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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.

I believe the rulebook has a way of resolving simultaneous, conflicting fixed modifiers. I don't have mine to hand, can someone clarify? Is it decided by the player who's turn it is, or by a roll-off?

We just had FAQ that states that when attacker has always hit X and defender has always hit on X the attacker trumps defender...

Why think it's same time when the DESIGNERS are telling order it is done? Attacker trumps defender. That's the official rule. If you want to house rule fine but official rule is attacker trumps defender.

You mean this?

Q: If a model whose attacks always hit on a specific roll (such as
a Vindicare Assassin or Dark Reaper’s ranged attacks) targets
a unit that can only be hit on a specific roll (such as a unit
under the effects of the Pathfinders Stratagem), which rule takes
precedent – the attacking model’s or the target unit’s?
A: The attacking model’s ability takes precedence.

My issue with that is that the Overwatch modifier is not an ability of the Defender, but a condition on the Attacker. The Attacker has two modifiers simultaneously, not a modifier competing with the Defender. Otherwise I would agree with you.

The problem I see is... why did GW put this new FAQ that said that everything that happens in the shoting phase also happens in overwatch?

What where they trying to achieve.

 Galas wrote:
The problem I see is... why did GW put this new FAQ that said that everything that happens in the shoting phase also happens in overwatch?

What where they trying to achieve.

Best guess? To prevent things like double tap stratagems in overwatch and potentially allow some other things to work.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem I see is... why did GW put this new FAQ that said that everything that happens in the shoting phase also happens in overwatch?

What where they trying to achieve.

Best guess? To prevent things like double tap stratagems in overwatch and potentially allow some other things to work.

this.

exactly.

This change in the FAQ was just to specify that almost all shooting phase stratagems wouldn't work to deal with overwatch, while clarifying that aura buff's (re-rolls) still effect models in overwatch.


People are trying to take far more out of this than was intended.

 EnTyme wrote:

Because GW still has faith that their fanbase doesn't need to be specifically told "don't be a jackwagon" and expects us to be capable of applying a modicum of common sense.

Then perhaps they should practise what they preach?

Seriously, if GW wants its players to use common sense then it should be using common sense in its rule writing and FAQs. instead, what we get is a load of contradictory nonsense where players might as well flip a coin over whether a given interaction is intended or not.

Hankovitch wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.

Problem is that lootas have to be fed 2 or 4 CP each turn to be worthwhile. Reducing their max squad size by 40% makes those CP much less efficient.

Exactly. 15 Lootas are a 255pt investment, if they aren't shooting from turn 1 you will not get your investment back, and if you have 2 squads now you simply are going to lose 1 of them on turn 1 unless you spend 2 CP to keep them in reserves. Even then, when they are on the field you need to spend 1 CP for grot shields, 2 cp to shoot twice and 2 cp to dakka on 5s so really its 5CP a turn, so at absolute MAX potential you will only get 3 turns of them being useful and they will be dead long before turn 3 unless you brought 100 grots to guard them.

This breaks down to 15 lootas = (on average) 30 shots, about 12 hits and against a T7 target 6 wounds at -1 AP so against most armies that is a grand total of 6 damage, if its against a Knight, Leman russ or other T8 target you are looking at 4 dmg. So when you spend 2 CP to shoot again that is 12 and 8 damage respectively, add on dakka on 5s and you were looking at about 2 more damage on average.

A SM Player can take a Dev squad with LC's and a cherub and a Captain for the same price which gives them 5 S9 shots. So 2 Shots hitting on 2s rerolling 1s and 3 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. that works out to the regular Devs hitting slightly less then 2.5 times and the Signum/Cherub hitting 2 times almost guaranteed. Against T7 and T8 it doesn't matter they all wound on 3s so 4.5 hits = 3 wounds on average with -3 AP so against 4+ saves it goes right through, against 3+ saves it goes through 2.5x. So 2.5 x 3.5 (average damage) = 8.75 damage on average, and all of that without spending a single CP. So now a Loota bomb is slightly ore effective then a Devestator squad for the same price but they have to spend 4 CP. And of course you could take 2 squads of Devestators and throw in a Lieutenant for less then the cost of 2 squads of Lootas and you now increase your damage per squad to 13.12, so those 2 squads are managing 26 damage on average to anything without an invuln save or a 2+ save.

