Switch Theme:

Big FAQ - What do you want to see?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Commoragh-bound Peer





 Stux wrote:
onlyroad wrote:
To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.

A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.

The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?

As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.

Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ


I would say that just because it may be the only time it can happen doesn't mean it's unintended. In fact I would say this is probably the most intuitive result too.

Sure, anything like this where there is potential for confusion would still benefit from an FAQ though.


See, the reason I say its unintended is that other interactions with embarked units go out of their way to make sure the unit is on the table before any models are removed. Take emergency disembarkation for instance. The process is very specific, once the transport is reduced to zero wounds, the Explodes roll is triggered, the unit inside disembarks onto the table, and only then are casualty rolls made and the transport removed.

But I agree, this very well could be intended, and it wouldn't cause too many issues if it was.

Douglas Adams wrote:If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat.

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




the_scotsman wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).


What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:

-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)

The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.

From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:

-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.

I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.

Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.

Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 14:07:18


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.

Detachment, not army.

Nothing stopping you from bringing a Flyer Wing of Valkyries.

But the Tempestus Doctrine is a mess when it comes to how it interacts with Advisors and Auxilias, and hopefully at the least we see Valkyries added to the list of potential Tempestus bits.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






onlyroad wrote:
To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.

A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.

The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?

As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.

Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ


What about units in a transport when the transport is destroyed?

Do you technically put them on the table first then roll the dice to determine how many you remove, or what? I forget what the order is for that.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




 Kanluwen wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.

Detachment, not army.

Nothing stopping you from bringing a Flyer Wing of Valkyries.

But the Tempestus Doctrine is a mess when it comes to how it interacts with Advisors and Auxilias, and hopefully at the least we see Valkyries added to the list of potential Tempestus bits.


If they made any changes to the doctrine rule, I would allow Scions to include Bullgryns and Sentiels. Man, LasSentinels with the Scion Exploding 6s? That would overnight make Sentinels valuable.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






dominuschao wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).


What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:

-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)

The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.

From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:

-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.

I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.

Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.

Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.


This basically just falls under one of my rules to play by, which is "if a unit you've built and purchased is reliant on some kind of rules funkiness to be playable, don't do a surprised pikachu face when a rules change makes your build no longer legal."

Soulreaper access since the release of the Thousand Sons codex has gone from 5 to 10, and the fact that it was still 1 in 5 in the older CSM codex was something that was just updated for consistency most likely.

It always amazes me how year after year people are surprised and outraged by stuff like this. Like in 7th, how you could "technically legally" do a double wargear swap and get a Deathwatch Veteran with shotgun and boltgun at the same time, and you had people who went all in on that and converted 20-30 models to have that loadout, then they were all shocked and surprised when a FAQ came out making it illegal to do that.

Or how you could technically give the Big Shoota in an Ork Boyz squad to the boss nob, giving you a Big Shoota/Power Klaw nob and an extra boy could have a slugga/choppa.

Or how you could summon daemons with an imperial guard formation, and a guy who used to play at my club bought 800$ of guard and daemons and structured his entire army around that strategy, then promptly quit when 8th ed dropped.

If the current competitive meta build involves building every single member of a squad in a way that is not supported by the kit and requires kitbashing/3rd party bits then your army will probably not survive the next rules change.

Do you hear that, people with competitive Deathwatch armies with jump pack/thunder hammer/storm shield watch captains as HQs, Storm Bolter/Storm Shield veterans as troops, Twin Assault Cannon razorbacks as transports, and quad-lascannon dreadnoughts as anti tank support?

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





It's not going to happen, but I would greatly prefer it if you could find all of the updates for a given book in a single document. Currently you have to look at the FAQ, the Errata, and Chapter Approved, which is a major pain. 8th edition is rapidly becoming even more cumbersome to play than 7th was.

Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.

Detachment, not army.

Nothing stopping you from bringing a Flyer Wing of Valkyries.

But the Tempestus Doctrine is a mess when it comes to how it interacts with Advisors and Auxilias, and hopefully at the least we see Valkyries added to the list of potential Tempestus bits.


