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.

 Argive wrote:
Ok SO help me out here.. I feel a bit thick:

Page 178 – Re-rolls
Change this paragraph to read:
‘Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means
you get to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule
allows you to re-roll a result that was made by adding
several dice together (e.g. 2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless
otherwise stated, you must roll all of those dice again.
You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls
happen before modifiers (if any) are applied.’


So I am correct to understand that this means you cant just cherry pick one of the charge dice but have to re-roll both?

Yes, which is why some people use command re-rolls to get around that.

For example: Black Templars can re-roll their charge distance. If I need to charge 7" and I roll double 1s I'd use their re-roll but if I rolled a 5 and a 1 I'd use a command reroll to reroll only that 1.

Cynista wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Cynista wrote:
I'm kind of salty that the rumours of mono-codex CP buff were false. That would have made this FAQ a 5 star.

They actually addressed soup, what more do you want? They aren’t going to nerf soup into oblivion, they brought it in line. Be happy. They could of left it alone

I think I made it pretty clear in one sentence what more I wanted. Also find it amusing that in the first half of your post you say that soup has been fixed, then go on to proclaim to another poster that soup is alive and well. Have some self awareness ffs

I noticed that all of your grief stricken grandstanding and FAQ predictions after the Ynnari nerf haven't come to pass. What a surprise

Modern soup was fixed. Drukhari don’t benefit from Craftworlds abilities. Ynnari was nerfed to serve a different roll. And my previous comment is stating the now newer combinations of soup can be formulated instead of sticking to what works. Soup can be alive and still be fixed. What are you smoking? Yes ynnari got hit more than I had hoped, but now players just need to look at it as it serves a different purpose. It isn’t even technically out yet. Give it time and potential could be there. I see you simply wanted soup dead. Won’t happen. Go play 5th edition.

 Argive wrote:
Ok SO help me out here.. I feel a bit thick:

Page 178 – Re-rolls
Change this paragraph to read:
‘Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means
you get to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule
allows you to re-roll a result that was made by adding
several dice together (e.g. 2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless
otherwise stated, you must roll all of those dice again.
You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls
happen before modifiers (if any) are applied.’


So I am correct to understand that this means you cant just cherry pick one of the charge dice but have to re-roll both?

An ability that says "This unit may re-roll failed charge rolls" has to re-roll both dice because a charge roll is a combination of 2 dice.
An ability that says "re-roll any single dice" still works because its re-rolling a dice and not a result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok I want to run something by you all

This carification for the Tacticle Reserves rule means that Summoning is techinically a way to get around the turn 1 deepstrike restrictions?

Also note, that no part of this matched play rule applies to units that are added to your army
during the battle (such as those that require reinforcement points to be added); these units cannot be set up anywhere
(on the battlefield or otherwise) during deployment because they do not exist until the point where the rule that
‘creates’ them is used, and that point is always after deployment has finished.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]

Harlequins say hi.

Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.

Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.

Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.

Yup. Turn 1 summoning is a way around it. It's not exactly something I'd say is a -good- way around it, but it's a way around it.

Not invested in the meta from a gameplay standpoint, though i do read up on it quite a bit. Happy that what apparently needed to be done was done. Also pleased the about the assasain strategem nerf as it felt a little cheesy to be able to cater to the enemy that easily. 2cp seems fair but i'll just run an aux detachment anyways.

Glad to see that the internet 4ppm guardsmen didn't end up in the FAQ as well, was not a fan of that salt-fest.

That ratling nerf though...jk

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Cynista wrote:
I'm kind of salty that the rumours of mono-codex CP buff were false. That would have made this FAQ a 5 star.

They actually addressed soup, what more do you want? They aren’t going to nerf soup into oblivion, they brought it in line. Be happy. They could of left it alone

I think I made it pretty clear in one sentence what more I wanted. Also find it amusing that in the first half of your post you say that soup has been fixed, then go on to proclaim to another poster that soup is alive and well. Have some self awareness ffs

I noticed that all of your grief stricken grandstanding and FAQ predictions after the Ynnari nerf haven't come to pass. What a surprise

Modern soup was fixed. Drukhari don’t benefit from Craftworlds abilities. Ynnari was nerfed to serve a different roll. And my previous comment is stating the now newer combinations of soup can be formulated instead of sticking to what works. Soup can be alive and still be fixed. What are you smoking? Yes ynnari got hit more than I had hoped, but now players just need to look at it as it serves a different purpose. It isn’t even technically out yet. Give it time and potential could be there. I see you simply wanted soup dead. Won’t happen. Go play 5th edition.

