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.

 Marmatag wrote:


You use them during deployment right? Deployment is a phase. There's no way in hell you can use that more than once. I'm challenging that all freaking day.

Much as I want you to be right, I can't find anything supporting the notion that deployment is a phase. Only phases I can find listed in the book are the ones listed in the core rules at page 176: Movement, Psychic, Shooting, Charge, Fight, Morale.

Meanwhile, page 215, "Strategic Discipline" specifically says that the "Strategem cannot be used more than once per phase" rule doesn't apply to Stratagems that are not used during a phase, such as those used "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round".

I also notice that the terminology changes: "...army shoots in the Shooting phase" versus "Use this Stratagem during deployment".

 daedalus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


You use them during deployment right? Deployment is a phase. There's no way in hell you can use that more than once. I'm challenging that all freaking day.

Much as I want you to be right, I can't find anything supporting the notion that deployment is a phase. Only phases I can find listed in the book are the ones listed in the core rules at page 176: Movement, Psychic, Shooting, Charge, Fight, Morale.

Meanwhile, page 215, "Strategic Discipline" specifically says that the "Strategem cannot be used more than once per phase" rule doesn't apply to Stratagems that are not used during a phase, such as those used "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round".

I also notice that the terminology changes: "...army shoots in the Shooting phase" versus "Use this Stratagem during deployment".

Yeh, the rule specifically mentions being able to use multiple stratagems "before the battle begins" as not counting as a phase. Unfortunate but true.

The quicker GW FAQ's this, the better. Those stratagems are WAY too powerful to only cost 1CP and be able to be used more than once per deployment.

 Galef wrote:
The quicker GW FAQ's this, the better. Those stratagems are WAY too powerful to only cost 1CP and be able to be used more than once per deployment.

You shouldn't worry about it, you've already clutched your pearls and claimed you wont be playing 8th anyway.

 Galef wrote:
The quicker GW FAQ's this, the better. Those stratagems are WAY too powerful to only cost 1CP and be able to be used more than once per deployment.

I am more worried about 3 baneblade lists, conscript spam, and other game breaking mechanics. The clear counter to this is go first or don't use reserves.

 Hollow wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The quicker GW FAQ's this, the better. Those stratagems are WAY too powerful to only cost 1CP and be able to be used more than once per deployment.

You shouldn't worry about it, you've already clutched your pearls and claimed you wont be playing 8th anyway.

Slight clarification: I won't be playing competitively in 8th edition if these kinds of rock-paper-scissors, win on the first turn shenanigans exist
Casual games will be fine as you can discuss fair play with your opponent. Tourneys are subject to TO restrictions (or lack thereof) only.

Unfortunately, many players only get games at local tourneys. I have seen too many players outright quite over the last few editions because of cut-throat WAAC lists
8th was supposed to fix this, but appears to be creating its own issues.

I still think 8th is the best edition so far, I just don't have time to waste putting my models down to be immediately removed. We buy these expensive models to use them for more than 1-2 turns before packing up.

-

I mean, this isn't the first edition that's had an auto-win gimmick you could employ....

 daedalus wrote:
I mean, this isn't the first edition that's had an auto-win gimmick you could employ....

Sure. The Raven Guard stratagem is especially frustrating though because its main effect is to make first turn advantage an even bigger deal than it already was. Like, the effectiveness of first turn shooting was already something people were uneasy about and then we got this where you can gamble 1 CP that you get first turn, and then if you do you get to put your Berzerkers down at 9" before moving and charging. That's pretty much the whole point of the stratagem -- no one is using it to infiltrate Havocs into ruins somewhere. It just seems like a really poorly thought-out mechanic, and it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to be pretty annoyed about it.

It's a mechanic completely neutered by conscripts, too.

I mean, yeah. Proper list building and play can neutralize a great deal of the effectiveness of this. Don't see the complaints. It's competitive, but it's not WAAC.

Audustum wrote:
I mean, yeah. Proper list building and play can neutralize a great deal of the effectiveness of this. Don't see the complaints. It's competitive, but it's not WAAC.