Math aside, Loota bombs weren't nearly as effective as everyone made them out to be, what they did do was something orkz desperately needed. The ability to lay down a torrent of fire and damage light vehicles and elite infantry. The Mek Gunz people are now saying are amazing and should be brought instead are rather trash. T5 with a 5+ save and 6 wounds is delicate, squishy almost. worse, they rely on lucky rolls to get their damage to even work. The Smasha gun is the most popular and relies on you rolling 2D6 and getting higher then the targets Toughness to inflict wounds. That is ok since the smasha guns is priced correctly, but it isn't reliable. The Traktor Kannon is reliable but almost 50% more expensive then the Smasha gun and has a significantly lower top end damage, and the KMK is the best but is more then TWICE as expensive as a smasha gun and reliably strips itself of a wound almost every turn.

GW managed to give orkz 1 unit that required a huge CP investment to be competitive at the top tables and in their generosity allowed us to keep it for 6 months before hitting it with a 40% reduction in average damage output.

The writing for this is clear, yet somehow we have people in threads across this site literally arguing that because the rulebook was posted for them 30 minutes after the Craftworld one, it must mean it trumps everything.

It's this level of ridiculousness GW fights every freaking day. Likely makes these FAQs a thankless endeavour.

SemperMortis wrote:

Hankovitch wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.

Problem is that lootas have to be fed 2 or 4 CP each turn to be worthwhile. Reducing their max squad size by 40% makes those CP much less efficient.

Exactly. 15 Lootas are a 255pt investment, if they aren't shooting from turn 1 you will not get your investment back, and if you have 2 squads now you simply are going to lose 1 of them on turn 1 unless you spend 2 CP to keep them in reserves. Even then, when they are on the field you need to spend 1 CP for grot shields, 2 cp to shoot twice and 2 cp to dakka on 5s so really its 5CP a turn, so at absolute MAX potential you will only get 3 turns of them being useful and they will be dead long before turn 3 unless you brought 100 grots to guard them.

This breaks down to 15 lootas = (on average) 30 shots, about 12 hits and against a T7 target 6 wounds at -1 AP so against most armies that is a grand total of 6 damage, if its against a Knight, Leman russ or other T8 target you are looking at 4 dmg. So when you spend 2 CP to shoot again that is 12 and 8 damage respectively, add on dakka on 5s and you were looking at about 2 more damage on average.

A SM Player can take a Dev squad with LC's and a cherub and a Captain for the same price which gives them 5 S9 shots. So 2 Shots hitting on 2s rerolling 1s and 3 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. that works out to the regular Devs hitting slightly less then 2.5 times and the Signum/Cherub hitting 2 times almost guaranteed. Against T7 and T8 it doesn't matter they all wound on 3s so 4.5 hits = 3 wounds on average with -3 AP so against 4+ saves it goes right through, against 3+ saves it goes through 2.5x. So 2.5 x 3.5 (average damage) = 8.75 damage on average, and all of that without spending a single CP. So now a Loota bomb is slightly ore effective then a Devestator squad for the same price but they have to spend 4 CP. And of course you could take 2 squads of Devestators and throw in a Lieutenant for less then the cost of 2 squads of Lootas and you now increase your damage per squad to 13.12, so those 2 squads are managing 26 damage on average to anything without an invuln save or a 2+ save.

Math aside, Loota bombs weren't nearly as effective as everyone made them out to be, what they did do was something orkz desperately needed. The ability to lay down a torrent of fire and damage light vehicles and elite infantry. The Mek Gunz people are now saying are amazing and should be brought instead are rather trash. T5 with a 5+ save and 6 wounds is delicate, squishy almost. worse, they rely on lucky rolls to get their damage to even work. The Smasha gun is the most popular and relies on you rolling 2D6 and getting higher then the targets Toughness to inflict wounds. That is ok since the smasha guns is priced correctly, but it isn't reliable. The Traktor Kannon is reliable but almost 50% more expensive then the Smasha gun and has a significantly lower top end damage, and the KMK is the best but is more then TWICE as expensive as a smasha gun and reliably strips itself of a wound almost every turn.