If they made any changes to the doctrine rule, I would allow Scions to include Bullgryns and Sentiels. Man, LasSentinels with the Scion Exploding 6s? That would overnight make Sentinels valuable.

It doesn't need to "allow" anything more like Bullgryns or Sentinels, it just needs to allow for Valkyries to not mess it up.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:


I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.


Not going to happen. Nerfs Assassins right off the map.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




the_scotsman wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).


What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:

-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)

The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.

From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:

-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.

I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.

Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.

Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.


This basically just falls under one of my rules to play by, which is "if a unit you've built and purchased is reliant on some kind of rules funkiness to be playable, don't do a surprised pikachu face when a rules change makes your build no longer legal."

Soulreaper access since the release of the Thousand Sons codex has gone from 5 to 10, and the fact that it was still 1 in 5 in the older CSM codex was something that was just updated for consistency most likely.

It always amazes me how year after year people are surprised and outraged by stuff like this. Like in 7th, how you could "technically legally" do a double wargear swap and get a Deathwatch Veteran with shotgun and boltgun at the same time, and you had people who went all in on that and converted 20-30 models to have that loadout, then they were all shocked and surprised when a FAQ came out making it illegal to do that.

Or how you could technically give the Big Shoota in an Ork Boyz squad to the boss nob, giving you a Big Shoota/Power Klaw nob and an extra boy could have a slugga/choppa.

Or how you could summon daemons with an imperial guard formation, and a guy who used to play at my club bought 800$ of guard and daemons and structured his entire army around that strategy, then promptly quit when 8th ed dropped.

If the current competitive meta build involves building every single member of a squad in a way that is not supported by the kit and requires kitbashing/3rd party bits then your army will probably not survive the next rules change.

Do you hear that, people with competitive Deathwatch armies with jump pack/thunder hammer/storm shield watch captains as HQs, Storm Bolter/Storm Shield veterans as troops, Twin Assault Cannon razorbacks as transports, and quad-lascannon dreadnoughts as anti tank support?

What?
You insinuate my builds were abusive which they are not. Those examples you list are not the same thing man. Loyalist summoning daemons is not the same as deleting legal options from an entry. Or big shootas to boss nobz? How are you even equating those to deleting an option? You use conjecture to jump to the conclusion that I'm at fault for being upset my formerly legal units are now not.
What you listed is abusive or at least beardy and obviously should be addressed. I avoid that type of play. However this change was simply removing options from an entry to standardize with another dex. While I can see why they did it its still feels arbitrary to nerf something that didn't need it. Please don't make it seem like I'm at fault for building my models in a manner that I should have forseen would become illegal.

Lastly there is not competitiv build for rubric marines. If there was it would not require kitbashing. The kit was legal as written before the change. I chose to use FW models because I like them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 14:52:04


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






the_scotsman wrote:
onlyroad wrote:
To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.

A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.

The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?

As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.

Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ


What about units in a transport when the transport is destroyed?

Do you technically put them on the table first then roll the dice to determine how many you remove, or what? I forget what the order is for that.
Covered step by step in the rulebook FAQ
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.

They also sell you a Start Collecting set with a Commissar.

You're preaching to the choir about the intent, but the written bit unfortunately needs to be done better.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.


So, I JUST read that. This is the direct result of rules bloat and over-saturation with rules. Anyway, ugly truth, still not used.
   
Made in gb
Freaky Flayed One





At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/08 15:28:12


 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

In terms of what I'd like to see: Dark Eldar HQs that aren't just worse versions of HQs in other armies, which somehow cost more points.

And whilst I'm dreaming, I'd like for at least a couple of those HQs to be able to take Wings (or Skyboards or Jetbikes).

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Sinewy Scourge




 BaconCatBug wrote:
I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






dominuschao wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
dominuschao wrote:
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).


What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:

-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)

The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.

From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:

-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.

I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.

Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.

Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.


This basically just falls under one of my rules to play by, which is "if a unit you've built and purchased is reliant on some kind of rules funkiness to be playable, don't do a surprised pikachu face when a rules change makes your build no longer legal."

