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.

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.

Only until the Deployment phase is over, and they count as being a single unit with the deploying model. Once deployment ends though, they're removed from the table and don't count as even existing until they disembark. Plus Tactical Reserves is for deep striking units or units that have yet to enter the field, not actual embarked units. Embarked units are already stated to be removed from the battlefield by the Transports rule. You can't be both on the battlefield and removed from it.

"Q: For the purposes of the Tactical Reserves matched play rule,
do units that act separately after they have been set up (e.g. Mek
Gunz and their Grot Crew, T’au Battlesuits and their Drones,
units that have the Vehicle Squadron ability, etc.) count as
being a single unit, or several units?
A: Such units are a single unit for the purposes of the
Tactical Reserves rule. "

There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

 SarisKhan wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

Agreed.

They are treating this as though it was a patch released into an MMO. A large game with often complex systems which can react in un-intended ways. Hands up honestly, who thought that the all flyers lists were either fair or balanced? The change to the rules is a welcome one, although as the one Eldar player stated earlier, it can hurt a fluffy themed list. To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

 Garrlor wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

Agreed.

They are treating this as though it was a patch released into an MMO. A large game with often complex systems which can react in un-intended ways. Hands up honestly, who thought that the all flyers lists were either fair or balanced? The change to the rules is a welcome one, although as the one Eldar player stated earlier, it can hurt a fluffy themed list. To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

The problem is all the boasting GW did about 8th being the MOST PLAYETESTYED EDUITION ERVAR!

It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

Oh boy. I think you're taking this far too personally.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

The Casual Gaming Mafia is nothing if not completely serious about how not serious they are about their plastic toys.

I think it has more to do with things like.

You want to abuse the system you lock in, then you find out they fixed it so you can't abuse it. Then you scream I want to redo things now.

It would be like bring a lotto ticket back and saying my system didn't work I didn't win I want to retry pretend I didn't buy the first one.

 Garrlor wrote:
To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I think it has more to do with things like.

You want to abuse the system you lock in, then you find out they fixed it so you can't abuse it. Then you scream I want to redo things now.

It would be like bring a lotto ticket back and saying my system didn't work I didn't win I want to retry pretend I didn't buy the first one.

Actually, it'd be like like you bought a ticket for the lotto, and they then adjusted the win rates and payout rates before the drawing. Which is illegal as well as scummy.

It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

Bacon, you are a bitter bitter person. If they fix stuff, it's good. If they do it often, that's even better. If they once ran over your dog, I'm sorry.

The flyer nerf is nice but I doubt it'll drastically hurt a clever player who bring scout squads.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

Well you know how that could have been fixed? Not including a flyer detachment with five slots, while most normal detachments have room for two as well. Including a flyer detachment that allows five of the things but only intending them to be taken in ones and twos would imply the game designers at GW are beyond help.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
There is no such thing as a perfect product. People constantly find loopholes/exploitable mechanics/bugs the devs have missed. The devs are notified about this and fix them with patches. That's brilliant. Two major issues have already been addressed, hopeful about GW fixing at least some of the rest.

Agreed.

They are treating this as though it was a patch released into an MMO. A large game with often complex systems which can react in un-intended ways. Hands up honestly, who thought that the all flyers lists were either fair or balanced? The change to the rules is a welcome one, although as the one Eldar player stated earlier, it can hurt a fluffy themed list. To all of the waac players out there, you are the reason we cant have nice things!

The problem is all the boasting GW did about 8th being the MOST PLAYETESTYED EDUITION ERVAR!

It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

Or that they people they asked to playtest the game were playing reasonable lists to test out the various systems and sub systems. Or maybe they were given lists and armies to play and didnt build thier own. The systems of the game itself flow really well, which is testament to playtesting. Letting the internets loose on the army building is where the problems have started, as it was with 7th. Someone will always find a loophole, or a hack or a shortcut. Always. Which is why we have hackers and others abusing computer systems to steal or trick people out of their hard earned. And strangely, despite all of the really intelligent people at Microsoft working to create an OS, there are still always holes in the software somewhere.

GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

 warhead01 wrote:
The flyer nerf is nice but I doubt it'll drastically hurt a clever player who bring scout squads.

Unit of Scarab Occults come in turn 1 and wipe the scout squads. Having 5 fliers and only a handful of ground models is never going to work against a player who has any idea what they're doing.

SilverAlien wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like flyers were intended to be taken in ones or twos, not twelves.

Well you know how that could have been fixed? Not including a flyer detachment with five slots, while most normal detachments have room for two as well. Including a flyer detachment that allows five of the things but only intending them to be taken in ones and twos would imply the game designers at GW are beyond help.

Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

Exalted

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me. I'm not sure if it speaks to tolerance or sadism at this point, le sigh

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Make sure you don't play DropZone / Drop Fleet or Spartan Games rules sets

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Imperial Fists Terminators pop in and wipe the Scouts out with their ability to ignore cover and add additional shots.

Flyer Spammer is going to have to try harder than that.

 Garrlor wrote:
Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

So you mean.... the exact way people were using it with stormravens? Which was decried as abusive and has now been rendered either illegal or just a bad choice in general?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Imperial Fists Terminators pop in and wipe the Scouts out with their ability to ignore cover and add additional shots.

Flyer Spammer is going to have to try harder than that.

I don't know if this was intended to quote me, I agree that flyer spam is probably bad now. I'm referring to the game as released.

Except that 2000 points is not a "larger game". It's pretty much a standard game size.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

So you mean.... the exact way people were using it with stormravens? Which was decried as abusive and has now been rendered either illegal or just a bad choice in general?

I'm pretty sure the 2000 pt tournament standard is not what Garrlor meant by "larger games". I'm sure you'd be able to fit an Air Wing detachment with 4 storm ravens in an Apocalypse game and still have room for a reasonable ground army.

If you take 2000 points of stormravens in a 4000 point game, that'd be very different from taking 1800 points of stormravens in a 2000 point game.

SilverAlien wrote:

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

But if we were being even semi realistic, why would you want to take a list of all flyers? You want flyers to gain aerial superiority over your enemy, so that you may strike at them un-opposed from the air. An all flyer list can do this, but is vulnerable to AA from the ground without ground forces moving in to occupy and distract that ground based AA. The problem with something like this in 40k is the lack of AA to most ground units, whereas in a modern military things like man-pads are common. Aircraft have the same problems that tanks do, in that they will struggle to dislodge entrenched infantry and to hold ground. Hence why no one runs an all Pred list, as you know that there is a lot of anti tank out there and its pointless.

That is an issue with the balance of the game in of itself, as the lack of reliable AA in a unit is a pain, but I can also see the reasoning in keeping the options down as much as possible for a skirmish game like 40k. Air support should be just that, support, not the whole thrust of an army.

If the intention was to allow a large flyer portion in an apocalypse size army then the battalion and brigade detachments could have allowed for a larger amount of flyers in each. The air wing detachment specifically allows flyer spam, I don't see why they would design it the way they did if such lists were not intended to exist.

Arachnofiend wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
Or that the flyer detachment was designed work alongside battalion detachements etc in larger games?

So you mean.... the exact way people were using it with stormravens? Which was decried as abusive and has now been rendered either illegal or just a bad choice in general?

I'm pretty sure the 2000 pt tournament standard is not what Garrlor meant by "larger games". I'm sure you'd be able to fit an Air Wing detachment with 4 storm ravens in an Apocalypse game and still have room for a reasonable ground army.

Exactly. An air wing detachment in a 5000pt game is nothing major, I would consider it a good point sink to balance my forces for land/air/tank/stompy big smashy things.

And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

sossen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Imperial Fists Terminators pop in and wipe the Scouts out with their ability to ignore cover and add additional shots.

Flyer Spammer is going to have to try harder than that.

I don't know if this was intended to quote me, I agree that flyer spam is probably bad now. I'm referring to the game as released.

Nope, I must have clicked the quote button on you but mistake.

This FAQ is beautiful. Particularly making razor wings more reasonably pointed. I think I would have preferred a points increase on the flyers rather than the strange tabling rule, but it'll stop 100 percent flyer spam at least. Top lists will have to include half an army of something else to back up their 3-4 storm ravens.

Now I hope they do something similar with brimstone horrors, conscripts, and militarum tempestus and 8th will be looking so much more interesting from a competitive viewpoint! (And I won't need to carry so many models to tournaments )

 Garrlor wrote:
Exactly. An air wing detachment in a 5000pt game is nothing major, I would consider it a good point sink to balance my forces for land/air/tank/stompy big smashy things.

And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

So the brigade detachment should have 5-6 flyer slots. Problem solved. Again, including the flyer detachment if they didn't intend for all/mostly flyer armies to be a thing means GW is still worthless garbage as far as game design goes.

Playing to win is fine, but this game has historically had some toxic choices available to players who wanted to win.

Getting an extra 500 points of models was one of them not too long ago.

Sure the choice was made available to players, but it still does not add anything tactically interesting either as a player or a spectator to take them. The fault was absolutely with GW for making it an option, but if that option was not taken by players then it wouldn't have been obnoxious.

Arachnofiend wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
The flyer nerf is nice but I doubt it'll drastically hurt a clever player who bring scout squads.

Unit of Scarab Occults come in turn 1 and wipe the scout squads. Having 5 fliers and only a handful of ground models is never going to work against a player who has any idea what they're doing.

Right you are I thought they set up like Ork Kommands. Haha. Now I'm glad that they don't.