People make bad lists. Most lists are bad. People get upset when their bad lists lose. I suppose it makes sense if you're just trying to casually smash toy soldiers together. However, if you are making the conscious effort to acknowledge you're casual, you should probably also make an effort to acknowledge you're probably going to lose a lot.

Which shouldn't matter.

Because you're playing casually.

Which is fine.

 Purifier wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Is the stratagem allowed to be used 3 times just because it's outside of normal "phases?"

I would have assumed that the intent would be for it to be only used once.

Have you read the rulebook? The exact same rule that limits stratagems to once per phase has an exception in the rule for stratagems used outside of normal phases. Like there is literally an entire extra sentence specifically contradicting the intent to only be used once.

Why are you being so stupidly confrontational?

I'm not, I asked a simple question because many on this forum don't even own the rulebook and it would clarify whether you've glanced at it yet or are operating off of secondhand information.

Why do you read everything as being confrontational? Calm down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Don't worry. Just ignore it. Yes, at first glance you very much could have assumed that

I don't see how. It was asked whether you can use a stratagem multiple times simply because it's being used out of phase. Well, here's what the book says about out of phase stratagems.

Strategic Discipline pg215
The same Stratagem cannot be used by the same player more than once during any single phase. This does not affect Stratagems that are not used during a phase, such as those used "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round".

Some of us don't play an army with suitably expendable units, nor do we want to.
Imperials have Conscripts, Chaos have Cultists

Eldar, by their very nature, do not nor should not have expendable units. By I guess I'll have to field MSU Kabalites just to not get Alpha struck off the table. This, however creates an issue with deployment drops, increasing the chances of going second.
So you have to make a choice whether to get Alpha struck by melee infiltrators, or gunlines with better shooting than you....great.

Being able to infiltrate with 1 unit is fine as it shifts the balance away from gunlines, which I am all in favor of. But being able to do this with half of your army is too far in the other direction.
While I am a huge advocate for the pregame discussion, I also think you shouldn't have to. The game should ideally be balanced so that a casual game and a tourney game feel close to the same thing.

I guess time will tell once more Codices are out, but the initial "all armies are balanced" has thoroughly gone out the window. At least Chaos gets a time to shine, I guess
Hopefully the Eldar codex brings them up closer to the middle without going overboard. I'd like to have a playable army that "could" win a few games in a tourney, but I don't want the same level as 6th/7th. I want opponents to see my army and think "Oh, cool, Eldar. This will be a fun/challenging/rewarding game" NOT: "Oh, Eldar, you're TFG" or "Oh, Eldar, you must like losing"

-

 Arkaine wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Is the stratagem allowed to be used 3 times just because it's outside of normal "phases?"

I would have assumed that the intent would be for it to be only used once.

Have you read the rulebook? The exact same rule that limits stratagems to once per phase has an exception in the rule for stratagems used outside of normal phases. Like there is literally an entire extra sentence specifically contradicting the intent to only be used once.

Why are you being so stupidly confrontational?

I'm not, I asked a simple question because many on this forum don't even own the rulebook and it would clarify whether you've glanced at it yet or are operating off of secondhand information.

Why do you read everything as being confrontational? Calm down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Don't worry. Just ignore it. Yes, at first glance you very much could have assumed that

I don't see how. It was asked whether you can use a stratagem multiple times simply because it's being used out of phase. Well, here's what the book says about out of phase stratagems.

Strategic Discipline pg215
The same Stratagem cannot be used by the same player more than once during any single phase. This does not affect Stratagems that are not used during a phase, such as those used "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round".

Yes, yes. You immediately understand rules. I get it.

People get confused. People make mistakes. People read things incorrectly. All of these things can be expected to happen, even if it doesn't happen for you.

Martel732 wrote:
It's a mechanic completely neutered by conscripts, too.

This is probably what GW thought too. "It's fine, it's not overpowered, I mean... everyone can just field some conscripts to counter it, right?".

Certainly sounds like GW. Totally forgetting that there are armies out there that -aren't- Space Marines and Guard.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People get confused. People make mistakes. People read things incorrectly. All of these things can be expected to happen, even if it doesn't happen for you.