Soulreaper access since the release of the Thousand Sons codex has gone from 5 to 10, and the fact that it was still 1 in 5 in the older CSM codex was something that was just updated for consistency most likely.

It always amazes me how year after year people are surprised and outraged by stuff like this. Like in 7th, how you could "technically legally" do a double wargear swap and get a Deathwatch Veteran with shotgun and boltgun at the same time, and you had people who went all in on that and converted 20-30 models to have that loadout, then they were all shocked and surprised when a FAQ came out making it illegal to do that.

Or how you could technically give the Big Shoota in an Ork Boyz squad to the boss nob, giving you a Big Shoota/Power Klaw nob and an extra boy could have a slugga/choppa.

Or how you could summon daemons with an imperial guard formation, and a guy who used to play at my club bought 800$ of guard and daemons and structured his entire army around that strategy, then promptly quit when 8th ed dropped.

If the current competitive meta build involves building every single member of a squad in a way that is not supported by the kit and requires kitbashing/3rd party bits then your army will probably not survive the next rules change.

Do you hear that, people with competitive Deathwatch armies with jump pack/thunder hammer/storm shield watch captains as HQs, Storm Bolter/Storm Shield veterans as troops, Twin Assault Cannon razorbacks as transports, and quad-lascannon dreadnoughts as anti tank support?

What?
You insinuate my builds were abusive which they are not. Those examples you list are not the same thing man. Loyalist summoning daemons is not the same as deleting legal options from an entry. Or big shootas to boss nobz? How are you even equating those to deleting an option? You use conjecture to jump to the conclusion that I'm at fault for being upset my formerly legal units are now not.
What you listed is abusive or at least beardy and obviously should be addressed. I avoid that type of play. However this change was simply removing options from an entry to standardize with another dex. While I can see why they did it its still feels arbitrary to nerf something that didn't need it. Please don't make it seem like I'm at fault for building my models in a manner that I should have forseen would become illegal.

Lastly there is not competitiv build for rubric marines. If there was it would not require kitbashing. The kit was legal as written before the change. I chose to use FW models because I like them.


I did not at all insinuate your builds were "abusive" or that any of the technically legal builds I listed were "abusive". A current competitive deathwatch list with all those things I said is less competitive than a competitive guard+knight list no matter what you do with it. That doesn't change the fact that a person building that competitive deathwatch list is much, much more likely to see those options he's currently using deleted from the game than the person with the competitive guard list.

Guardsmen with lasguns, company commanders and knight castellans are basic unit options that are highly likely to stick around through the editions. Deathwatch built with index-only or not in the kit wargear are extremely likely to be deleted during a rules change.

Thousand Sons' wargear was set in 7th edition as 1 per 10, changed to 1 per 5 in the index and subsequent CSM codex, and then immediately changed back to 1 per 10 in the Tsons codex. Getting surprised and outraged over that getting changed back in CSM codex V2 is silly, because you had every indication that was coming.

Ditto with the index change with the force axe. Like, come on. If anyone is still surprised by weapon options that are not included in official kits going to index only, I don't know what to tell that person.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Drager wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.

Would that be bad for the game though? I guess some DE players may not like it, but everyone else just would not care. And if GW thinks it would fix the game somehow, why not just do it? They did it with other armies or units this edition.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

 Kanluwen wrote:
Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.

They also sell you a Start Collecting set with a Commissar.

You're preaching to the choir about the intent, but the written bit unfortunately needs to be done better.

You have to read all the rules together.

A Militarum Tempestus detachment is a detachment with the Scion doctrine, per Vigilus Ablaze FAQ.
The only way to gain the Scion doctrine is to have a detachment which only has Militarum Tempestus units or units on the A&A list.
To nominate a detachment to be a Tempestus Drop Force, it must be a Militarum Tempestus detachment.
Therefore, it would be impossible to make a Valkyrie a Tempestus Drop Force Valkyrie unless it was exempted by the A&A list, as a Flyer detachment could not be nominated either.

