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.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Razorbacks and Rhinos still explode on a 1 when shooting plasma.

Dire Avengers still pay a laughable amount of points for their catapuls, making them stupidly overpriced.

Predators (loyalist and chaos) still have the same T as Rhinos, Razorbacks and Whirlwinds (T7), while Vindicators, Stalkers and Hunters rock T8.

Yeah this Errata isn't done yet...

I think the predator thing is deliberate, actually. Vindicators and the anti-air tanks have extra armor layers that the others don't have.
It does seem odd to have the main battle tank to be weaker, but I think it is a deliberate attempt at trying to match rules to models.


Points for Dire Avengers still doesn't make much sense, though.

Jacob29 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:

Q: Is the cost of the combat shield included in the Company
Champion and Company Champion on Bike’s points?
A: No. This (and all similar ‘other wargear’ found in the
points values section must be paid for in the same way as
a model’s weapons.

So stupid...

:/

... because it works just like everyone else's models?

It's listed as a special rule and doesn't' say he can take any wargear?

Prince Yriel has to pay more points for his Force Shield and again it says he cannot take wargear and he isn't' equipped with a force shield?

I was honestly under the impression that if you didn't have wargear options, and it listed a special rule that was named the same as a wargear piece you got it for free.

Go ahead and check the heading for the points section that Yriel is in. 99% it says "Including wargear" If it doesn't? Oh well, turns out you have to pay for things sometimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
"If you are using points, you only pay the points for the models you actually have in an understrength unit (and any wargear
they are equipped with). An understrength unit still takes up the appropriate slot in a Detachment."

3 HQ
6 * 1 Nob (boy squad)
3 * 1 Kommando nob (kommando squads)
3 * 1 Stormboy nob (Stormboyz squads)
3 * 1 grot gunner (big gun squads)

Just pay 93 pts + hq price and get a bunch of cheapo solo nobs + claim 9 command points for fielding a brigade.

If you are running marines, you can take just the sergeant on tactical squads to give each model a combi-flamer. There is enough variety in marines to fill out many different slots without using the same unit.
Especially if you drop from the other chapters. IE, this is a Ultramarine terminator. This is a BA terminator. This is a DA terminator, etc...

Of course, this is a VERY fast way to give up first blood, and it increases your total drops through the roof.
It would also guaranttee a loss for KP missions.

It would be funny if every model you dropped was it's own unit.
I don't think it gives any in-game advantage though. That extra attack and wargear are not worth the cost at initial glance.

Filling out detachments for massive command point gains is a big advantage.

It's nice, but ultimately with only 4 understrength units possible you're gaining what? 2 command points over what you could do otherwise at the cost of 93 points of tax units? Meh.

No point increase for Razorwing Flocks like a few people thought might happen, I see.

 Melissia wrote:
Aww, they nerfed seraphim hand flamers. Cause seraphim were so damn broke, y'all.

This makes my blood boil

GhostRecon wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So the FAQs have a frankly mind-boggling ruling regarding Poxwalkers and Necrons. Basically, a Necron Warrior can die, resulting in a new zombie, but then it reanimates. So one robot zombie + one plague zombie = one robot zombies and two plague zombies.

If we extrapolate this ruling elsewhere, one zombie can turn a Pink Horror into...5 zombies, as it zombifies and splits.

All of my "wat" at this ruling. Zombieception, indeed.

Poxwalker would have to kill five horrors - on top of having the demon player bring/pay reinforcement points to spawn the split horrors in the first place. Won't deny the rule is a tad odd; seems like they just went for a compromise instead of picking one ruling over the other. Can't imagine it being more than a very rare occurance, though.

