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.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm going to be -very- interested to see whether or not they take into consideration things like the Stealth Suit Homing Beacon or the Teleport Homer for Terminators.

Those would be two flavorful and interesting ways for armies to be able to bring stuff on via Deep Strike outside of their Deployment Zone without making it too crazy.

Those already work still though, just not on first turn. I doubt they are going to make an exception there.

That's why I said I'm going to be interested in it. I submitted it as a question to their email as it might just be one of those things that nobody really thought about.

I will say that the Teleport Homer for Terminators, after rereading it, seems to be a vastly different beast to the Tau version.

Yea, it basically lets them deepstrike a second time within range of the beacon.

Soo no points increase to the farseer/warlock skyrunners?

I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

I can't believe GW successfully made Drop Pods even more worthless.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I can't believe GW successfully made Drop Pods even more worthless.

Be cool if they FAQ'd them to have the ability to drop outside of deployment zone though, even if it was 1 in 2 that could do this, would actually nearly make them worthwhile.

 Phobosftw wrote:
Soo no points increase to the farseer/warlock skyrunners?

Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?

dbhaack wrote:


Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?

Yes, because they're different datasheets.

Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.

 Crimson wrote:

dbhaack wrote:


Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?

Yes, because they're different datasheets.

That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.

A real glutton for punishment, eh?

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.

It seems to me that GK need a decent bit of errata to buff them regardless of this beta rules or not.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I can't believe GW successfully made Drop Pods even more worthless.

More useful against anti-deepstrike abilities and no more worse than any other deepstrike ability. It's a net gain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Archroy wrote:
Not been a lot of comment on this DG FAQ -

Q: If the Poxwalkers’ Curse of the Walking Pox ability increases
the unit above its starting strength in a matched play game,
does this cost reinforcement points?
A: Yes, you must pay reinforcement points for each
Poxwalker model that you add to the unit that would
increase the unit above its starting strength.

So am I right thinking that (for example) if i have a unit of 20 PW, I have to pay for a unit of 25 if i think i might kill enough troops to add an extra 5 models to the unit? And if they kill 10 without loss they can then still only increase the unit size by the extra 5 I've paid for???

Strating strength is the same, always. If you have 10, lose 2, and gain 5 then you pay for 3. Then if you lose 7 and gain 5 you pay for 1.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.

A real glutton for punishment, eh?

Always have been. For whatever reason I typically gravitate towards either weaker options or the strongest. When 8th edition was announced I was super excited as I had limited experience with 7th. There was no community here but with the announce of 8th our local card shop decided to start selling 40k, so before the rules had even been leaked I dropped $1,000 on a Ynnari army. Then the rules were released and people really started complaining about Ynnari. I never used dark reapers. I used Wraiths, fire dragons and 3 man squads of shining spears. Then the Ynnari nerf hit and it killed my army as I didn't use some silly version of Ynnari spam or craftworld + Ynnari. But at that point I had already switched to GK. In fact when the GK codex was announced I dropped another grand on a full army. I enjoyed it for a while but it's just getting harder and harder to have fun with as I watch my poor guys try to deal with Lemans, and Stormravens and other such. I've always liked the idea of both harlies and deathwatch though. I also own a lot of Inquisition from 7th but sadly I can't use them by themselves. I'm gonna invest in sisters next year though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.

It seems to me that GK need a decent bit of errata to buff them regardless of this beta rules or not.

This is true. We need more than an FAQ or errata will likely have, but I did have hope that we wouldn't take such a big hit.

The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.

The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.

I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.

Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.

The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.

I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.

Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.

Yeah. I'm gonna play some games to get some actual data, send in my thoughts and go on. It isn't worth it to get overly upset over army men

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.

The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.

I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.

Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.

100% This. Even a 9 + with rerolls is only 48% chance. Even with a DS Flyrant with Adrenal glands, you need an 8 to get a charge, with the re roll is like a 59% chance.

gungo wrote:
I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

The bad thing is that this is one area where Tyranids shine. If this passes the beta, then you might as well just axe CC from the game entirely.

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.

The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.

I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.

Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.

Because imperium gun lines can't auto win with that around. Loudest squeeky wheel gets the grease as they say

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.

The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.

I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.

Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.

You reaaaaally haven't been paying attention to the meta if you think people were rolling a 9 on 2d6 to charge from deep strike. Basically every army that was pulling that trick had some way to make the charge near-guaranteed, whether it be Descent of Angels, Warptime, or whatever the Khorne Daemons stratagem is called. I think the only army that was just relying on getting lucky was orks and even they have 'Ere We Go.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.

The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.

I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.

Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.

You reaaaaally haven't been paying attention to the meta if you think people were rolling a 9 on 2d6 to charge from deep strike. Basically every army that was pulling that trick had some way to make the charge near-guaranteed, whether it be Descent of Angels, Warptime, or whatever the Khorne Daemons stratagem is called. I think the only army that was just relying on getting lucky was orks and even they have 'Ere We Go.

Lets also not pretend it was just about close combat, those Flyrants don't care about combat, they drop down and unload with 24 S6 shots each. Obliteraters are in the same boat, as are Scions and Inceptors.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:

gungo wrote:
I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

The bad thing is that this is one area where Tyranids shine. If this passes the beta, then you might as well just axe CC from the game entirely.

Oh the hyperbole, Tyranid close combat will be fine without turn 1 deep strike.

EldarExarch wrote:I was freaking out, I thought that the tactical reserves rule was for the ENTIRE game!

Now that I re-read it I see that it is only for the first turn, which I actually like as it should lead to games being closer for longer. No more getting completely blown off the table turn 1.

Yep. Kjnda the whole for the change. Explained at the warhammer community site.

gungo wrote:I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

More that armies with "shunt" style abilities got a huge buff during the first turn.

 Togusa wrote:

gungo wrote:
I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

The bad thing is that this is one area where Tyranids shine. If this passes the beta, then you might as well just axe CC from the game entirely.

ya because before this edition units were able to charge after deepstrike first turn... oh wait nope
Furthermore plenty of armies can turn 1 charge still especially if this is limited to reserves


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:

gungo wrote:I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

More that armies with "shunt" style abilities got a huge buff during the first turn.

Good thing is shunt style abilities such as da jump for orks or the one for grey knights is also limited to 1 unit since it’s a psychic power.

Makes me wish GK had 7th edition style Shunt. It used to just be an ability that could be used once per game by each unit that had the ability. I loved to use it with Dreadkights near the end of the game to capture an objective, or redeploy to a point the enemy couldn't react before the game was over.

Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GW FAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.

The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:

gungo wrote:I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone

More that armies with "shunt" style abilities got a huge buff during the first turn.

Good thing is shunt style abilities such as da jump for orks or the one for grey knights is also limited to 1 unit since it’s a psychic power.

I thought this FAQ was such a "great" change to the game I made a meme about it...

drbored wrote:
Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GW FAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.

The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.

If gw doesn't know that drop pods were trash prior to FAQ and are now utter trash after the FAQ then no amount of emails can help them. Even the most basic understanding of the rules leads to the conclusion that drop pods are functionally useless in 8th Ed.

salt for the salt god

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

dbhaack wrote:


Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?

Yes, because they're different datasheets.

That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.

And IG can bring more russ chassis than they have points for! I don't think they can fill out their max russ capita on 3k game even

Balance...Not!