No I'm more than aware that can happen, we have the YMDC board after all. I'm merely surprised it can happen within the same rule that the person quoted as evidence preventing it from being the case. I assumed if one had read the first sentence they might also have read the second. Not a stretch of the imagination, I'm sure. Hence inquiring minds would wonder whether the person is in possession of a rulebook at all or operating off of secondhand information sources that apparently aren't presenting a complete picture.

Understanding is the first step towards acceptance.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People get confused. People make mistakes. People read things incorrectly. All of these things can be expected to happen, even if it doesn't happen for you.

No I'm more than aware that can happen, we have the YMDC board after all. I'm merely surprised it can happen within the same rule that the person quoted as evidence preventing it from being the case. I assumed if one had read the first sentence they might also have read the second. Not a stretch of the imagination, I'm sure. Hence inquiring minds would wonder whether the person is in possession of a rulebook at all or operating off of secondhand information sources that apparently aren't presenting a complete picture.

Understanding is the first step towards acceptance.

I genuinely don't understand what your problem is. You're actively passive aggressive with people when commenting, and seem to think that doing so under the guise of intelligence or "helping" makes that an acceptable course of action. If people keep calling you out on it, you should consider self reflection instead of blaming everyone else for how they're taking your actions.

Rule #1.

Niiru wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's a mechanic completely neutered by conscripts, too.

This is probably what GW thought too. "It's fine, it's not overpowered, I mean... everyone can just field some conscripts to counter it, right?".

Certainly sounds like GW. Totally forgetting that there are armies out there that -aren't- Space Marines and Guard.

I don't think that's what GW was thinking. I think they were going with... "So Guard players have been complaining for ages about sucking. Let's compile a list of the seventy-five things wrong with Guard and fix all of them at the same time."

The end result was Codex: Astra Militarum and the miasma of terror that surrounds it.

 Galef wrote:
Some of use don't play an army with suitably expendable units, nor do we want to.
Imperials have Conscripts, Chaos have Cultists

Eldar, by their very nature, do not nor should not have expendable units. By I guess I'll have to field MSU Kabalites just to not get Alpha struck off the table. This, however creates an issue with deployment drops, increasing the chances of going second.
So you have to make a choice whether to get Alpha struck by melee infiltrators, or gunlines with better shooting than you....great.

Being able to infiltrate with 1 unit is fine as it shifts the balance away from gunlines, which I am all in favor of. But being able to do this with half of your army is too far in the other direction.
While I am a huge advocate for the pregame discussion, I also think you shouldn't have to. The game should ideally be balanced so that a casual game and a tourney game feel close to the same thing.

I guess time will tell once more Codices are out, but the initial "all armies are balanced" has thoroughly gone out the window. At least Chaos gets a time to shine, I guess
Hopefully the Eldar codex brings them up closer to the middle without going overboard. I'd like to have a playable army that "could" win a few games in a tourney, but I don't want the same level as 6th/7th. I want opponents to see my army and think "Oh, cool, Eldar. This will be a fun/challenging/rewarding game" NOT: "Oh, Eldar, you're TFG" or "Oh, Eldar, you must like losing"

-

Building a TAC list means accounting for first turn deepstrikes and melee charges. Which either means positioning or bubblewrap. Either way your going to have some potential sacrificial units.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People get confused. People make mistakes. People read things incorrectly. All of these things can be expected to happen, even if it doesn't happen for you.

No I'm more than aware that can happen, we have the YMDC board after all. I'm merely surprised it can happen within the same rule that the person quoted as evidence preventing it from being the case. I assumed if one had read the first sentence they might also have read the second. Not a stretch of the imagination, I'm sure. Hence inquiring minds would wonder whether the person is in possession of a rulebook at all or operating off of secondhand information sources that apparently aren't presenting a complete picture.

Understanding is the first step towards acceptance.

I genuinely don't understand what your problem is. You're actively passive aggressive with people when commenting, and seem to think that doing so under the guise of intelligence or "helping" makes that an acceptable course of action. If people keep calling you out on it, you should consider self reflection instead of blaming everyone else for how they're taking your actions.