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up, extra CP's would be an easy fix. You say that they brought it in line - they didn't. They nerfed some of the all star units and combos. But cherry picking detachments from different books is still simply better than not doing so.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
Not invested in the meta from a gameplay standpoint, though i do read up on it quite a bit. Happy that what apparently needed to be done was done. Also pleased the about the assasain strategem nerf as it felt a little cheesy to be able to cater to the enemy that easily. 2cp seems fair but i'll just run an aux detachment anyways.

Glad to see that the internet 4ppm guardsmen didn't end up in the FAQ as well, was not a fan of that salt-fest.

That ratling nerf though...jk

Valk nerf though.

What I don't understand is why they put point changes in to the FAQ, everyone has been telling me that those are limited to CA, and will not happen outside of them. Bit confused by that.

Karol wrote:
What I don't understand is why they put point changes in to the FAQ, everyone has been telling me that those are limited to CA, and will not happen outside of them. Bit confused by that.

For the Obliterators it was because of an error, for the Castellan it was because it was breaking the meta and something had to give before the next CA in the fall.

 Argive wrote:
Ok SO help me out here.. I feel a bit thick:

Page 178 – Re-rolls
Change this paragraph to read:
‘Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means
you get to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule
allows you to re-roll a result that was made by adding
several dice together (e.g. 2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless
otherwise stated, you must roll all of those dice again.
You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls
happen before modifiers (if any) are applied.’


So I am correct to understand that this means you cant just cherry pick one of the charge dice but have to re-roll both?

Oh wow I didn't catch this one. This is big. This means that for any rule that states you can Re-roll Charges, psychic tests, etc., you must now re-roll both dice. Obviously you could still command point reroll 1 of the dice, but it just blanket nerfs some re-roll abilities.

Cynista wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Cynista wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Cynista wrote:
I'm kind of salty that the rumours of mono-codex CP buff were false. That would have made this FAQ a 5 star.

They actually addressed soup, what more do you want? They aren’t going to nerf soup into oblivion, they brought it in line. Be happy. They could of left it alone

I think I made it pretty clear in one sentence what more I wanted. Also find it amusing that in the first half of your post you say that soup has been fixed, then go on to proclaim to another poster that soup is alive and well. Have some self awareness ffs

I noticed that all of your grief stricken grandstanding and FAQ predictions after the Ynnari nerf haven't come to pass. What a surprise

Modern soup was fixed. Drukhari don’t benefit from Craftworlds abilities. Ynnari was nerfed to serve a different roll. And my previous comment is stating the now newer combinations of soup can be formulated instead of sticking to what works. Soup can be alive and still be fixed. What are you smoking? Yes ynnari got hit more than I had hoped, but now players just need to look at it as it serves a different purpose. It isn’t even technically out yet. Give it time and potential could be there. I see you simply wanted soup dead. Won’t happen. Go play 5th edition.

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up, extra CP's would be an easy fix. You say that they brought it in line - they didn't. They nerfed some of the all star units and combos. But cherry picking detachments from different books is still simply better than not doing so.

See this response I like better. I agree that maybe +3 cp would of been nice for mono faction

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Ok SO help me out here.. I feel a bit thick:

Page 178 – Re-rolls
Change this paragraph to read:
‘Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means
you get to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule
allows you to re-roll a result that was made by adding
several dice together (e.g. 2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless
otherwise stated, you must roll all of those dice again.
You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls
happen before modifiers (if any) are applied.’


So I am correct to understand that this means you cant just cherry pick one of the charge dice but have to re-roll both?

Oh wow I didn't catch this one. This is big. This means that for any rule that states you can Re-roll Charges, psychic tests, etc., you must now re-roll both dice. Obviously you could still command point reroll 1 of the dice, but it just blanket nerfs some re-roll abilities.

Thats how its always been. It will tell you if you were allowed to re-roll 1 dice

All in all an excellent FAQ. I had been hoping for the 4++ max on Knights, restricting Doom/Jinx to make Drukhari shooting not benefit, some reigning in of the Loota bomb, the Bolter Rules getting ratified and a cap on Mental Onslaught. What I did not see coming was the many adjustments to problem areas/ places where folks were abusing the rules. I totally didn't see the creation of a new unit type: Aircraft. This FAQ was much more significant than I had thought it would be.

I think that they have gone a long to way to fixing the aspects of Soup that were enraging while not destroying the concept. Adding in the Ynarri changes and I think that we can expect a shuffle in the top tables.

Perhaps most importantly, the GW 40K rules team has shown that it is engaged with the community, cares and makes an honest try at balancing/fixing things.

Cynista wrote:

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up

There is a clear benefit. Usually all of your monoarmy can benefit from the same auras, buffs and psychic powers. They fixed the loophole that allowed other Eldar to benefit of some craftworld psychic powers. You may no think it is a big enough benefit, but it is a benefit.

I am certain that these changes will make monoarmies more prominent (if not dominant.) The biggest reasons to play the Eldar soup have been removed. Similarly the Castellan has been seriously nerfed, so I'm sure some players will choose to replace it with an IG superheavy, and as the other standard component was IG already, this will result a monoarmy.

Karol wrote:
What I don't understand is why they put point changes in to the FAQ, everyone has been telling me that those are limited to CA, and will not happen outside of them. Bit confused by that.

"Everybody" is wrong. They have put those there before. Why anybody thinks they wouldn't put again?

 Crimson wrote:

Cynista wrote:

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up

There is a clear benefit. Usually all of your monoarmy can benefit from the same auras, buffs and psychic powers. They fixed the loophole that allowed other Eldar to benefit of some craftworld psychic powers. You may no think it is a big enough benefit, but it is a benefit.

I am certain that these changes will make monoarmies more prominent (if not dominant.) The biggest reasons to play the Eldar soup have been removed. Similarly the Castellan has been seriously nerfed, so I'm sure some players will choose to replace it with an IG superheavy, and as the other standard component was IG already, this will result a monoarmy.

Seriously doubt mono codex armies are going to be a thing even with the changes.
You say they will drop the Castellen, I suspect it might stay or if it does it could be traded for a crusader.
Also with the fly climb down Guard will be back to draging along Blood angles or Dawneagles.

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Cynista wrote:

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up

There is a clear benefit. Usually all of your monoarmy can benefit from the same auras, buffs and psychic powers. They fixed the loophole that allowed other Eldar to benefit of some craftworld psychic powers. You may no think it is a big enough benefit, but it is a benefit.

I am certain that these changes will make monoarmies more prominent (if not dominant.) The biggest reasons to play the Eldar soup have been removed. Similarly the Castellan has been seriously nerfed, so I'm sure some players will choose to replace it with an IG superheavy, and as the other standard component was IG already, this will result a monoarmy.

Seriously doubt mono codex armies are going to be a thing even with the changes.
You say they will drop the Castellen, I suspect it might stay or if it does it could be traded for a crusader.
Also with the fly climb down Guard will be back to draging along Blood angles or Dawneagles.

Some mono dexes are still good (Dark Eldar apparently is sitting pretty after the changes) but it definitely doesn't push the game into favoring mono dexes over allies.

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Cynista wrote:

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up

There is a clear benefit. Usually all of your monoarmy can benefit from the same auras, buffs and psychic powers. They fixed the loophole that allowed other Eldar to benefit of some craftworld psychic powers. You may no think it is a big enough benefit, but it is a benefit.

I am certain that these changes will make monoarmies more prominent (if not dominant.) The biggest reasons to play the Eldar soup have been removed. Similarly the Castellan has been seriously nerfed, so I'm sure some players will choose to replace it with an IG superheavy, and as the other standard component was IG already, this will result a monoarmy.

Seriously doubt mono codex armies are going to be a thing even with the changes.
You say they will drop the Castellen, I suspect it might stay or if it does it could be traded for a crusader.
Also with the fly climb down Guard will be back to draging along Blood angles or Dawneagles.

Exactly, for imperials. Eldar will take shining spears, sky weavers, reavers etc. I suspect we will see units we haven’t in awhile in a few lists the upcoming months trying out different variations of soup. Like I said earlier soup lists that we KNEW are gone. New ones will take their place. People were using what worked then. Now people will use what works with these new rules

 ClockworkZion wrote:
but it definitely doesn't push the game into favoring mono dexes over allies.

And that shouldn't be the goal anyway. They both should be equally viable.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Ok SO help me out here.. I feel a bit thick:

Page 178 – Re-rolls
Change this paragraph to read:
‘Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means
you get to roll some or all of the dice again. If a rule
allows you to re-roll a result that was made by adding
several dice together (e.g. 2D6, 3D6, etc.) then, unless
otherwise stated, you must roll all of those dice again.
You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls
happen before modifiers (if any) are applied.’


So I am correct to understand that this means you cant just cherry pick one of the charge dice but have to re-roll both?

Oh wow I didn't catch this one. This is big. This means that for any rule that states you can Re-roll Charges, psychic tests, etc., you must now re-roll both dice. Obviously you could still command point reroll 1 of the dice, but it just blanket nerfs some re-roll abilities.

I think this mostly applies to charges. I cant think of anything else that adds up 2d6? Maybe some weapons/eldar vehicle 2d6 advance....

By taking this as RAW I interpret this to mean mean you cant re-roll just one die from a charge roll using a command re-roll (Unless command re-roll specifically lets you re-roll one of the die I.E. like runes of the farseer does - I don't have the brb with me at work so cant check this)

Any thoughts or am I just not getting it ??
What have they actualy changed it from in terms of original rule.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
but it definitely doesn't push the game into favoring mono dexes over allies.

And that shouldn't be the goal anyway. They both should be equally viable.

I agree, but that's what some of the "proposed changes" I see from people are: a push to make mono dex better than soup instead of equal to.

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:
What I don't understand is why they put point changes in to the FAQ, everyone has been telling me that those are limited to CA, and will not happen outside of them. Bit confused by that.

"Everybody" is wrong. They have put those there before. Why anybody thinks they wouldn't put again?

Usually they're just adjustments for the most egregious cases or a problem caused by the FAQ itself. The bulk of the points adjustments will still be in Chapter Approved.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
but it definitely doesn't push the game into favoring mono dexes over allies.

And that shouldn't be the goal anyway. They both should be equally viable.

Except you implied that these changes mean the game favours mono.
It almost definitely seams to be that people are still sticking to soup, the best flavour is still to be identified, but soup is still much more powerful than mono codex.

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
but it definitely doesn't push the game into favoring mono dexes over allies.

And that shouldn't be the goal anyway. They both should be equally viable.

Except you implied that these changes mean the game favours mono.
It almost definitely seams to be that people are still sticking to soup, the best flavour is still to be identified, but soup is still much more powerful than mono codex.

It's not even been 12 hours since the FAQ dropped, it's a little early to definitively state that the meta hasn't shifted towards mono lists.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking of Loyalist Marines, the answer to the Flakk/Hellfire with Cherub appears to have changed. It appears that you have to purchase the Stratagem again in order for the 2nd Hellfire shot. Which of course is not allowed for matched play.

Also you can explicitly measure from Drop Pod doors.

This also means you can measure to drop pod doors as well. Though getting decent LOS off the ground against another target, even around a corner or something would take a bit of luck I'd assume.

Well someone mentioned making movement walls with them, and with their surface area that seems like a potentially very irritating tactic in the right situation.

"Ha-ha! You can't step over this small step to charge at me, Cato Sicarius. That proves that I, Cato Sicarius, am a tactical genius on par with the Primarch himself!"

"CURSE YOU SICARIUS!"

Sounds ridiculous but you could wall off a Knight for a turn.

Ice_can wrote:

Except you implied that these changes mean the game favours mono.

No I didn't. The point was that these changes make the mono more viable than it was before.

It almost definitely seams to be that people are still sticking to soup, the best flavour is still to be identified, but soup is still much more powerful than mono codex.

We'll see.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Speaking of Loyalist Marines, the answer to the Flakk/Hellfire with Cherub appears to have changed. It appears that you have to purchase the Stratagem again in order for the 2nd Hellfire shot. Which of course is not allowed for matched play.

Also you can explicitly measure from Drop Pod doors.

This also means you can measure to drop pod doors as well. Though getting decent LOS off the ground against another target, even around a corner or something would take a bit of luck I'd assume.

Well someone mentioned making movement walls with them, and with their surface area that seems like a potentially very irritating tactic in the right situation.

"Ha-ha! You can't step over this small step to charge at me, Cato Sicarius. That proves that I, Cato Sicarius, am a tactical genius on par with the Primarch himself!"

"CURSE YOU SICARIUS!"

I award to 200 internet points!

Exactly, for imperials. Eldar will take shining spears, sky weavers, reavers etc.

Eldar will take reavers they say. Good joke is good.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Exactly, for imperials. Eldar will take shining spears, sky weavers, reavers etc.

Eldar will take reavers they say. Good joke is good.

The new charging rules for fliers could have potential benefits, and potentially the new ynnari. Have you personally tested all of the new rules already? If so I commend you