IRS!

I thought the "depends" just refers to the situations where certain characters start with a particular "extra" power or the situation where you get an extra power over the ML guidelines by focusing in one school of psychicness

i.e. I take a ML 2 psyker and focus in Telepathy, I technically only get 2 powers (1 per ML) then the bonus Primaris because I is Telepathic hero extreme

 SwampRats45MK wrote:
I thought the "depends" just refers to the situations where certain characters start with a particular "extra" power or the situation where you get an extra power over the ML guidelines by focusing in one school of psychicness

i.e. I take a ML 2 psyker and focus in Telepathy, I technically only get 2 powers (1 per ML) then the bonus Primaris because I is Telepathic hero extreme

Right, so you've got 3 powers, which was dependent was your ML of 2. Some people (myself included) thought that meant you could cast all 3 powers with your ML 2 psyker based on the wording of the rule. The Draft FAQ clarified this is not the case. Your ML 2 psyker can know 3 powers, and cast up to 2 of them each phase.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


Technically the C'tans are in that boat.

And they've got a 4++ which is what matters.

You are correct. But a 4++ hardly matters, since Krak Grenades will still kill the crap out of it. Or, they would have, I should say.

Are we sure on that? It it likely just around one wound a turn, like the Carnofex, probably less as they'll hit less against a C'Tan.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


Technically the C'tans are in that boat.

And they've got a 4++ which is what matters.

You are correct. But a 4++ hardly matters, since Krak Grenades will still kill the crap out of it. Or, they would have, I should say.

Are we sure on that? It it likely just around one wound a turn, like the Carnofex, probably less as they'll hit less against a C'Tan.

I don't know the math on it, but Bolters kill my C'tan faster than they kill Carnifexes, and the same usually happens when Krak grenades are involved.

The math is what matters. Everything else is anecdotal. Kraks were not good vs MCs before the nerf, and now they basically don't exist.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


Technically the C'tans are in that boat.

And they've got a 4++ which is what matters.

You are correct. But a 4++ hardly matters, since Krak Grenades will still kill the crap out of it. Or, they would have, I should say.

Are we sure on that? It it likely just around one wound a turn, like the Carnofex, probably less as they'll hit less against a C'Tan.

I don't know the math on it, but Bolters kill my C'tan faster than they kill Carnifexes, and the same usually happens when Krak grenades are involved.

That makes sense with Bolters as it wounds both on 6, however when it comes to AP2-3 the CTan wins out mostly. Then in melee it depends. The higher WS means being hit on 4 rather than 3 and then we need to see if there's a save from the Carnifex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CTan still need a desperate fix but I think the ability to kill them with Bolters is exaggerated a bit.

In my experience, no MC can realistically be engaged by bolters. It's just too slow of a process. Mathematics backs this up as well. It takes a staggering 27 BS 4 boltgun shots to put a single wound on a T6 3+ model.

Martel732 wrote:
In my experience, no MC can realistically be engaged by bolters. It's just too slow of a process. Mathematics backs this up as well. It takes a staggering 27 BS 4 boltgun shots to put a single wound on a T6 3+ model.

And therefore a little less for a 4+.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In my experience, no MC can realistically be engaged by bolters. It's just too slow of a process. Mathematics backs this up as well. It takes a staggering 27 BS 4 boltgun shots to put a single wound on a T6 3+ model.

And therefore a little less for a 4+.

It's actually 18 BS4 shots. Which is significantly fewer, but still. That's not a real threat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


Technically the C'tans are in that boat.

And they've got a 4++ which is what matters.

You are correct. But a 4++ hardly matters, since Krak Grenades will still kill the crap out of it. Or, they would have, I should say.

Are we sure on that? It it likely just around one wound a turn, like the Carnofex, probably less as they'll hit less against a C'Tan.

I don't know the math on it, but Bolters kill my C'tan faster than they kill Carnifexes, and the same usually happens when Krak grenades are involved.

That makes sense with Bolters as it wounds both on 6, however when it comes to AP2-3 the CTan wins out mostly. Then in melee it depends. The higher WS means being hit on 4 rather than 3 and then we need to see if there's a save from the Carnifex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CTan still need a desperate fix but I think the ability to kill them with Bolters is exaggerated a bit.

But against any opponent who knows what they're doing, they won't waste AP2-3 on a C'tan. Because it dies to Bolters, relatively easy. And in melee, well, both of them will die rather quickly. The only difference is that a C'tan is literally twice the points.

Ushtarador wrote:
Seriously, how is everyone latching on the grenade thing (which is a very insignificant adjustment in the grand scheme of things) and ignoring all the awesome clarifications they delivered!?

Stopping special rules transferring to attached characters, stopping BB transport shenanigans, reigning in psychic powers, toning down warp spiders and coordinated firepower, nerfing cover rules for gargantuans..... it goes on and on. They toned down a lot of broken rules interactions, and clarified many other things very well. Please stop complaining about the contradicting 10% when 90% was great.

The grenade thing bothers me a lot because:

A: The way I read it in the rules is completely different than the reasoning used for answering the question.

B: It's different than every previous edition.

C: It cuts down on viable tactical options for basic infantry. (which IMO are the bread and butter of the game, and should have more, rather than fewer, options)

D: It disproportionately suppresses certain specialist units like Ork Tankbustas.

E: I would expect a unit with lots of CQB anti-tank equipment to be much [b]more effective against vehicles compared to a unit with a very small amount of CQB AT equipment.


Edit: Full disclosure, I'm a Space Marine player that likes using lots of Tacticals and I like my basic marines to be capable at handling themselves. Cutting down Krak attacks impacts my style of play much more than changes to psychic powers or Warp Spiders.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Isn't the Toxicrene one of the worst units the Tyranids have not counting grenades anyway? Plus how many 4+ Mountrous Creatures exist, really?

I don't know? I'm not a competitive player, so I have no idea in that sense.

All I know is that you couldn't use it against any Imperial infantry before. It was ridiculous.

The Tyrannocite and Spyrocyte are also 4+; so are Harpies and Hive Crones.

But anyway the real issue here is I think walkers. Outside of these 4+ exceptions, this ruling really does not affect MCs that much; definitely not Riptides and Wraithknights. It DOES affect walkers a lot. They are now much more durable. Which is (I guess) why GW made the ruling the way they did.

I can't really think of Walkers threatened by it. Most had AV12 front armour at least or were shooty so shouldn't have been in combat much.

Alcibiades wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Isn't the Toxicrene one of the worst units the Tyranids have not counting grenades anyway? Plus how many 4+ Mountrous Creatures exist, really?

I don't know? I'm not a competitive player, so I have no idea in that sense.

All I know is that you couldn't use it against any Imperial infantry before. It was ridiculous.

The Tyrannocite and Spyrocyte are also 4+; so are Harpies and Hive Crones.

But anyway the real issue here is I think walkers. Outside of these 4+ exceptions, this ruling really does not affect MCs that much; definitely not Riptides and Wraithknights. It DOES affect walkers a lot. They are now much more durable. Which is (I guess) why GW made the ruling the way they did.

The Toxicrene isn't bad, it's just in the same boat as everything else in the Nid book: it's being subjected to power creep. If it came out during 6th edition, it would've been a beast. As of now, not so much.

Yeah, Walkers are definitely a bit tougher now in melee, against Space Marines and Swooping Hawks. But, just don't charge them. Shoot them with the myriad of options that you have in this shooting edition of 40k.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
No, it should have said: "The number of powers is equal to your mastery level". It being "the number of powers depends on the number expressed in ML" still does absolutely nothing to define the numerical relationship between number of powers and mastery level.

Haha, wow. I mean, you're not technically wrong, but the intent is absolutely crystal clear. If anyone tried to argue this with me during a game I'd just laugh and allow whatever he wanted and then spend most of my time talking to the table next to us. I would give the game my minimum amount of attention, mostly just because if he's that motivated to rules lawyer, then he'll probably take it hard if I just pack up and leave.

 Purifier wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
No, it should have said: "The number of powers is equal to your mastery level". It being "the number of powers depends on the number expressed in ML" still does absolutely nothing to define the numerical relationship between number of powers and mastery level.

Haha, wow. I mean, you're not technically wrong, but the intent is absolutely crystal clear. If anyone tried to argue this with me during a game I'd just laugh and allow whatever he wanted and then spend most of my time talking to the table next to us. I would give the game my minimum amount of attention, mostly just because if he's that motivated to rules lawyer, then he'll probably take it hard if I just pack up and leave.

Intent was never "crystal clear". The powers a Psyker could cast was dependent on their mastery level, true, of which a Psyker would known his ML+Force (if you have Force Weapon)+primaris power (if you selected from one discipline) and has permission to continue casting until you run out of warp charges or switch to another Psyker. The rules never said "you can only attempt to cast your ML in powers each turn". So yes, people can and do see the FAQ as game changing.

We know differently. It's okay to move on.

SJ