This forces one to concede that the rules are written poorly, but units from the A&A list can be included in a Militarum Tempestus detachment without the detachment losing the doctrine. People that deny this are fickle gaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stux wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Stux wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.


Uh... how?



Grav chutes?


You can't use them for most of your army though, 50% at best.


The other half could be in valkyries, theoretically.


Sure, but if you don't get the first turn they won't be staying there long! Especially with nothing else to shoot at.


Valkyries, Aerial Drops, and Taurox Primes. A pure Militarum Tempestus is using a mix of Max and min sized squads. A list usually won’t have more than 65 infantry, depending on how much you spend on Vehicles (forge world can make this bigger), as well is supporting characters lie Officer of the Fleet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 16:56:34


If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 17:27:26


 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.

If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





United States

Karol wrote:
Drager wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.

Would that be bad for the game though? I guess some DE players may not like it, but everyone else just would not care. And if GW thinks it would fix the game somehow, why not just do it? They did it with other armies or units this edition.


No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Apple Peel wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.

I hate to be the one to say this but:

Vigilus Ablaze Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.

RAI? Yes, it's absolutely 100% clear that Valkyries are not meant to detract from you getting the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAW? The argument can be made that yes, they do.

It's circular nonsense but it's what feeds some of the trolls in threads like these. The Vigilus Ablaze bit was effectively a RAI vs RAW perception filter.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Drager wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.



If they worded it so only the detachments which share at least one keyword with the warlord (excluding Imperium,chaos and aeldari) wouldn't it work without killing drukhari? you'd still get the CP/strats for coven/cult/kabal. Or am i missing something?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 17:35:40


 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?


If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.

All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.



   
Made in gb
Freaky Flayed One





"but muh inaccuracies" as I'm sat here with a Necron codex that's......also wildly innacurate now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 17:40:52


 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?


If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.

All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.





GW only needs to do one thing to fix the rules mess : make easily accessible up-to-date rule pdf for each book they release and treat it like DnD does, bring the books you need to play (so if im using some vigilus detachments, i should have the up-to-date pdf in my possession.

They should give a free access to the up-to-date rules everytime you buy a physical book, or give players the choice to only purchase the electronic version.

It doesnt fix the fact that multiple sources are required to play (bare minimum being BRB and codex) but thats a "problem" that DnD also has yet you dont see people complaining. Things like Vigilus should be viewed as Expansions for the main game.

Basically i feel like the real problem with the rules mess is that FAQs and Errata arent consolidated
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?

If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.

AoS' app is free with most of that information. There's very little that requires you to pay that isn't related to stuff that is intended for full Allegiances(read: "pure" Detachments).

All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.

Yeah, train them into having incorrect lists or just copy/pasting lists they've seen elsewhere.

PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".

And let's be clear here:
Battlescribe doesn't have "minor flaws". At times, it has allowed for entirely illegal lists to be written. Gonna point back to when the Guard book dropped and people kept running a Cadian Spearhead of a Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




 Kanluwen wrote:
 Apple Peel wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lanlaorn wrote:
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.

I hate to be the one to say this but:

Vigilus Ablaze Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.

RAI? Yes, it's absolutely 100% clear that Valkyries are not meant to detract from you getting the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAW? The argument can be made that yes, they do.

It's circular nonsense but it's what feeds some of the trolls in threads like these. The Vigilus Ablaze bit was effectively a RAI vs RAW perception filter.


So this leads me to another question: Who the hell cares if a paper thin army of 18" shooters gets a rarely if ever goes off ability? Oh my, you're 22 shots of S3 weaponry got an extra 3 shots! Look out for this Las weaponry, three more rounds of this and you might actually kill a single unit! That being said, that squad of Scions will be dead or fleeing by the end of your opponents turn.

RAI, RAW, doesn't matter. Give everyone the rule. Hell, give it to the Commissar: If you are building a master plan to SOMEHOW get all those squads inside Hotshot RF range and then pray that you roll straight 6's, go ahead. Go. NUTS. Because you will lose every time. And that's not the math talking, that's the experience. You build a list upon a prayer, you built a list to lose.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: