Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - [please post lists under spoilers]

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.

**p5freak**

barontuman wrote:
Do multiple hits from a Solar Staff stack. Ie, I get 5 hits, roll 3 4+, is the target unit -3 to hit? Has there been an faq or ymdc discussion?

Thats a good question.

Each time an enemy INFANTRY unit is hit by this weapon in the Shooting phase, roll a D6; on a 4+ the enemy unit is blinded until the end of the turn - it cannot fire Overwatch and your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made for the unit. The Solar Staff replaces the bearer's staff of light.

I know that aura abilities dont stack. But this is not an aura ability. I would say it stacks, because it says each time.

**Facisminthe41m**

Is there any good argument for Gauss immortals currently? I'm about to build my first box and I really much prefer the look of the gauss to the tesla. Tesla kinda looks like a vacuum cleaner.

**Badablack**

Just use gauss weapon models and paint the tubes and glow something other than green for Tesla.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Facisminthe41m wrote:
Is there any good argument for Gauss immortals currently? I'm about to build my first box and I really much prefer the look of the gauss to the tesla. Tesla kinda looks like a vacuum cleaner.

Gauss Blasters are a little better at closer ranges and against armored units. They work best with Veil of Darkness, Monoliths, Nightscythes or the Translocation Crypt. They aren't as plug and play like Tesla due to the difference in effective range and the lack of synergy with My Will be Done, but they can still be deadly if you use them properly.
For extra hilarity, field them in a Mephrit Detachment. A squad of ten will be firing 20 S5 AP-3 shots at short range, which you can easily do with a Veil, a Monolith or a Scythe. One of the few good applications of Mephrit, really.

**Odrankt**

Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

Is that really all that effective against armored targets though? Its only -1 AP, and you are relying on getting those tesla procs. With Gauss its just raw damage, no MWBD gimmick or Tesla RNG, just pure stats.

**Odrankt**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

Is that really all that effective against armored targets though? Its only -1 AP, and you are relying on getting those tesla procs. With Gauss its just raw damage, no MWBD gimmick or Tesla RNG, just pure stats.

If the unit is MWBD than Tesla will proc. Also 30-38 shots on average with AP-1 will wreck a lot of stuff. Maybe nothing over T6 but I would rather force my opponent 10-14 -1 AP saves rather than 3-5 AP -3 saves. Saturation of dice over powers reliable AP in this matter.

And, yes, Gauss is raw power. Giving you more reason to take Gauss Tomb Blades and not Gauss Immortals

**CthuluIsSpy**

Fair enough, Tomb blades can take two blasters instead of one.
I should really get some tomb blades. Are they that bad to assemble though? I heard they were pretty tedious. Are they better than the Arks at least?

**Tauris_Blazestar**

Tesla is not an end all be all for Immortals. Yes, Tesla's potential output can be nutty but sometimes you'll want a Guass Blaster (possibly Mephrit) to help dig out those enemy units that might be in cover, particularlly Scouts with their +2 to cover save and maybe those new Primaris in Phobos armor from the Shadowspear box. You can also treat your Guass Immortals as a stand alone unit so you can put them into cover without baby sitting them with a HQ.

**vict0988**

Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

You lose MWBD if you Veil in events run by FLG and most likely the majority of other ITC events as well. You are supposed to interpret FAQs very broadly according to the ITC head judge who has been in contact with GW rules staff, so the FAQ regarding units losing buffs when they use a Stratagem to be removed from the table actually applies to any ability or relic that removes a unit from the battlefield and places them back again. I don't feel too bad about having followed the RAW when everyone agreed that RAW was the way to play it, but when GW rules staff have told the judging staff for the biggest tournament in the world what RAI is I don't think that's fair unless your opponent agrees to follow RAW rather than RAI. With VoD and Obyron being so much weaker according to RAW I'd probably cut down on Immortals as much as possible in my lists and field Tomb Blades instead, Gauss Tomb Blades are much better than Gauss Immortals as well. Using Veil to get a unit into RF range can be extremely dangerous, if you can't find cover you'll get blown to pieces and if you are playing against any amount of melee you'll get shredded possibly after being taken hostage and then used as a springboard for future charges.

**Odrankt**

I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tauris_Blazestar wrote:
Tesla is not an end all be all for Immortals. Yes, Tesla's potential output can be nutty but sometimes you'll want a Guass Blaster (possibly Mephrit) to help dig out those enemy units that might be in cover, particularlly Scouts with their +2 to cover save and maybe those new Primaris in Phobos armor from the Shadowspear box. You can also treat your Guass Immortals as a stand alone unit so you can put them into cover without baby sitting them with a HQ.

If I want Tesla I put them on Immortals. If I want Gauss I put them on Tomb Blades. Also if you run Tomb blades you can give them ignore cover as well meaning the +2 save that scouts get are negated.

I usually run my Immortals as 5 man squads and to hold back field objectives and with no HQ support. While, I use Tomb blades to grab up field objectives and produce reliable Gauss and Tesla dmg (I mix my Tomb blade units 6 Gauss + 3 Tesla). And have them supported by a closktek.

**vict0988**

Odrankt wrote:
I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

I did not assume you were playing by ITC rules, which is why I said if you are. I'm sad to inform you that ETC follows the same ruling. "28. When you use a Stratagem, ability, relic or psychic power to remove a unit from the
battlefield and set it up again, any persistent effects (such as aura buffs that are not
inherent to the unit, psychic powers that had been cast upon it or one of its models,
except where it concerns wounds that have been suffered) are lost."

**Draco765**

vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

You lose MWBD if you Veil in events run by FLG and most likely the majority of other ITC events as well. You are supposed to interpret FAQs very broadly according to the ITC head judge who has been in contact with GW rules staff, so the FAQ regarding units losing buffs when they use a Stratagem to be removed from the table actually applies to any ability or relic that removes a unit from the battlefield and places them back again. I don't feel too bad about having followed the RAW when everyone agreed that RAW was the way to play it, but when GW rules staff have told the judging staff for the biggest tournament in the world what RAI is I don't think that's fair unless your opponent agrees to follow RAW rather than RAI. With VoD and Obyron being so much weaker according to RAW I'd probably cut down on Immortals as much as possible in my lists and field Tomb Blades instead, Gauss Tomb Blades are much better than Gauss Immortals as well. Using Veil to get a unit into RF range can be extremely dangerous, if you can't find cover you'll get blown to pieces and if you are playing against any amount of melee you'll get shredded possibly after being taken hostage and then used as a springboard for future charges.

Nothing but a single event house rule. Until the official FAQ is updated to the reworded version that the judge made up, it is not worth considering.

vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

I did not assume you were playing by ITC rules, which is why I said if you are. I'm sad to inform you that ETC follows the same ruling. "28. When you use a Stratagem, ability, relic or psychic power to remove a unit from the
battlefield and set it up again, any persistent effects (such as aura buffs that are not
inherent to the unit, psychic powers that had been cast upon it or one of its models,
except where it concerns wounds that have been suffered) are lost."

They still let you 1st turn deep strike into your own deployment zone, so again, house rule, not a general rule.

**torblind**

Draco765 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

You lose MWBD if you Veil in events run by FLG and most likely the majority of other ITC events as well. You are supposed to interpret FAQs very broadly according to the ITC head judge who has been in contact with GW rules staff, so the FAQ regarding units losing buffs when they use a Stratagem to be removed from the table actually applies to any ability or relic that removes a unit from the battlefield and places them back again. I don't feel too bad about having followed the RAW when everyone agreed that RAW was the way to play it, but when GW rules staff have told the judging staff for the biggest tournament in the world what RAI is I don't think that's fair unless your opponent agrees to follow RAW rather than RAI. With VoD and Obyron being so much weaker according to RAW I'd probably cut down on Immortals as much as possible in my lists and field Tomb Blades instead, Gauss Tomb Blades are much better than Gauss Immortals as well. Using Veil to get a unit into RF range can be extremely dangerous, if you can't find cover you'll get blown to pieces and if you are playing against any amount of melee you'll get shredded possibly after being taken hostage and then used as a springboard for future charges.

Nothing but a single event house rule. Until the official FAQ is updated to the reworded version that the judge made up, it is not worth considering.

vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

I did not assume you were playing by ITC rules, which is why I said if you are. I'm sad to inform you that ETC follows the same ruling. "28. When you use a Stratagem, ability, relic or psychic power to remove a unit from the
battlefield and set it up again, any persistent effects (such as aura buffs that are not
inherent to the unit, psychic powers that had been cast upon it or one of its models,
except where it concerns wounds that have been suffered) are lost."

