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.
2019/05/02 17:44:16
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Pleasestop wrote: Isn't 2 crusaders basically 1000 pts? That's a much bigger investment than the old Castellan being 600...
Crusaders generally point up to about 500. So yes, 1k points.
The argument holds though. The Castellan's new price is exactly the cost of 2 Gallants. 48 wounds, T8, and the same save.
As a Knight player my lists are generally something like 3x Crusaders, 2x Helverins, 1 Warglaive. Or Porphyrion, 2x Crusaders, Helverin. Or Stryrix, 2x Crusaders, Warden, Assassin.
How does you list with big P perform in events? I've been pondering getting one for a while, and with the new changes to castellan now might be an appropriate time.
I've only used it on game knights. I plan to take it to events. Infact I was hoping that GW would do something in the faq for soup, and I was wondering if that would have driven people to bring their own bigger armor. Waiting to see.
2019/05/02 18:48:07
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mandrakes seem like fine elite-slot fillers. Beastmaster in a pinch?
Trueborn with Shredders, they're amazing anti infantry. However, this brings us back to the main quandry of why bother, they're strictly better as Flayed Skull or Obsidian Rose.
I've got a mixed Ynarri detachment in a list I'm trying out tonight. It's a battalion, the units I want are a unit of Reavers ,a Hypex succubus and Yvraine (to cast spells that buff the Reavers, mainly). I can fit that in a patrol, sure but +60 points in Kabalites to get 5CP instead seems better. I also already have Flayed Skull venoms in my force, 2 with no occupants and, sure, the opportunity cost of 2 of my Kabalites not being Flayed SKull exists, but its only 20 shots (out of >100) and in return I get extra resilient, super killy Reavers.
Just to quickly justify the super killy reavers comment: They have +1A drug and can (if necessary) use an Advance and Charge strat, making them capable of moving at Red Grief speed. They also get Reroll Wounds (strat or power) and +1 to hit early on, plus reroll 1s to hit even outside of Succubus Range (psy power). This gives them 3 attacks each hitting on 2s reroll 1s, S4 AP-1 reroll to wound. This is better against all targets than even another +1 Attack, so they are killier than any reavers DE can produce and are a good target for the Doom Lite that Yvraine is packing.
My comment was specifically towards what you'd run in a Brigaid for the elite slot, but I think your way of doing it in using 30pt Kabalite units as a very cheap troops tax is the better way. My problem with your list is the Reavers themselves, even with all of those buffs thats still only 9 S4, AP -1 D1 attacks for about 60pts on every 3 Reavers you take and they are going to be very easy to kill. For me Reavers are one of the few actually bad units in the Drukhari codex.
Personally I'm going to be running an Ynnari Patrol tomorrow with Yvraine, Troope Master and a squad of 12 Troopes, 5 with Caresses, deep striking. Yvraine has Ancestors Grace to effectively give them re-roll hits and Word of the Phoenix to bring the ablative wounds back to life whilst the Troope Master gives them the re-roll wounds.
It's 60 points for 3 if they also do mortal wounds sometimes, which is a nice perk of the unit. 9 S4 AP -1 attacks for 60 points is not bad combined with the movement to get wherever. As I said, they have the attacks they need to kill Eldar Fliers or entire Ork Boy mobs, for 200-250 points and have the ability to keep being relevant if even one is alive. They have alot going for them.
12 Reavers re-rolling everything only just kills a flyer and if it's got FnP then it'll probably survive, and 20 Wyches without re-rolls kills an entire ork mob for less than 180pts and no support. Have fun, but I maintain that there are considerably better ways to do what those Reavers are doing without the massive need for CP and psychic support.
2019/05/02 20:12:29
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
The "no" does not matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
In reality this changes very little, you shouldn't be assaulting Dark Reapers in a real game state (ergo shoot/mortal wound death them off the board). This only improves the value of "x unit can not overwatch rules."
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 20:25:26
2019/05/02 20:22:49
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
2019/05/02 20:30:00
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 20:41:55
2019/05/02 20:34:40
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
It's not actually either it's a non determined state and hence Reapers should just be banned from all Events by TO's as clearlt some players are going to cause a punch up and TO's definataly need to prevent that.
Is GW bad at rules, yes they always have been but that doesn't mean that threads need to be derailed over but my twisting of RAW for RAW sack ever needs to level the confines of YMDC.
The MOD's gave you a place for that stuff use it.
2019/05/02 20:36:25
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
2019/05/02 20:40:21
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state.
Black text is still part of the FAQs published this week. The color coding is only to help people find the newest rules. In cases where "black text" rules are no longer relevant or conflict, they are updated.
It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase.
GW's "FAQs" are FAQs and Errata. Their reasonings aren't binding, but their rules are. It may well be that the reasoning behind their ruling is flawed, but that doesn't change their ruling. They are "final" and therefore "infallable" after all (to paraphrase a SCOTUS quote).
This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
The most up to date rules is the latest FAQ. That question is *in* said FAQ. It's not a new rule, but was published with it.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Permission certainly does. IA grants permission to hit on a 3+ under conditions. The first condition is that Reapers are shooting. The FAQ adds a second condition - not while overwatching. The FAQ either adds rationale for that decision, or a second rule - neither of which provide permission for ignoring the 'No' restriction.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Only if "your" reasoning is intended to supercede GW's reasoning. The point of an FAQ/Errata is to establish the accepted reasoning. In this case, it seems their reasoning is wholly off-base - but that doesn't preempt the rule.
Similarly, GW decided it was fair for Marines to be 13ppm and Guardsmen to be 4ppm. It is widely agreed that GW was wrong in this case. But that doesn't invalidate the rules that set those points.
When an authoritative rule is given, the reasoning being flawed does not negate the rule.
2019/05/02 20:40:45
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 20:44:16
2019/05/02 20:43:08
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs.
That one time? Please provide specifics.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
2019/05/02 20:43:17
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
"Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
2019/05/02 20:55:53
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Look, there's no age requirement on the game, or GPA check, or anything like that. If the guy can breathe (we assume) he's allowed to play the game.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2019/05/02 21:00:16
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Look, there's no age requirement on the game, or GPA check, or anything like that. If the guy can breathe (we assume) he's allowed to play the game.
It used to have an age limit maybe it's what's needed, then again I've seen kids who have a better understanding of the rules than some of these "But RAW says, if you ignore this bit that doesn't support my twisting of the rules for my own benifit." Pedants.
2019/05/02 21:04:46
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "Hey, the rules say I can do the thing!"
"No."
"But what about this self-assumed contrivance of the rules?"
"We literally and specifically are saying no to this exact thing you're talking about."
"But RAW is RAW!"
"Yeah, and we said no. Go outside already, jeez."
Give this man the key to the Internets. He's earned it.
2019/05/02 21:30:38
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
I’m not sure how you think this is possible, the FAQ states that they shoot on 3+ in ONLY in the shooting phase. If you’re in the assault phase, then you can’t shoot on 3+, because it’s also the Assault phase, and the FAQ says ONLY the shooting phase. Not both assault and shooting. Right? I think that’s how words work, I can feel my brain starting to melt trying to rationalize the mental gymnastics here.
I’d also like to add that you can rationalize and say this and that however you want to get to your 3+, but outside of an organized event, I would be more inclined to just pick up my models at this point and find a different opponent, as I’m sure many others would.
2019/05/02 21:32:00
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
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.
So again if the question is:
Q: Does this mean that Dark Reapers can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
The answer is:
A: No.
Seems pretty conclusive to me
-
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 21:34:27
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
The problem with your rather failed assumption here is that only the newest parts of the FAQ are relevant. As the part that says No to shooting on a 3+ in Overwatch is part of a current FAQ then no, you can't shoot on a 3+ in overwatch and any attempt to do so is flat out cheating.
2019/05/02 22:04:37
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
So non bold parts no longer matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ. So it is regardless if the person started the sentence with no.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
Check out YMDC.
That FAQ is either a direct `No`, with an explaination, or two seperate rules.
In the first case, the explaination is nonbinding - the ruling is still (explicitly) `No`.
In the second case, there's no conflict. The first rule says 'No'. The second rule says 'Outside the shooting phase, no'. The second rule is a limitation, not a permission.
No the FAQ is in BLACK text, an applies a previous ruling that no longer has any effect on the game state. It says the reason for the ability to give reapers a 3+ is directly tied to the fact
overwatch is not the shooting phase. This is no longer how the game functions as of the April FAQ. As abilities apply during overwatch because it is considered the SHOOTING PHASE.
The the very reason why the black text says no is not a valid reason. Thus GW stance is "always follow the most up to date rules." What the main rule works.
3+ Overwatch for dark reapers that is the RAW. Permission does not come into it.
Old FAQ = Overwatch is not the shooting phase = no to ability
New FAQ = Overwatch IS the Shooting Phase = Your ability works!
