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.

 Ordana wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).

I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.

Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.

Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...

Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.

Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun doesn't have "bolt" in it's name.

Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. Scout Shotguns should be addressed as well, although that needed done anyway since they were kind of ----- compared to a Bolt Gun even before Bolter Drill.

* Reivers get the Carbide. It's [i]exactly[/*] the same profile as an Autobolter. I imagine future-proofing was at play there.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.

Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.

Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.

Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.

Overwatch overrides everything.

Not anymore.

That said, a flat "No" from GW on this specific question is the only relevant rule, as posted in YMDC.

I repeat - overwatch overrides everything. lol

The Newman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).

I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.

Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.

Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...

Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.

Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun don't have "bolt" in it's name.

hm, well that's dumb lol. Nvm me then,

 Xenomancers wrote:

I repeat - overwatch overrides everything. lol

Yea I think people are over-reading these updates looking for nuggets and it's gonna drive me bonkers.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If the LR gets its rules in overwatch, so does the dark reapers. All I’m saying.

Dark Reapers are specifically forbidden from hitting on 3+ in overwatch by an answer in the eldar Faq.

Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.

Go to YMDC. It’s stated otherwise by multiple rules that conflict. Guess we have to roll dice? I’m not allowing a guard player of all people to do it if superior eldar can’t.

Overwatch overrides everything.

Not anymore.

That said, a flat "No" from GW on this specific question is the only relevant rule, as posted in YMDC.

I repeat - overwatch overrides everything. lol

Good to know.

Can you link the FAQ that corrects the 2019 Spring FAQ where it says rules for the shooting phase apply during Overwatch (with a few caveats)?

Can you tell me what page the clarifies that DAs no longer overwatch on 5s?

You can repeat that statement as often as you like, but the rules say otherwise.

 Ordana wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...

Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.

Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun don't have "bolt" in it's name.

hm, well that's dumb lol. Nvm me then,

It's GW, if you don't see something in any given release that a passing chimp could tell you is poorly though out then you haven't read the release closely enough.

I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

The Newman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).

I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.

Reiver and Intercessor auto-bolters say hi. Especially seeing they were already bad thanks to lacking AP of bolt rifles for some inane reason, now, with bolter discipline on, they are so bad they would never see the table if they were free, never mind their inflated price on top of all the suck.

Funnily enough, that one Vigilus relic doesn't get access to improved rules due to this oversigh, because while it's rapid-fire, it replaces non-RF auto-bolter which means it doesn't qualify for bolter discipline requirements...

Why does Bolter Disciple care about what weapon option your replacing? It cares about the weapon you are trying to shoot at that time. If that relic has Rapid-Fire and is a bolt weapon then it benefits.

Nope. Bolter Discipline says that a relic gains the bonus if it replaces a rapid fire bolt weapon so long as the relic itself is also rapid fire. I think it's because some relic that replace a bolt gun doesn't have "bolt" in it's name.

Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. . . ..

I guess "Bolt" is the new "Wolf" and "Blood".

 Hawky wrote:
I a bit (a lot, actually) disappointed that <fly> models can charge through models, except buildings. Screens are now useless against them once again.

They could have made Russes to shoot into CC with secondary weapons as they did it with all superheavies.

you just need learn how to play them properly, as at start of 8th edition when flying unist can fly over screens.

They haven't met their own player base, clearly.

GW is just bad at getting to the point. Overwatch states you hit on a 6's regardless of modifiers.

So unless the rule is written to override overwatch restrictions (like tau sept or defensive gunners) You hit on a 6. GW just doesn't know how to actually say that.

Fortunately, the Reaper case is answered in another rule, so that doesn't matter. But Overwatch only overrides most things, not everything. And it doesn't invalidate as much as it did before the FAQ.

 Xenomancers wrote:
GW is just bad at getting to the point. Overwatch states you hit on a 6's regardless of modifiers.

So unless the rule is written to override overwatch restrictions (like tau sept or defensive gunners) You hit on a 6. GW just doesn't know how to actually say that.

Naw, they actually did say that. It's in the Battle Primer.

It's when the playerbase tries to break things by arguing their individual unit rules overwrite overwatch even though they make no reference to it.

Then GW has to sit down and think about whether those are actions they want to allow, because by their rules it was intended not to. It's far better to explore those interactions than to just say no, so they go ahead and give it a go. They now have to playtest and iterate on it, tweak the wording to limit it to certain interactions only, and re-test etc.

That's the difference here. It's super easy to just say "no, you can't do that", but for GW they very clearly intend to question whether that interaction should be allowed, even if their initial intent was not to allow it. You can tell that's the way they design based on the designer commentary posted in the main FAQ document on WarCom.

TBF, it was mostly non-CWE players arguing Reapers hit on 3s, and non-Guard players arguing LRBTs could fire twice.

And, even when being super pedantic, both turned out to be covered by the rules as-is.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I think people are over-reading these updates looking for nuggets and it's gonna drive me bonkers.

Pedantry and loopholes is the 40k way of life. We're all just law school drop outs trying keeping our skills up, that's all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I repeat - overwatch overrides everything. lol

Yea I think people are over-reading these updates looking for nuggets and it's gonna drive me bonkers.

Same story every FAQ. 99% of the playerbase reads it and says. Okay. This makes sense. Then that last 1% comes in with "but if you squint really hard at this one specific example and use this obscure (mis)interpretation of the word 'shoe', clearly I'm allowed to break this rule that the FAQ specifically forbids me from breaking."

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in awkward places but some people in the community went straight to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

I just got back from an ITC 2 day event this weekend, fairly big with 32 players and 6 rounds (for some unknown fething reason) and when someone would go to use the "wobbly model" syndrome to put something where it clearly shouldn't have been, if the TOs saw it, they would just remove the model as a casualty citing they fell of the side of the cliff after hanging on with their toenails and 14D6. It happened twice the first round. to my knowledge, after that, when someone went to "wobbly model" something, they called the judge over first, it stopped shortly after that save for big models that could legitimately sit somewhere but the roof of a building had a small thing on it that made it uneven or some such nonsense.

The players that lost the models to wobbly model were none too happy. I don't think the TOs cared much though, they seemed hard AF...

It was a good time by all.

BTT:
Players are not responsible for making the rules, they are responsible for playing the game. And I agree with this statement. But there is a point, where rules, as intended, has to be considered in the equation. Things like wobbly model, and other rules that have been abused, i think the players know they are breaking the intent, they just know they can do it and get away with it.

Also,
Im not sure that smash captains are that great anymore honestly. It's not a question of points, because even with the increase of 100 points to the Castellan, you can still field a castellan, a BA SCD, and a full brigade in AM in 2k, but rather since the game is switching off to hordes now, and doing so quite heavily, i dont think three smash captains are really beneficial, especially if the number of knights we have seen will go down (now, if the inverse is true and everyone just takes two wardens or whatever to cover it) that's a good reason to run them, but as is, with orks gaining in popularity, Aeldari soup taking a hit, and Nids kind of jumping on the scene with approximately 2 billion models per army, I'm not sure he is a good investment. Even with loyal 32 kind of taking a side or even back seat to the full brigade, I'm not sure they will have the space to land and assault precious targets, and you dont want to waste them just blowing up a 10 man guard unit...

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.

They can still get on top of obstacles and then form a ring at the top.

^You can shoot them to deal some casualties and then get a foothold up there.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.

They can still get on top of obstacles and then form a ring at the top.

But then I can shoot you and make room to assault you. The initial problem was ITC ruling that you could enter enclosed buildings so you could not be shot or charged at all unless you had ignore LoS weapons which not every army has access to.
It was ITC problem and not a game problem because the base game doesn't allow for this.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.

They can still get on top of obstacles and then form a ring at the top.

But then I can shoot you and make room to assault you. The initial problem was ITC ruling that you could enter enclosed buildings so you could not be shot or charged at all unless you had ignore LoS weapons which not every army has access to.
It was ITC problem and not a game problem because the base game doesn't allow for this.

yup, there is a reason why nightspinners actually saw play in some events...for that exact reason.

I don't think I should have to shoot a hole when I'm wearing a jump pack. Assault already has a menagerie of nerfs this edition. I prefer ITC wobbly model.

Seabass wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in awkward places but some people in the community went straight to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

I just got back from an ITC 2 day event this weekend, fairly big with 32 players and 6 rounds (for some unknown fething reason) and when someone would go to use the "wobbly model" syndrome to put something where it clearly shouldn't have been, if the TOs saw it, they would just remove the model as a casualty citing they fell of the side of the cliff after hanging on with their toenails and 14D6. It happened twice the first round. to my knowledge, after that, when someone went to "wobbly model" something, they called the judge over first, it stopped shortly after that save for big models that could legitimately sit somewhere but the roof of a building had a small thing on it that made it uneven or some such nonsense.

The players that lost the models to wobbly model were none too happy. I don't think the TOs cared much though, they seemed hard AF...

It was a good time by all.

BTT:
Players are not responsible for making the rules, they are responsible for playing the game. And I agree with this statement. But there is a point, where rules, as intended, has to be considered in the equation. Things like wobbly model, and other rules that have been abused, i think the players know they are breaking the intent, they just know they can do it and get away with it.

Also,
Im not sure that smash captains are that great anymore honestly. It's not a question of points, because even with the increase of 100 points to the Castellan, you can still field a castellan, a BA SCD, and a full brigade in AM in 2k, but rather since the game is switching off to hordes now, and doing so quite heavily, i dont think three smash captains are really beneficial, especially if the number of knights we have seen will go down (now, if the inverse is true and everyone just takes two wardens or whatever to cover it) that's a good reason to run them, but as is, with orks gaining in popularity, Aeldari soup taking a hit, and Nids kind of jumping on the scene with approximately 2 billion models per army, I'm not sure he is a good investment. Even with loyal 32 kind of taking a side or even back seat to the full brigade, I'm not sure they will have the space to land and assault precious targets, and you dont want to waste them just blowing up a 10 man guard unit...

The supreme comand detachment doesn't have to be full 3 roid range captains, libratians make some good defence and Liberian dreadnaughts.

You can throw in a tech marine to be annoying guy to stand on an objective in 2+ armor.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.

But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.

And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think I should have to shoot a hole when I'm wearing a jump pack. Assault already has a menagerie of nerfs this edition. I prefer ITC wobbly model.

ITC wobbly model was just obviously downright broken as an interpretation to any long-term player.

Junppacks still allow you to move over enemy models just no more 2inch charges from buildings. Though I have ro question why someone's assualting Cattachan guardsmen with marines anyway thats so blatantly suicidal.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You can shoot them to deal some casualties and then get a foothold up there.

Riiight. All armies shoot well after all..wait no.

Oh and indeed no -2 to hit or worse units exists in the game...wait they do.