They still let you 1st turn deep strike into your own deployment zone, so again, house rule, not a general rule.

Really? So you shouldn't at all worry that the tournament you are attending would look to ITC for rules clarification and a source of common practice?

What was that FAQ meant to fix anyway? I feel that Necrons got caught in the cross fire there. (We also lost Szeras's and Zahndrekhs augmentations the same way)

**Kahi the Uncertain**

Tbh, a veiled unit losing Szeras' augmentation couldn't possibly be considered rai though. That's a permanent alteration to a unit's statistics, it just makes no sense.

On a side note, would Orikan lose his stars aligned effect if he was teleported?

**Draco765**

torblind wrote:
Draco765 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

You lose MWBD if you Veil in events run by FLG and most likely the majority of other ITC events as well. You are supposed to interpret FAQs very broadly according to the ITC head judge who has been in contact with GW rules staff, so the FAQ regarding units losing buffs when they use a Stratagem to be removed from the table actually applies to any ability or relic that removes a unit from the battlefield and places them back again. I don't feel too bad about having followed the RAW when everyone agreed that RAW was the way to play it, but when GW rules staff have told the judging staff for the biggest tournament in the world what RAI is I don't think that's fair unless your opponent agrees to follow RAW rather than RAI. With VoD and Obyron being so much weaker according to RAW I'd probably cut down on Immortals as much as possible in my lists and field Tomb Blades instead, Gauss Tomb Blades are much better than Gauss Immortals as well. Using Veil to get a unit into RF range can be extremely dangerous, if you can't find cover you'll get blown to pieces and if you are playing against any amount of melee you'll get shredded possibly after being taken hostage and then used as a springboard for future charges.

Nothing but a single event house rule. Until the official FAQ is updated to the reworded version that the judge made up, it is not worth considering.

vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

I did not assume you were playing by ITC rules, which is why I said if you are. I'm sad to inform you that ETC follows the same ruling. "28. When you use a Stratagem, ability, relic or psychic power to remove a unit from the
battlefield and set it up again, any persistent effects (such as aura buffs that are not
inherent to the unit, psychic powers that had been cast upon it or one of its models,
except where it concerns wounds that have been suffered) are lost."

They still let you 1st turn deep strike into your own deployment zone, so again, house rule, not a general rule.

Really? So you shouldn't at all worry that the tournament you are attending would look to ITC for rules clarification and a source of common practice?

What was that FAQ meant to fix anyway? I feel that Necrons got caught in the cross fire there. (We also lost Szeras's and Zahndrekhs augmentations the same way)

I would hope that the event would turn to GW's FAQs. It covers this situation rather well.

And, ITC can house rule anything they want. It is not GW. Thus their rulings do not carry over to any other event automatically.

The Fabius Bile upgrade, then using the Tide of Traitors stratagem is the targeted combo.

With the exact wording of the FAQ fix: Veil of Darkness is not a Stratagem, MWBD is not persistent (lasting for a long time). Thus this exact FAQ does not apply. When the FAQ changes to the wording that the judge ruled it as, I will not be arguing about it.

A quick once over, and it seems that Szera's and Orikan's effect are the only persistent effects in our army.

**Tauris_Blazestar**

torblind wrote:
Draco765 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
Your better of veiling Mephrit Tesla Immortals to give there Tesla -1 AP as well and 5+ Tesla if MWBD. If people want to play Gauss immortals than they should look at Tomb Blades. Carry 2 blasters per model, move 14" so can get into Rapid Fire easier and have more durability.

You lose MWBD if you Veil in events run by FLG and most likely the majority of other ITC events as well. You are supposed to interpret FAQs very broadly according to the ITC head judge who has been in contact with GW rules staff, so the FAQ regarding units losing buffs when they use a Stratagem to be removed from the table actually applies to any ability or relic that removes a unit from the battlefield and places them back again. I don't feel too bad about having followed the RAW when everyone agreed that RAW was the way to play it, but when GW rules staff have told the judging staff for the biggest tournament in the world what RAI is I don't think that's fair unless your opponent agrees to follow RAW rather than RAI. With VoD and Obyron being so much weaker according to RAW I'd probably cut down on Immortals as much as possible in my lists and field Tomb Blades instead, Gauss Tomb Blades are much better than Gauss Immortals as well. Using Veil to get a unit into RF range can be extremely dangerous, if you can't find cover you'll get blown to pieces and if you are playing against any amount of melee you'll get shredded possibly after being taken hostage and then used as a springboard for future charges.

Nothing but a single event house rule. Until the official FAQ is updated to the reworded version that the judge made up, it is not worth considering.

vict0988 wrote:
Odrankt wrote:
I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

I did not assume you were playing by ITC rules, which is why I said if you are. I'm sad to inform you that ETC follows the same ruling. "28. When you use a Stratagem, ability, relic or psychic power to remove a unit from the
battlefield and set it up again, any persistent effects (such as aura buffs that are not
inherent to the unit, psychic powers that had been cast upon it or one of its models,
except where it concerns wounds that have been suffered) are lost."

They still let you 1st turn deep strike into your own deployment zone, so again, house rule, not a general rule.

Really? So you shouldn't at all worry that the tournament you are attending would look to ITC for rules clarification and a source of common practice?

What was that FAQ meant to fix anyway? I feel that Necrons got caught in the cross fire there. (We also lost Szeras's and Zahndrekhs augmentations the same way)

I believe that FAQ change was suppose to target Tide of Traitors when Cultist spam was popular, you would buff a unit of Cultists with some buff (forget which one) and when that unit is almost wiped use Tide of Traitors to bring it back to full strength with the buff still applied. Seeing as our Veil does not replenish a unit back to full strength it simple moves a unit, I don't see why we are getting stuck on that FAQ. Again I feel someone was getting their ass handed to them by the second worse codex in 8th and made a huge deal about till they got the judge to rule they wanted.

Edit: LOL it helps to read all the posts before making my own, Draco765 explained why that FAQ is in existence and shouldn't affect Necrons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Odrankt wrote:
I play ETC not ITC mate. So the whole "being set up as reinforcements and losing MWBD" doesn't affect me unless it's properly FaQ'd by GW. So, please don't assume what system I play in. Not everyone in 40k plays ITC. Might be the biggest tournament scene but not the only one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tauris_Blazestar wrote:
Tesla is not an end all be all for Immortals. Yes, Tesla's potential output can be nutty but sometimes you'll want a Guass Blaster (possibly Mephrit) to help dig out those enemy units that might be in cover, particularlly Scouts with their +2 to cover save and maybe those new Primaris in Phobos armor from the Shadowspear box. You can also treat your Guass Immortals as a stand alone unit so you can put them into cover without baby sitting them with a HQ.

If I want Tesla I put them on Immortals. If I want Gauss I put them on Tomb Blades. Also if you run Tomb blades you can give them ignore cover as well meaning the +2 save that scouts get are negated.

I usually run my Immortals as 5 man squads and to hold back field objectives and with no HQ support. While, I use Tomb blades to grab up field objectives and produce reliable Gauss and Tesla dmg (I mix my Tomb blade units 6 Gauss + 3 Tesla). And have them supported by a closktek.

True but Tomb Blades are Bikers and not Infantry so they would not gain benefit from taking positions in ruins or buildings. You want Tomb Blades running around harassing and taking forward objectives, you can keep some Guass Immortals on mid/backfield objectives in cover. Every unit has a purpose, just because another unit can do something slightly better or different does make the other unit worthless. Use all your tools available to you and make up your own mind, don't just listen to the echo chamber that is the meta.

**p5freak**

Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

True but Tomb Blades are Bikers and not Infantry so they would not gain benefit from taking positions in ruins or buildings.

They do get cover, when at least 50% obscured. Which is not hard to do, they arent the largest models.

**necr0n**

This rules debate comes up every 2 pages or so. You're hardly even arguing, I think everybody is actually saying the same:

The FAQ does not say we can't VoD and keep MWBD RAW.

ETC and ITC, the biggest competitive events in warhammer 40k have chosen (based on conversation with GW or not, it does not matter) to rule MWBD + VoD as illegal. Basicly, it's not allowed in any big/important tournament, bar some GW events.

It's pretty obvious you can use MWBD + VoD in your FLGS as long as everyone's okay with it, but chances are if you wanna take it to any important tournament (that either follows ETC or ITC) it wouldn't work.