GW managed to give orkz 1 unit that required a huge CP investment to be competitive at the top tables and in their generosity allowed us to keep it for 6 months before hitting it with a 40% reduction in average damage output.

mobbed up lootah hitting on 5, exploding on 6, rerolling 1 were stupid powerful when they had 20+ ablative wounds.

Sure, I could see the argument that they cost a ton of CP to power, except Orks generated tons of CP, so powering them for the one or two turns wasn't ever a problem i saw.

As I understand it, the lootah bomb was an unintended consequence and wasn't supposed to take out 700 point models, let alone 400 point models in a single turn.

GW just needs to come out and say to stop reading into rules to exploit things. If it doesn't sound like it's intended, or sounds too strong, then assume it doesn't work this way. It would solve half the issues if people weren't trying to dissect every rule for potential loopholes to get an advantage

Tempestus Drop Force Valkyries can overwatch for nearby Scions on a 4+. Emperor’s Blade do quite a similar thing as well, right?

Wayniac wrote:
GW just needs to come out and say to stop reading into rules to exploit things.

This is what they send back to you after you submit a question via email:

In the meantime, the following procedure should help you answer any rules questions you may have for yourself. Here’s what to do:

1. Read The Rule. This may seem obvious, but first of all, read the rule in question - it’s best not to rely on what you’ve been told, so we recommend you find the printed version of rule and read it word by word. Often this will resolve the question.

2. Go Upstream. If re-reading the rule doesn’t provide an answer, read any other rules that relate to the rule in question (we call this ‘following the question upstream’). For example, if the rule modifies to hit rolls, re-read the rules for modifiers and the rules for hit rolls. More often than not you will find the answer you seek upstream.

3. Check The Official Design Commentaries and Errata. If you are still stuck, read the official Design Commentary and Errata documents on the Games Workshop community website to see if the question has already been answered (see www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/).

4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has.

5. Roll a Dice. If the rule still remains unclear, roll a dice to resolve your question for the time being (1-3 = yes, 4-6 = no). However, you should also keep an eye on the official design commentaries and errata mentioned above - if you questions is one that comes up frequently and can only be resolved with a dice roll, it should be dealt with in our next update.

You can expect to see this year’s FAQs arrive in March and September - in the meantime, check out the current set of FAQs and errata on warhammer-community.com

-The Rules Team

GW literally tell you to use the RaW even if you dislike it. If that doesn't explain their "intent" then I don't know what is.

Specially when the RAW goes against what they said before. Or you end up with contradicting rules working and not working sometimes.

But this is my opinion,people at GW are just not very suited to write clear and cohorent rule systems. And one has to live with that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW literally tell you to use the RaW even if you dislike it. If that doesn't explain their "intent" then I don't know what is.

As if they could say "Try to figure out what we meant to write".

That's still "Assume that we meant what we wrote", and not "Feel free to ignore context and make conclusions that contradict reason."

It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.

Plus they have a strange way of dealing with things. If GW was not happy with double tap or other stratagems in overwatch, then why, if they can't properly write it down, write what they want. Put down a rule that says, can't use stratagams that work on shoting outside of the active players shoting phase.
But they do changes that are vogue or back fire all the time. They knew they had a problem with the 0" charge BA smashcpt. So instead of fixing how he works, they messed up fly for everyone for months.

Seabass wrote:

mobbed up lootah hitting on 5, exploding on 6, rerolling 1 were stupid powerful when they had 20+ ablative wounds.

Sure, I could see the argument that they cost a ton of CP to power, except Orks generated tons of CP, so powering them for the one or two turns wasn't ever a problem i saw.

As I understand it, the lootah bomb was an unintended consequence and wasn't supposed to take out 700 point models, let alone 400 point models in a single turn.

Except the never had 20+ ablative wounds, they had 60-90 because killing grots is easy as hell. So what you really had was 2 mobs of lootas of 20 ish for 340pts and usually 90 Grots for another 270pts. So you had a 610pt unit that was capable of dishing out on average 40 shots a turn, which when you use Dakka on 5s (exploding 5s and 6s) and shoot twice you got 6 1s so another 2 hits and 13ish 5s and 6s which generate another shot so you had 13 hits out of 40 with 6 1s for another 2 exploding 5's 6's for a grand total of 15 rerolls which granted you another 5.6ish hits so basically 19 hits.

Against a 700pt model...which would be a knight Castellan that works out to 6 wounds which are resolved against its 4+ armor so 6 total damage, use that shoot twice strat and you got 12 damage on the knight. ANd it only cost you 610pts worth of models, 1 CP for Mob up,1 CP for rerolling # of shots, 1 CP for Grot shields, 2 CP for Dakka and 2 CP for showing off (Shoot twice). So 12 damage for 610pts and 7CP, I see now, totally broken.

And, Grot shields don't protect you 100%, you have to roll to kill a grot so you have 2 options. 1 Kill all the grots relatively easily because bolters are wounding grots on a 2+ or shoot all your shots at T4 lootas which then on a 2+ kill a grot, so for every 6 shots you kill a loota.

So how exactly were loota bombs killing a 700pt model? I mean it would take 3 turns of shooting to kill a Knight and it would be extremely CP intensive, basically draining all the CP for the entire army.

Karol wrote:
It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.

I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.

I think the old mob up Lootah bomb was 15 lootas and 10 lootas to get a total of 25 IIRC right?

I also think you had to get the 3 shots to go off, which a command reroll really helps with, but obviously doesn't guarantee it. ( i use the word "think" a lot because I'm, not an Ork player, I'm just attempting to recall what I have seen happen on more than one occasion, forgive the crudeness of this post and if it's inaccurate, please accept that I'm not an Ork player by any stretch)

25 hits out of 75 shots
3 hits out of the 9 or 10 ones you will roll in that mess for rerolling ones.
that's 28 hits.
that will net you another 9 hits based on the exploding 5+ of those 9 hits for exploding dice.
1 or 2 ones will show up in that reroll process, netting you a few more chances to hit. likely getting one more (I think the math is two more, but I'm not 100 on that) hit in that mess for a total of 38 hits
getting about 13 or 14 wounds through.
that will result in 4 or 5 unsaved wounds going through, causing between 8 and 10 damage.

now, do all of that again.

so if we just go strictly by the rough numbers (and this is all head math and I've dropped any fraction or anything that didn't divide evenly, so forgive the really elementary version of it) but I don't think you have to spike much to kill one, and I think if you can get just a few wounds in with a shock relic or another ork cannon I think you can pretty reliably do it on one turn. As an aside note, i have seen this sequence take down a castellan without any help, and did it all on their own. with the 4++ now instead of the 3++ the number of wounds that translate to damage go up (i did this assuming only 1/3 of the wounds would translate into damage)

I've seen it happen on tables next to me in ITC. frankly, as an Aeldari player, there is nothing I am more scared of than lootahs, even 15 of them is scary as hell for hemlocks.

But, the point is, the firepower is there, and the only real "dicey" variable is the number of shots. I think it's easier than you think. Its not guaranteed in one turn, and my post made it sound like that and I shouldn't have spoken in that level of an absolute, as its not, but I think the other side of this is that it is WAY easier to do than your post is letting on, with the key, of course, being bad moons (I think) rerolling ones, and generating more exploding shots from that and with the shoot again stratagem (which I think is a bad moons stratagem, but again, im not sure on that)

Lootas have to roll again for number of shots when they sit again now. And no CP reroll cause its the same phase. That kneecaps them.

 EnTyme wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.

I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.

Well the "as if it was the shoting phase" thing is an example of such bad writing. Other one is hurrican bolters getting the drill on dreads and not getting it on tanks. Either all vehicles should be getting it, or non should, just for sake cohesion of rules.

Neither of those is a rule that "doesn't work". One just requires you to apply it in context with other rules, and the other is just something you don't agree with.

Karol wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is kind of a hard when rules sometimes work or don't work at random.

I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.

Well the "as if it was the shoting phase" thing is an example of such bad writing. Other one is hurrican bolters getting the drill on dreads and not getting it on tanks. Either all vehicles should be getting it, or non should, just for sake cohesion of rules.

This is another example of selective ignorance. Not to mention a position that makes zero sense. Why must it be all or none? Talk about artificially limiting design space arbitrarily. I'm sorry to say, but that's really silly.