It's a thematically strange ruling, probably for the sake of rules simplicity. There are some other ways of reviving dead models and it's probably for the best if the rules don't have to consider how you died when deciding if those work. It doesn't make much more sense that a space marine can be revived by an apothecary after he's been stomped on by a 40-foot-tall robot or vaporized by an Eldar death ray, but the rules don't consider that kind of edge case for the sake of simplicity. It's goofy game logic, but that's unavoidable in anything but the most complex of systems.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So apparently Soulburst is a lot better than people thought it was:

Q. When can I target an enemy Character that has a
Wounds characteristic of less than 10?
A. Such a Character can only be targeted in the
Shooting phase if it is the nearest visible model to
the firing model. You can target enemy Characters
without restriction in the Psychic phase*, Charge
phase, Fight phase, etc. You may also make shooting
attacks at enemy Characters which occur outside the
Shooting phase (i.e. when resolving Overwatch in the
Charge phase).

If that's how you're reading it, then I'd be more worried about the sisters of battle. They can build armies that dish out multiple out of phase shooting attacks without the need for units to be dying nearby.

However I think the wording 'as if it were your shooting phase' on both Soulburst and Acts of Faith is probably enough to stop those particular shenanigans. The genestealer cult mind control power however...

Voss wrote:


Points for Dire Avengers still doesn't make much sense, though.

Nor 1d3 damage Starcannon points. Nor sickly overpriced Wraithknight points. Yet we are stuck with them

 Purifier wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:

Q: Is the cost of the combat shield included in the Company
Champion and Company Champion on Bike’s points?
A: No. This (and all similar ‘other wargear’ found in the
points values section must be paid for in the same way as
a model’s weapons.

So stupid...

:/

... because it works just like everyone else's models?

It's listed as a special rule and doesn't' say he can take any wargear?

Prince Yriel has to pay more points for his Force Shield and again it says he cannot take wargear and he isn't' equipped with a force shield?

I was honestly under the impression that if you didn't have wargear options, and it listed a special rule that was named the same as a wargear piece you got it for free.

Ah, I see what you mean. It is incredibly stupid the way it is, and not at all consistent.
Crusaders, while they pay 0 points for their stormshields, they are in the wargear list, so they have clearly decided that they wanted to use the same logic as with the Company Champion. However, a Tech-Priest Dominus has a Refractor field that does not exist in the wargear section, and so they are not forced to pay for it. Further it should definitely be in his listed wargear at the top if you need to pay for it. Having to read through the special rules and guess at which ones you have to look for in the wargear section is indeed stupid and seems like something that really should be looked at.

I don't think there's anything wrong with him having to pay for his shield, but how they've handled listing it is terrible.

Yeah there isn't anything wrong with him paying for it, it's just bizzare the way it works.

It should say a Company Champion can take a crusaders shield in wargear, but now i'm under the impression that you can kinda just keep your weapons the exact same and randomly throw a storm shield on his back and bam there is his invul.

 Imateria wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:


It's listed as a special rule and doesn't' say he can take any wargear?

Prince Yriel has to pay more points for his Force Shield and again it says he cannot take wargear and he isn't' equipped with a force shield?

I was honestly under the impression that if you didn't have wargear options, and it listed a special rule that was named the same as a wargear piece you got it for free.

Not having the Imperium books my first question would be can you buy Combat Shields as optional wargear for other units? If yes then it may be a case that the person answering the question wasn't aware that the Combat Shield on the Company Champion was an abiltiy and not wargear and was probably answered in expectation of it being yet another person asking if they have to pay for wargear listed in the profile (because this forum has proven repeatedly that there's a lot of people who fail to understand the meaning of "points per model (not including wargear)").

Prince Yriel was a bad comparison though, as all named characters are specifically stated to have their wargear costs included. An Autarch would be a better comparison where his forceshield is an ability whilst it's a paid for upgrade on Dire Avengers and Wraithblades.

Either way, still needs clarification.

Storm Shields are part of "Terminator Melee weapons" so if you can take from that list you can take a storm shield... except apparently if you have the Storm Shield special rule and no access to terminator melee weapons.

You're right Prince Yriel was a bad call, but an Autarch isn't a better choice as he CAN take a Force Shield from his wargear options, so that makes sense to have Force Shield on his page.

For Company Champions they have no access to melee weapons, and have a rule saying storm shield. Apparently that means wargear access.