There's people who wanna use that combo for FLGS games and small RTT's and that's absolutely fine and there's people who think ITC/ETC rules will become the norm everywhere and they chose to not use it, which is also fine.

As a Tactica Thread and not a rules thread, let's leave this conversation at that and not mention it again until we have more news, official rulings or any update.

**Draco765**

necr0n wrote:
This rules debate comes up every 2 pages or so. You're hardly even arguing, I think everybody is actually saying the same:

The FAQ does not say we can't VoD and keep MWBD RAW.

ETC and ITC, the biggest competitive events in warhammer 40k have chosen (based on conversation with GW or not, it does not matter) to rule MWBD + VoD as illegal. Basicly, it's not allowed in any big/important tournament, bar some GW events.

It's pretty obvious you can use MWBD + VoD in your FLGS as long as everyone's okay with it, but chances are if you wanna take it to any important tournament (that either follows ETC or ITC) it wouldn't work.

There's people who wanna use that combo for FLGS games and small RTT's and that's absolutely fine and there's people who think ITC/ETC rules will become the norm everywhere and they chose to not use it, which is also fine.

As a Tactica Thread and not a rules thread, let's leave this conversation at that and not mention it again until we have more news, official rulings or any update.

Does not matter the size of the event, they are not following the RAW of the FAQ, thus they are just making up house rulings, which is fine for that event.

On here, unless someone states that they are going to that level of event, people should assume that they are following GW rules and FAQs.

**necr0n**

Draco765 wrote:
necr0n wrote:
This rules debate comes up every 2 pages or so. You're hardly even arguing, I think everybody is actually saying the same:

The FAQ does not say we can't VoD and keep MWBD RAW.

ETC and ITC, the biggest competitive events in warhammer 40k have chosen (based on conversation with GW or not, it does not matter) to rule MWBD + VoD as illegal. Basicly, it's not allowed in any big/important tournament, bar some GW events.

It's pretty obvious you can use MWBD + VoD in your FLGS as long as everyone's okay with it, but chances are if you wanna take it to any important tournament (that either follows ETC or ITC) it wouldn't work.

There's people who wanna use that combo for FLGS games and small RTT's and that's absolutely fine and there's people who think ITC/ETC rules will become the norm everywhere and they chose to not use it, which is also fine.

As a Tactica Thread and not a rules thread, let's leave this conversation at that and not mention it again until we have more news, official rulings or any update.

Does not matter the size of the event, they are not following the RAW of the FAQ, thus they are just making up house rulings, which is fine for that event.

On here, unless someone states that they are going to that level of event, people should assume that they are following GW rules and FAQs.

ITC/ETC missions are also non-GW (and a heck of a lot more rules, like terrain etc), are they also house rules? And, if 90% of all tournaments use them and 99% of competitive/large tournaments use them does it matter if they are house rules? Wether you like it or not, the tournament packs (with their rulings and TOs) are the ones with the last say in how actual rules are interpreted and played, not GW. A lot of the main GW rules are changed in a lot of events. In a Tactica thread that's mainly focused arround Tactics and competitive play, Tournament Formats are extremely relevant and should not be excluded from the conversation.

You suggest that everyone should assume GW rules and FAQs, but that's just your opinion. I don't see why anyone would do that, since GW don't have official rulings for their Tournaments, they're bound to FAQs that are very questionable. Also, most of the tournaments, (take it numbers wise) are not GW tournaments, so it's not a number's game either, so why would we ever assume GW?

EDIT: Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with the previous debate. I just want to point out that this is a Tactica Thread. Tactics are talked about Competitive Games. Competitive games happen in tournaments. Tournaments right now are dominated by Tournament Packs different than GW. All the competitive strategies and gameplays we see involve those rulepacks. All the talks about meta and things like that are in fact born in those rulepacks. It's kinda weird to suddenly just say that they're all house rules and we can ignore them when talking Tactics online.

**Draco765**

necr0n wrote:
Draco765 wrote:
necr0n wrote:
This rules debate comes up every 2 pages or so. You're hardly even arguing, I think everybody is actually saying the same:

The FAQ does not say we can't VoD and keep MWBD RAW.

ETC and ITC, the biggest competitive events in warhammer 40k have chosen (based on conversation with GW or not, it does not matter) to rule MWBD + VoD as illegal. Basicly, it's not allowed in any big/important tournament, bar some GW events.

It's pretty obvious you can use MWBD + VoD in your FLGS as long as everyone's okay with it, but chances are if you wanna take it to any important tournament (that either follows ETC or ITC) it wouldn't work.

There's people who wanna use that combo for FLGS games and small RTT's and that's absolutely fine and there's people who think ITC/ETC rules will become the norm everywhere and they chose to not use it, which is also fine.

As a Tactica Thread and not a rules thread, let's leave this conversation at that and not mention it again until we have more news, official rulings or any update.

Does not matter the size of the event, they are not following the RAW of the FAQ, thus they are just making up house rulings, which is fine for that event.

On here, unless someone states that they are going to that level of event, people should assume that they are following GW rules and FAQs.

ITC/ETC missions are also non-GW (and a heck of a lot more rules, like terrain etc), are they also house rules? And, if 90% of all tournaments use them and 99% of competitive/large tournaments use them does it matter if they are house rules? Wether you like it or not, the tournament packs (with their rulings and TOs) are the ones with the last say in how actual rules are interpreted and played, not GW. A lot of the main GW rules are changed in a lot of events. In a Tactica thread that's mainly focused arround Tactics and competitive play, Tournament Formats are extremely relevant and should not be excluded from the conversation.

You suggest that everyone should assume GW rules and FAQs, but that's just your opinion. I don't see why anyone would do that, since GW don't have official rulings for their Tournaments, they're bound to FAQs that are very questionable. Also, most of the tournaments, (take it numbers wise) are not GW tournaments, so it's not a number's game either, so why would we ever assume GW?

If you are not using Games Workshop game's rules for the rules, are you even playing the game they are selling?

Maybe that is also the heart of the problem. Everyone thinks they can remake the game how they want it to be played and then expect GW to adapt to them. Instead of actually playing the game GW has created. Those house rules are not how the GW rules are intended to be used in, which makes most of the huge imbalances that we all see.

How about we just ignore everything GW prints and play the game however ITC wants? (Touch of sarcasm here)

So, of course you should assume to be following the rules of GW, until some specifically says that they are playing in an ITC/ETC environment.

Reply to edit: so tactics has nothing to do with casual games? You are saying that only competitive play is the only way to play?

**necr0n**

Draco765 wrote:

If you are not using Games Workshop game's rules for the rules, are you even playing the game they are selling?

Maybe that is also the heart of the problem. Everyone thinks they can remake the game how they want it to be played and then expect GW to adapt to them. Instead of actually playing the game GW has created. Those house rules are not how the GW rules are intended to be used in, which makes most of the huge imbalances that we all see.

How about we just ignore everything GW prints and play the game however ITC wants? (Touch of sarcasm here)

So, of course you should assume to be following the rules of GW, until some specifically says that they are playing in an ITC/ETC environment.

Reply to edit: so tactics has nothing to do with casual games? You are saying that only competitive play is the only way to play?

I'm sorry, was there an actual factual argument in there, cause I can't find it?

As for the imbalances, playing the game competitively with GW's rules has been dramatically unsuccessful, because of the large imbalances and problems it creates. That's why ETC/ITC and other formats were created, to help fix those imbalances (obviously, they're more balanced..) and the competitive scene has really took off ever since those rulepacks have made it possible. If you compare competitive 40k before or after (with or without) the formats you hate so much, you will realize they have only been improved and bloomed the competitive scene. However, that's for another conversation.

**Draco765**

necr0n wrote:
Draco765 wrote:

If you are not using Games Workshop game's rules for the rules, are you even playing the game they are selling?

Maybe that is also the heart of the problem. Everyone thinks they can remake the game how they want it to be played and then expect GW to adapt to them. Instead of actually playing the game GW has created. Those house rules are not how the GW rules are intended to be used in, which makes most of the huge imbalances that we all see.

How about we just ignore everything GW prints and play the game however ITC wants? (Touch of sarcasm here)

So, of course you should assume to be following the rules of GW, until some specifically says that they are playing in an ITC/ETC environment.

Reply to edit: so tactics has nothing to do with casual games? You are saying that only competitive play is the only way to play?

I'm sorry, was there an actual factual argument in there, cause I can't find it?

