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.

gave the FAQ a quick read and it looks like it was worth waiting for. This edition just keeps getting better and better with each update

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Crusaders are good. They have always been good. Castellan was just OP. I've been saying this all eddition.

So good now its a paperweight.

I play against Admech and a crusader a lot because my best friend is Admech junkie. It is extremely hard to beat that list. It is far from a paperweight. It's a knight you can't kill with 3 big guns that crushes everything but pure melle units with ease.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
Castellan - Nerfed
Ynnari - Nerfed
Ork Mob Up Lootas - Nerfed
Deathwatch - Nerfed
Fixed Fly Well Enough
Fixed flyer walls
Fixed Embarking to escape melee combat
Fixed instant death powers like Mental Onslaught
Fixed Necron transports slightly so you can use the stratagem to save embarked models from instant death turn 1
Clarified if MWBD sticks to units who then are moved by the VOD relic (It sticks)

God its like i died and went to heaven. I am beyond pleased.

This FAQ does seem unreasonably well done.

Poor standards we have - the FAQ is almost as good as it should have been so we get excited.
Lets keep in mind this FAQ nerfed Land Raiders and did nothing about 4PPM guardsmen.

GW fixes a dozen things really well. GW doesn't increase a max 10 man unit by 1 point that requires support to function. FAQ is therefore bad.

Nah - by GW standards this is masterpiece. It's not bad - it addressed most of the issues in the game. However lots of obvious stuff didn't change...like infantry....or CP in general. LR's obviously don't need to get worse...I am happy with this FAQ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
Castellan - Nerfed
Ynnari - Nerfed
Ork Mob Up Lootas - Nerfed
Deathwatch - Nerfed
Fixed Fly Well Enough
Fixed flyer walls
Fixed Embarking to escape melee combat
Fixed instant death powers like Mental Onslaught
Fixed Necron transports slightly so you can use the stratagem to save embarked models from instant death turn 1
Clarified if MWBD sticks to units who then are moved by the VOD relic (It sticks)

God its like i died and went to heaven. I am beyond pleased.

This FAQ does seem unreasonably well done.

Poor standards we have - the FAQ is almost as good as it should have been so we get excited.
Lets keep in mind this FAQ nerfed Land Raiders and did nothing about 4PPM guardsmen.

Perfection is the enemy of excellence.

It'll need some playtesting to decide if this is, indeed, excellence. But on paper, seems to be.

Whether Guardsmen should be 5ppm or not, it's been fairly clear that it wasn't going to be done. To dismiss everything else as bad because they didn't make one particular hotly-debated change that you want is silly.

As for the LR "nerf", it's hard to consider "Can't doubletap beyond half range with the lightest weapons it carries, on some variants" as a particularly impactful or meaningful part of the FAQ. That said, makes sense. It's a tank firing an array of RapidFire weapons, not a Marine firing their trusty Boltgun.

I'm very disappointed with the fact that they decided that Space Marine tanks don't get bolter drill.

Like, do space marines not use tanks? Why do they even make SM tank models if tanks aren't an important part of the Astartes way of war?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm very disappointed with the fact that they decided that Space Marine tanks don't get bolter drill.

Like, do space marines not use tanks? Why do they even make SM tank models if tanks aren't an important part of the Astartes way of war?

Unfortunately it seems some fluff monkey has decided that marine armies shouldn't use vehicals hence they are writing the rules to make sure no marine player every does.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
This is a very encouraging FAQ. The amount of explanation from the designer is new and very nice to see. They didn't address all the issues i'd like (Marine infantry still sucks), but it looks like they paid attention to what was winning tournaments.

Gotta second this sentiment, explaining why they did things is a breath of fresh air.

It is a random unnecessary consideration. There was 0 need balance wise to do this (astartes bolter with vehicles)...marine vehicles don't even get army traits for no reason. It is obvious someone just doesn't like marines vehicle in the rules house....

Judging by the lack of nerfs to guard - I'd say it's a guard player.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Crusaders are good. They have always been good. Castellan was just OP. I've been saying this all eddition.

So good now its a paperweight.

I play against Admech and a crusader a lot because my best friend is Admech junkie. It is extremely hard to beat that list. It is far from a paperweight. It's a knight you can't kill with 3 big guns that crushes everything but pure melle units with ease.

And maybe in your casual games he will run it for you so you can keep telling yourself how dead hard it is.

The rest of us have moved on to our new Crusader overlords, and you and that other guy over there insisting its still worth it, with that 4 guys that think Centurions are worth it.

Ice_can wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm very disappointed with the fact that they decided that Space Marine tanks don't get bolter drill.

Like, do space marines not use tanks? Why do they even make SM tank models if tanks aren't an important part of the Astartes way of war?

Unfortunately it seems some fluff monkey has decided that marine armies shouldn't use vehicals hence they are writing the rules to make sure no marine player every does.

It did overshadow the point of the rule. If they wanted to make marines better with it then they did, but only marginally against hurricane bolter toting vehicles. Things brings it back even if you don't agree with the decision.

Valkyrie nerf makes it so the only way to get hot-shot lasguns into rapid fire and doctrine triggering range is to walk them up. Ugh. Did they change that one Warlord trait for Harlequins to be consistent, or do they still get to move after disembarking from a moved vehicle?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm very disappointed with the fact that they decided that Space Marine tanks don't get bolter drill.

Like, do space marines not use tanks? Why do they even make SM tank models if tanks aren't an important part of the Astartes way of war?

It's because SM tanks don't fire their bolters any differently to bolters on other tanks. However, their flesh and blood forces (plus their Dreadnoughts, who are more like MCs than Vehicles IMO) do use their bolters differently.

Just because they don't get Bolter Discipline doesn't mean they're any less Astartes.

Finally got it to pop up after sorting and re-sorting! Very glad to see the "as if" clarification.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I see GW still won't back down from the idea that only Marines don't keep fighting using their chapter's doctrines when they crew a vehicle despite every other army getting to fight the way they're supposed to.

It seems like GW has no consistent philosophy on traits. Sometimes a subfaction trait applies to vehicles, sometimes vehicles get a different ability from other unit types, and sometimes vehicles get nothing.

Alaitoc has one powerful rule that every unit benefits from, despite it making no sense on things lile hovertanks. Most Guard factions have different infantry and vehicle traits. Legion/Chapter traits don't affect vehicles, dreads aside, at all. I cant see any consistent form of reasoning here.

I'd be happy if they all worked like the Guard's traits did at least. Give us -something- to make vehicles worth taking in a Marine army GW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm very disappointed with the fact that they decided that Space Marine tanks don't get bolter drill.

Like, do space marines not use tanks? Why do they even make SM tank models if tanks aren't an important part of the Astartes way of war?

Unfortunately it seems some fluff monkey has decided that marine armies shouldn't use vehicals hence they are writing the rules to make sure no marine player every does.

It did overshadow the point of the rule. If they wanted to make marines better with it then they did, but only marginally against hurricane bolter toting vehicles. Things brings it back even if you don't agree with the decision.

Ironclads with hurricane bolters still benefit though...LOL

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is a random unnecessary consideration. There was 0 need balance wise to do this (astartes bolter with vehicles)...marine vehicles don't even get army traits for no reason. It is obvious someone just doesn't like marines vehicle in the rules house....

Judging by the lack of nerfs to guard - I'd say it's a guard player.

Marines are supposed to be centered around the use of marine infantry, with vehicles as support. This worked well in past editions where, compared to other factions, their regular dudes were better and more versatile but their tanks were weaker. The lack of vehicle traits makes sense if you see marines as being about fielding marines, with only the occasional support unit. And this would be fine if marines were good, and if soup didn't exist. I don't mind this design philosophy because we need stuff like this to differentiate factions, it just hasn't been well implemented in 8th. If marine units ever get some proper buffs and fixes, then this won't be an issue anymore.

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Crusaders are good. They have always been good. Castellan was just OP. I've been saying this all eddition.

So good now its a paperweight.

I play against Admech and a crusader a lot because my best friend is Admech junkie. It is extremely hard to beat that list. It is far from a paperweight. It's a knight you can't kill with 3 big guns that crushes everything but pure melle units with ease.

And maybe in your casual games he will run it for you so you can keep telling yourself how dead hard it is.

The rest of us have moved on to our new Crusader overlords, and you and that other guy over there insisting its still worth it, with that 4 guys that think Centurions are worth it.

I'm happy - now I can can play Castellans in casual games...Got a 100 point nerf.

Fixed Embarking to escape melee combat

Can someone explain this to me? I didn't get what is this about even though I did read the actual text of a change.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is a random unnecessary consideration. There was 0 need balance wise to do this (astartes bolter with vehicles)...marine vehicles don't even get army traits for no reason. It is obvious someone just doesn't like marines vehicle in the rules house....

Judging by the lack of nerfs to guard - I'd say it's a guard player.

Marines are supposed to be centered around the use of marine infantry, with vehicles as support. This worked well in past editions where, compared to other factions, their regular dudes were better and more versatile but their tanks were weaker. The lack of vehicle traits makes sense if you see marines as being about fielding marines, with only the occasional support unit. And this would be fine if marines were good, and if soup didn't exist. I don't mind this design philosophy because we need stuff like this to differentiate factions, it just hasn't been well implemented in 8th. If marine units ever get some proper buffs and fixes, then this won't be an issue anymore.

Well fluf wise...I'm sure a bolter is more effective on a marine rather than mounted on tank. But balance and fluff have nothing to do with each other.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Fixed Embarking to escape melee combat

Can someone explain this to me? I didn't get what is this about even though I did read the actual text of a change.

I charge your castellan, and those 4 guard units, and this, and that...

...oh no my rhino blew up! I guess I get to disembark and charge you!

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Crusaders are good. They have always been good. Castellan was just OP. I've been saying this all eddition.

So good now its a paperweight.

I play against Admech and a crusader a lot because my best friend is Admech junkie. It is extremely hard to beat that list. It is far from a paperweight. It's a knight you can't kill with 3 big guns that crushes everything but pure melle units with ease.

And maybe in your casual games he will run it for you so you can keep telling yourself how dead hard it is.

The rest of us have moved on to our new Crusader overlords, and you and that other guy over there insisting its still worth it, with that 4 guys that think Centurions are worth it.

I'm happy - now I can can play Castellans in casual games...Got a 100 point nerf.

And you shouldn't lose friends whilst doing so

I charge your castellan, and those 4 guard units, and this, and that...

Nah, that one I do understand.

Something about if you're within "3 of a transport and embarking without actual move action while within "1 of the enemy.

Finally, twin lascannons on Hellforged Contemptors! Took long enough.

 Shadenuat wrote:

I charge your castellan, and those 4 guard units, and this, and that...

Nah, that one I do understand.

Something about if you're within "3 of a transport and embarking without actual move action while within "1 of the enemy.

Essentially there was no rule against embarking into a vehicle in the end of your Movement Phase even if you were in close combat. So if you were in close-combat with enemies, a Chimaera or other transport could zip up - and if your models were all within 3" of the vehicle they could embark, auto-leaving close combat. It was extremely rare, but feasible. With a 3" range to embark you could even rescue "tri-pointed" models who could not otherwise leave combat.

This now eliminates that.

 Shadenuat wrote:

Fixed Embarking to escape melee combat

Can someone explain this to me? I didn't get what is this about even though I did read the actual text of a change.

If you had a squad in melee in front of a transport. They could "embark" into the transport to leave melee combat since the squad was within 3 inches of a transport, regardless of wrapped models etc Since those models leave the table.

Its a nice little buff for melee forces.

 Shadenuat wrote:

I charge your castellan, and those 4 guard units, and this, and that...

Nah, that one I do understand.

Something about if you're within "3 of a transport and embarking without actual move action while within "1 of the enemy.

If your in combat and you have a transport within three of your guys you could in the movement phase get in the vehical and escape cqc witthout penalty and then just drive off, this is no longer an option.

Don’t need jinx for a castellan that can’t get better than 4+ anyway. Guided skyweavers will still wreck it almost just as much as they could in the doom/jinx days. That’s good news. Flier spam was dumb glad it’s gone. Other than that everything didn’t really change. Love seeing comments of (eldar weren’t a problem anyway) but people for the past week have been complaining of eldar

Skullhammer wrote:
If your in combat and you have a transport within three of your guys you could in the movement phase get in the vehical and escape cqc witthout penalty and then just drive off, this is no longer an option.

I mean, you can fall back and embark, no?

If I’m reading this right LRBTs can now fire twice in overwatch, and if they are Cadian they get to re-rolls ones as well since it’s “count-as” the shooting phase?


Holy emperor...

 Zontarz wrote:
If I’m reading this right LRBTs can now fire twice in overwatch, and if they are Cadian they get to re-rolls ones as well since it’s “count-as” the shooting phase?


Holy emperor...

I might need to go and buy a tank army...

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don’t need jinx for a castellan that can’t get better than 4+ anyway. Guided skyweavers will still wreck it almost just as much as they could in the doom/jinx days. That’s good news. Flier spam was dumb glad it’s gone. Other than that everything didn’t really change. Love seeing comments of (eldar weren’t a problem anyway) but people for the past week have been complaining of eldar

Doom gave Skyweavers roughly *double* damage - more than Doom gave to any of the non-Haywire weapons. Guide would, theoretically, bump Skyweaver damage by 33%. That's nowhere close.

That said, Skyweavers haven't been a legal target for Guide, so unless the Ynnari change changed that, you still can't Guide them.