ERJAK wrote:

Jacob29 wrote:

It's listed as a special rule and doesn't' say he can take any wargear?

Prince Yriel has to pay more points for his Force Shield and again it says he cannot take wargear and he isn't' equipped with a force shield?

I was honestly under the impression that if you didn't have wargear options, and it listed a special rule that was named the same as a wargear piece you got it for free.

Go ahead and check the heading for the points section that Yriel is in. 99% it says "Including wargear" If it doesn't? Oh well, turns out you have to pay for things sometimes.

Yeah bad call by me. But read the other sentences above as to why this is a bit daft.

ERJAK wrote:

Filling out detachments for massive command point gains is a big advantage.

It's nice, but ultimately with only 4 understrength units possible you're gaining what? 2 command points over what you could do otherwise at the cost of 93 points of tax units? Meh.

Where are you getting 'ultimately only 4 understrength units'?

Relevant rules:


So one conscript, one infantry squad, etc.

Okay, let's do this. I'll go pick the first legal Imperial list out of the army list forum and bring it here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731248.page
That was the first one I saw and pasted here for reference:


Okay, so we take that list, which currently gets 5 CP, add 132 points of min size units and get 12 CP. Drop some upgrades here, or one of his elite squads, and there and you fit it in. And I even made an effort to give those units equipment. You could drop those extra equipment points and do it for 85.



Is sacrificing 74 points in tax units for 7 extra CP really a bad deal?

edit: Changed Intercessor to Battle Sister

 TheWaspinator wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So the FAQs have a frankly mind-boggling ruling regarding Poxwalkers and Necrons. Basically, a Necron Warrior can die, resulting in a new zombie, but then it reanimates. So one robot zombie + one plague zombie = one robot zombies and two plague zombies.

If we extrapolate this ruling elsewhere, one zombie can turn a Pink Horror into...5 zombies, as it zombifies and splits.

All of my "wat" at this ruling. Zombieception, indeed.

Poxwalker would have to kill five horrors - on top of having the demon player bring/pay reinforcement points to spawn the split horrors in the first place. Won't deny the rule is a tad odd; seems like they just went for a compromise instead of picking one ruling over the other. Can't imagine it being more than a very rare occurance, though.

It's a thematically strange ruling, probably for the sake of rules simplicity. There are some other ways of reviving dead models and it's probably for the best if the rules don't have to consider how you died when deciding if those work. It doesn't make much more sense that a space marine can be revived by an apothecary after he's been stomped on by a 40-foot-tall robot or vaporized by an Eldar death ray, but the rules don't consider that kind of edge case for the sake of simplicity. It's goofy game logic, but that's unavoidable in anything but the most complex of systems.

I dunno about you but Warmahordes handled it pretty simple by defining certain abilities as having "remove from play", which prevents the usage of resurrection/"trigger on death" secondary effects. *shrug*

Granted, 7e had similar silly rulings, like Necrons getting to make RP rolls versus Jaws, etc.

 pretre wrote:
Filling out detachments for massive command point gains is a big advantage.

It really is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I dunno about you but Warmahordes handled it pretty simple by defining certain abilities as having "remove from play", which prevents the usage of resurrection/"trigger on death" secondary effects. *shrug*

See: "mortal wounds", an alternative wound type created in 8th edition, as an example of how this could be made to work in 8th.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Filling out detachments for massive command point gains is a big advantage.

It really is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I dunno about you but Warmahordes handled it pretty simple by defining certain abilities as having "remove from play", which prevents the usage of resurrection/"trigger on death" secondary effects. *shrug*

See: "mortal wounds", an alternative wound type created in 8th edition, as an example of how this could be made to work in 8th.

Except then the FAQ went ahead and said Poxwalkers are Disgustingly Resilient versus Mortal Wounds.