Nice try, but they remove things from the FAQ documents that are no longer valid. The fact that it is in the document currently means its valid, irrespective of the text color.
Well that is contradicted by that one time they had TWO FAQs for the same faction that had TWO Different FAQS for TWO different things. E.g. GSC nerfs. Also Semantics and not a rules argument.
Words have meanings and following them RAW ends up with my outcome. They get 3+ Overwatch because the shooting phase is the same a Overwatch.
Yeah and they removed one FAQ and then there was only one.
It doesn't matter, as long as something is on the official FAQ in the website, it is valid.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2019/05/02 22:24:33
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
happy_inquisitor wrote: Just had an interesting chat about whether Reborn Drukhari might still be worth a look. More flexibility in list building (no real cabal/cult division) and different sets of stratagems/traits etc.
I think the issue is that it removes at least as much flexibility as it adds.
Yes, you can mix detachments . . . but why would you want to?
The only detachment really worth mixing to unlock is the Brigade (anything else and you're probably better off splitting up your army for extra CPs). However, with Coven and Mandrakes being removed entirely (and Incubi as crap as ever), you'll seriously struggle to find anything meaningful to fill the Elite slots with. This also means that the only half-decent HQ choice is gone, leaving you with just the Archon and Succubus. On the plus side their buffs work on both Kabal and Cult units. On the minus side, their bonuses are crap. I guess it gives you the option of taking a Succubus over an Archon for reasons of cheapness but then you're left with a "melee HQ" who is absolutely worthless in melee.
Furthermore, you're losing out on a good deal of DE stratagems in favour of a smaller pool - including some that are outright worse (e.g. the Ynnari Fire and Fade costs twice as many CPs as the DE one). Not to mention the fact that the Ynnari trait is a melee ability on an army that is banned from using its best melee units (Grotesques and Talos).
If he keeps the Kabal and Cult units in their own detachments then he just runs out of detachments for the models he wants to take. He firmly wants a detachment of Harlequins and he really does not want to give up a few of the best bits of his Alaitoc CWE. He neither has nor currently wants Coven units so that is not an issue for him at the moment. Putting the Kabal and Cult units together he can have his harlequin and CWE detachments - at the potential "cost" of making the DE be Ynnari but it is not a total loss as there are some benefits to being Ynnari for the sorts of units he likes.
Either way he does it there are compromises, we could not theory-hammer it out so the options get played out on the table against some proxy opposition to see which one feels more workable. We have been working this way for a few years and it works for us.
2019/05/03 05:44:41
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ThatMG wrote: RAW Dark Reapers Hit on a 3+ during Overwatch!
The UPDATE FAQ has stated that abilities apply to "as if" it where PHASE.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move, shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power) outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g. abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ, Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
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.
Simply put the CWEFAQ text no longer is valid. Basically we have NEW rules and the most up to date ruling stating that Overwatch attacks ARE considered to be the shooting phase for abilities.
The "no" does not matter, Overwatch IS the Shooting phase per the new FAQ.
Again "how you should play it does not matter." RAW IS RAW!
In reality this changes very little, you shouldn't be assaulting Dark Reapers in a real game state (ergo shoot/mortal wound death them off the board). This only improves the value of "x unit can not overwatch rules."
No. We have flat out saying NO in the most up to date FAQ.
You don't go cherry picking answers from FAQ saying "this is valid, this is not valid". all are valid.
Dark reapers are specifically excluded. End of story.
If not I'm going to go cherry picking that the mob up nerf is not valid. And that commissar nerf isn't valid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/03 05:45:24
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2019/05/03 09:55:05
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Does an aegis defence line have the <Building> key word? Just wondering if that would make a cheap way to screen my knights from smash captains, by basically costing them an extra 2" of movement and preventing their fly move.
Thoughts?
2019/05/03 10:08:19
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
ewar wrote: Does an aegis defence line have the <Building> key word? Just wondering if that would make a cheap way to screen my knights from smash captains, by basically costing them an extra 2" of movement and preventing their fly move.
Thoughts?
Defense Lines don't have the Building keyword, I think the cheapest thing that does is a Bunker but it doesn't have particularly big dimensions for blocking movement.
2019/05/03 10:34:24
Subject: Re:April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
Can anyone direct be to where obliterators are back to 115....I can't seem to find it.
Thanks
Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you"
2019/05/03 10:39:09
Subject: April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)
6k
2k
2k 
Eldar- 4436 pts
Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