As for the imbalances, playing the game competitively with GW's rules has been dramatically unsuccessful, because of the large imbalances and problems it creates. That's why ETC/ITC and other formats were created, to help fix those imbalances (obviously, they're more balanced..) and the competitive scene has really took off ever since those rulepacks have made it possible. If you compare competitive 40k before or after (with or without) the formats you hate so much, you will realize they have only been improved and bloomed the competitive scene. However, that's for another conversation.

Yes back when those events started the missions were not that great but the newer missions are great for larger events no one has bothered to give them a try. Even the fact that the people behind ITC were the ones who helped develop them, yet still refuse to use seems to elude many.

But, all this to say that a bad call by a judge at a big event is still worthy of being ignored by the rest of the world.

**tneva82**

Draco765 wrote:
Yes back when those events started the missions were not that great but the newer missions are great for larger events no one has bothered to give them a try. Even the fact that the people behind ITC were the ones who helped develop them, yet still refuse to use seems to elude many.

But, all this to say that a bad call by a judge at a big event is still worthy of being ignored by the rest of the world.

Just because ITC guys helped making them doesn't mean they are suitable for COMPETIVE games which ITC tries to be. Scenario where suddenly invulnerable saves are removed? That's like screw you for certain factions entirely. Not suitable for competive games. They are fun scenarios for beer&perzels game. Super bad for competive games.

**Requizen**

Anyone used the new FW superheavy much? I'd love to splurge and get one but idk if it's even worth.

**vict0988**

Requizen wrote:
Anyone used the new FW superheavy much? I'd love to splurge and get one but idk if it's even worth.

They are both extremely good, among our best units. The competitive meta is tailored to taking them out so maybe not the best competitive units but they are amazing against unprepared lists. The Seraptek is a glass hammer and the Pylon is useless against infantry, otherwise both amazing.

**Requizen**

vict0988 wrote:
Requizen wrote:
Anyone used the new FW superheavy much? I'd love to splurge and get one but idk if it's even worth.

They are both extremely good, among our best units. The competitive meta is tailored to taking them out so maybe not the best competitive units but they are amazing against unprepared lists. The Seraptek is a glass hammer and the Pylon is useless against infantry, otherwise both amazing.

What would you say makes the Seraptek a glass hammer? It's pretty equivalent to Knights in terms of Wounds and Saves (plus Living Metal for a little occasional boost), and I don't think anyone would ever consider Knights to be made out of glass.

Though I guess then again the Seraptek can't Rotate Ion Shields, which is definitely a thing.

**necr0n**

Requizen wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Requizen wrote:
Anyone used the new FW superheavy much? I'd love to splurge and get one but idk if it's even worth.

They are both extremely good, among our best units. The competitive meta is tailored to taking them out so maybe not the best competitive units but they are amazing against unprepared lists. The Seraptek is a glass hammer and the Pylon is useless against infantry, otherwise both amazing.

What would you say makes the Seraptek a glass hammer? It's pretty equivalent to Knights in terms of Wounds and Saves (plus Living Metal for a little occasional boost), and I don't think anyone would ever consider Knights to be made out of glass.

Though I guess then again the Seraptek can't Rotate Ion Shields, which is definitely a thing.

It lacks Warlord traits, relics and Stratagems. Knights can become characters with 2+/3++ which is way, way different on a 28W model than a 3+/5++

EDIT: And it costs a lot more, making it squishier per points paid.

**Requizen**

necr0n wrote:
Requizen wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Requizen wrote:
Anyone used the new FW superheavy much? I'd love to splurge and get one but idk if it's even worth.

They are both extremely good, among our best units. The competitive meta is tailored to taking them out so maybe not the best competitive units but they are amazing against unprepared lists. The Seraptek is a glass hammer and the Pylon is useless against infantry, otherwise both amazing.

What would you say makes the Seraptek a glass hammer? It's pretty equivalent to Knights in terms of Wounds and Saves (plus Living Metal for a little occasional boost), and I don't think anyone would ever consider Knights to be made out of glass.

Though I guess then again the Seraptek can't Rotate Ion Shields, which is definitely a thing.

It lacks Warlord traits, relics and Stratagems. Knights can become characters with 2+/3++ which is way, way different on a 28W model than a 3+/5++

EDIT: And it costs a lot more, making it squishier per points paid.

Hm, I'm not super familiar with Knights, can they get that stuff when taken in a SHAD to be allied with other Imperial stuff? Because that's where I mostly see them.