I didn't intend to say "use mortal wounds", I was saying we already have an example of wounds that have special effects over normal wounds. With mortal wounds as precedent, GW can easily create, for example, a "disintegration" wound type, that prevents most healing and bring-back-from-the-dead powers.

seems pretty easy for them to just errata the understrength unit part of the rules to say

"Understrength units cannot count towards the required units to create a detachment but may occupy the optional slots"

 davou wrote:
seems pretty easy for them to just errata the understrength unit part of the rules to say

"Understrength units cannot count towards the required units to create a detachment but may occupy the optional slots"

The whole thing is moot. If it's a problem competitive games won't allow it and narrative players won't care if it's fluffy. And nothing of consequence will be lost.

 davou wrote:
seems pretty easy for them to just errata the understrength unit part of the rules to say

"Understrength units cannot count towards the required units to create a detachment but may occupy the optional slots"

Oh, that's a good way to handle it!

I like having the option for the purposes of fitting characters in transports.

 davou wrote:
seems pretty easy for them to just errata the understrength unit part of the rules to say

"Understrength units cannot count towards the required units to create a detachment but may occupy the optional slots"

Neat solution.

Yeah, that would work.

Makes sense to me.

What they need to do is errata it so that results less than 1 actually become less than one. It makes no sense that plasma explodes more often at night. That or change it to be a natural 1 only. Or change it so modifiers apply before re-rolls. Just something, ANYTHING to end the madness.

Starcannon d3 damage? Okay...why would I ever take a star cannon now? Direavengers still 7 points weapons...Da FAQ?( No clarification on multiple wound Necron models and reanimation.) MY BAD THEY DID GET THIS. Conscripts are still 3 points?

At least they clarified only+1 attack for multiple scything talons.

GW just fails so hard at rules it's disgusting.

8 pages of rules...and 80 pages of FAQs.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No clarification on multiple wound Necron models and reanimation.

That's totally in the FAQ. First question under the Necron heading (page 2) for the Xenos 1 Index;

Q. How many wounds do Necron models have when they return to a unit using Reanimation Protocols?
A. They are returned with their full complement of wounds.


What's not in there is any explanation for why 2 wargear chart items with identical stat lines have different prices.

^^ I would argue that the vast majority of those FAQ come from a player-base determined to undermine rules that have very clear intent.

Dunno, some things like the aforementioned robot-zombie zombies or vehicle cover or not being able to give Company Commanders the Militarum Auxilia keyword are fairly counter-intuitive and not exactly the sort of thing you would think of when trying to game a system.

"Hey, can I give orders to my Bullgryns like I could in my 7e Rampart Battalion?"

"No! Begone with ye, WAAC scum!"

"But Bullgryns..."

"I said begone!"

GW has written clear and unambiguous rules before and gone and changed them in a FAQ. With GW, there's no such thing as 'clear intent'.

I'm glad they included the Sorcerer on Palaquin for Death Guard, as it was an obvious oversight.

They still haven't corrected the Lord of Contagion's points, though, so he's still a non-choice in that codex. I'm hoping this just means we're getting the Death Guard Codex in short order, so they didn't want to bother putting it in the FAQ (maximum optimism).

Plague Dave wrote:
I'm glad they included the Sorcerer on Palaquin for Death Guard, as it was an obvious oversight.

They still haven't corrected the Lord of Contagion's points, though, so he's still a non-choice in that codex. I'm hoping this just means we're getting the Death Guard Codex in short order, so they didn't want to bother putting it in the FAQ (maximum optimism).

"Astartes index" is listed as an august release in the new white dwarf (or will be discussed in the august white dwarf?) without mention of death guard, so assume September or October at the earliest.

Inquisition acolytes became garbage. A guardsman that is double the cost and can really only be given upgraded weapons. At first I thought they were pretty good due to the 3 wounds - that will make up for the small max squad size and their low WS/BS.... now that they have 1 wound.... why wouldn't you just take scions?

They have 2 Attacks, and there are basically no other human Imperium units that have a laspistol and chainsword. This is relevant to my unit of converted Zealots which have (briefly) been unusable in 8th.

So yeah, if you want carapace-armoured soldiers, stick with Scions. Acolytes are useful for some of us though.