Rule #1.

I'm nothing of the sort... you are injecting quite a lot of emotion into what I state. You might be passive aggressive and project your tendencies onto other but I merely logical and matter of fact. Ever heard of a Vulcan? It's like that. But if we're discussing rule #1, please don't come here and tell me what I think, feel, and believe when you can't see my face, hear my tone, or recognize that I'm merely a fan of clarity and understanding. I am quite used to identifying loopholes, errors, possible crash points, and tackling such matters as a programmer by trade. It may give my writing a mechanical feel to it and strike a semblance to a heartless machine but that's purely your perception and not the truth of the matter.

So please refrain from "calling me out" on my behavior when you are simply misjudging it as something that it isn't.

 Galef wrote:
Some of use don't play an army with suitably expendable units, nor do we want to.
Imperials have Conscripts, Chaos have Cultists

I completely agree. When I make a list, I like to choose units that have a purpose other than "they're just there to die"
To me, that feels like a waste of points.

You could have assumed that except, as pointed out, the sentence that says one stratagem per phase is immediately followed by a sentence that says you can go nuts with start of game stratagems and it's been repeated in a faq document.

So, I have a question based on earlier posts- Does the Alpha/raven player have to place his units before or after the roll for 1st turn? I'm just starting to play the game and am not all that familiar with the nomenclature.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You could have assumed that except, as pointed out, the sentence that says one stratagem per phase is immediately followed by a sentence that says you can go nuts with start of game stratagems and it's been repeated in a faq document.

Which is an issue I could live with *IF* the particular stratagems in question were more than 1CP to use. Something that powerful and, more importantly, REPEATABLE needs to be worth at least 2, if not 3CPs.
I just do not think these stratagems, while cool in concept, were very well thought out.

GW seems to have a track record for creating rules that are cool for their intended purpose, but break as soon as anyone competent uses the rule with units that don't really do that in the fluff. Alpha Legion infiltrating Berserkers, for example.

-

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, I have a question based on earlier posts- Does the Alpha/raven player have to place his units before or after the roll for 1st turn? I'm just starting to play the game and am not all that familiar with the nomenclature.

The mission rules list the order of events. Deployment happens first, stratagem is used here, then the roll for first turn happens. The units are deployed at the start of the 1st battle round which is right before the 1st turn of the 1st player is taken. So you do know who is going first before you place them on the table.

 Galef wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You could have assumed that except, as pointed out, the sentence that says one stratagem per phase is immediately followed by a sentence that says you can go nuts with start of game stratagems and it's been repeated in a faq document.

Which is an issue I could live with *IF* the particular stratagems in question was more than 1CP. Something that powerful and, more importantly, REPEATABLE needs to be worth at least 2, if not 3CPs.
I just do not think these stratagems, while cool in concept, were very well thought out.

-

Absolutely and that is a very different issue.

 Galef wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You could have assumed that except, as pointed out, the sentence that says one stratagem per phase is immediately followed by a sentence that says you can go nuts with start of game stratagems and it's been repeated in a faq document.

Which is an issue I could live with *IF* the particular stratagems in question were more than 1CP to use. Something that powerful and, more importantly, REPEATABLE needs to be worth at least 2, if not 3CPs.
I just do not think these stratagems, while cool in concept, were very well thought out.

GW seems to have a track record for creating rules that are cool for their intended purpose, but break as soon as anyone competent uses the rule with units that don't really do that in the fluff. Alpha Legion infiltrating Berserkers, for example.

-

Keep in mind it's like giving the unit Infiltrate. This was a common rule in 7th and there were ways to grant it to even Berzerkers. Heck you could infiltrate an entire Rhino and other stuff with it using a warlord trait. All they did this edition was force you to pay something to make use of that ability. Some armies had infiltrators that could be used for free, resulting in army lists where the entire army started on your side of the board. Infiltrating devastators into a high piece of center terrain was popular.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Some of use don't play an army with suitably expendable units, nor do we want to.
Imperials have Conscripts, Chaos have Cultists

Eldar, by their very nature, do not nor should not have expendable units. By I guess I'll have to field MSU Kabalites just to not get Alpha struck off the table. This, however creates an issue with deployment drops, increasing the chances of going second.
So you have to make a choice whether to get Alpha struck by melee infiltrators, or gunlines with better shooting than you....great.

Being able to infiltrate with 1 unit is fine as it shifts the balance away from gunlines, which I am all in favor of. But being able to do this with half of your army is too far in the other direction.
While I am a huge advocate for the pregame discussion, I also think you shouldn't have to. The game should ideally be balanced so that a casual game and a tourney game feel close to the same thing.

I guess time will tell once more Codices are out, but the initial "all armies are balanced" has thoroughly gone out the window. At least Chaos gets a time to shine, I guess
Hopefully the Eldar codex brings them up closer to the middle without going overboard. I'd like to have a playable army that "could" win a few games in a tourney, but I don't want the same level as 6th/7th. I want opponents to see my army and think "Oh, cool, Eldar. This will be a fun/challenging/rewarding game" NOT: "Oh, Eldar, you're TFG" or "Oh, Eldar, you must like losing"

-

Building a TAC list means accounting for first turn deepstrikes and melee charges. Which either means positioning or bubblewrap. Either way your going to have some potential sacrificial units.

Eldar do not have bubblewrap units. They certainly have nothing in the same league as conscripts or cultists. Considering this has become the edition of guaranteed deepstriking alpha strikes, this is just poor design on GW's part.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You could have assumed that except, as pointed out, the sentence that says one stratagem per phase is immediately followed by a sentence that says you can go nuts with start of game stratagems and it's been repeated in a faq document.

Which is an issue I could live with *IF* the particular stratagems in question were more than 1CP to use. Something that powerful and, more importantly, REPEATABLE needs to be worth at least 2, if not 3CPs.
I just do not think these stratagems, while cool in concept, were very well thought out.

GW seems to have a track record for creating rules that are cool for their intended purpose, but break as soon as anyone competent uses the rule with units that don't really do that in the fluff. Alpha Legion infiltrating Berserkers, for example.

-

Keep in mind it's like giving the unit Infiltrate. This was a common rule in 7th and there were ways to grant it to even Berzerkers. Heck you could infiltrate an entire Rhino and other stuff with it using a warlord trait. All they did this edition was force you to pay something to make use of that ability. Some armies had infiltrators that could be used for free, resulting in army lists where the entire army started on your side of the board. Infiltrating devastators into a high piece of center terrain was popular.

IIRC the old-style infiltrate rule had a much harsher distance requirement. Something like 18" if any enemy unit could draw LoS to you, right?

 Galef wrote:
Some of us don't play an army with suitably expendable units, nor do we want to.
Imperials have Conscripts, Chaos have Cultists

Eldar, by their very nature, do not nor should not have expendable units. By I guess I'll have to field MSU Kabalites just to not get Alpha struck off the table. This, however creates an issue with deployment drops, increasing the chances of going second.
So you have to make a choice whether to get Alpha struck by melee infiltrators, or gunlines with better shooting than you....great.

Being able to infiltrate with 1 unit is fine as it shifts the balance away from gunlines, which I am all in favor of. But being able to do this with half of your army is too far in the other direction.
While I am a huge advocate for the pregame discussion, I also think you shouldn't have to. The game should ideally be balanced so that a casual game and a tourney game feel close to the same thing.

I guess time will tell once more Codices are out, but the initial "all armies are balanced" has thoroughly gone out the window. At least Chaos gets a time to shine, I guess
Hopefully the Eldar codex brings them up closer to the middle without going overboard. I'd like to have a playable army that "could" win a few games in a tourney, but I don't want the same level as 6th/7th. I want opponents to see my army and think "Oh, cool, Eldar. This will be a fun/challenging/rewarding game" NOT: "Oh, Eldar, you're TFG" or "Oh, Eldar, you must like losing"

-

Imperial is not a codex. Marines have the same problem as Eldar.