Oh, by the way, they told us why dreads get it:

"whilst technically vehicles, we feel these units wage war in a manner closer to their flesh and blood battle-brothers than their Chapter’s (or Legion’s) battle tanks)"

Feel free to disagree with that intent, but it's pretty clear here that they specifically addressed your exact complaint. Did you miss it or intentionally ignore it? Doesn't really matter which, because at the end of the day it isn't bad writing, it's bad readers.

Drager wrote:
Lootas have to roll again for number of shots when they sit again now. And no CP reroll cause its the same phase. That kneecaps them.

but they didn't before the changes were enacted, meaning that before they could get pretty damn close if not outright just blow up a castellan. now they cannot because I don't think they were ever intended to play that way, and it was unintended from what I gather.

Feel free to disagree with that intent, but it's pretty clear here that they specifically addressed your exact complaint. Did you miss it or intentionally ignore it? Doesn't really matter which, because at the end of the day it isn't bad writing, it's bad readers.

For me this type of argument from GW is on the same level, as one we made GK rule suck, because we wanted them to suck, and now they suck, so deal with it.
Hurrican bolters on tanks or vehicles were not turning them in to castellans 2.0. They were on the other hand making bad units a bit more useful. Puting a change to them, the way GW did, is like breaking the cast of a broken army, because you don't like its colour.

How they think that a weapon mounted on a wobbly biped walker would be working more like on a human holding the weapon with two hands, then the steady mount of an almost super heavy tank breaks my suspencion of disbelief. Because if I were to think this was true. Then the only models who should have the bolter drill rules would be vehicles, and maybe bikes.

Neither of those is a rule that "doesn't work"

the same weapon works in two different ways depending on who carries it. When both use the exact same type of targeting mechanism, aka a nero linked space marine in a vehicle. I don't like it when patterns are broken up, it makes me feel uneasy. Technicly it shouldn't bother me at all as GK dreads can not take hurrican bolters anyway.

 EnTyme wrote:
I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.

The rules for Assault weapons literally don't work as written - an assault weapon can be fired even if a model advances, but you can't select a unit to fire if it has advanced, so you can never get into a position where you're able to advance and then choose to shoot with an assault weapon.

This was something which was picked up on day one of 8th edition, and still hasn't been fixed.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I've still yet to see one of these "rules that don't work". What I see a lot of, though, is people intentionally ignoring the context of rules in order to make it seem like they don't work just so they can whine about how you can't actually shoot weapon "x" because it tells you to target a model, but the rules for shooting require that you target a unit. The rest of us know to just target a model like the rule tells you to.

The rules for Assault weapons literally don't work as written - an assault weapon can be fired even if a model advances, but you can't select a unit to fire if it has advanced, so you can never get into a position where you're able to advance and then choose to shoot with an assault weapon.

This was something which was picked up on day one of 8th edition, and still hasn't been fixed.

Really?

Shooting Phase:
Choose a unit to shoot with.
In your shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit which Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit which is within 1" of an enemy unit.

Weapon Types:
Assault
A model armed with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn. If it does so, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.

I guess you are going to say there is a difference between "selecting" and "firing".

This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.


They don't even understand their own rules.


This comes from a few things.


The rules writers aren't actively working together, they just do their own thing.

The editors are horrible (many typos make it through even though they price their books at a premium), and don't understand the rules they are editing.

The people up top are not worried about perfection from their employee's, as they make enough money to be perfectly happy with being the crappiest high end hobby studio.



GW is GW because its British. It would be nowhere like this if the company was based in any other country. Not saying this to offend British folks, just stating a fact. British companies do not mostly "Strive for Excellence". They just throw parties when they show profit.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.

Because IRL on actual gaming tables there is no problem. I have never seen anyone have a problem with this rule in a game. Never.

12 year old kids pick this up immediately, it is obvious and they have zero problem with it.

I bet its not even frequently asked on their FAQ email - although for all I know they have a special bozo counter for all the times they get it sent in and the game designers run a monthly sweepstake for who can guess how many times it will happen next month. Either way it does not matter, nobody has ever had a problem with this outside of typing away on a keyboard.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
This is because GW don't see the problem with how they gave assault weapons permission to fire after you advance.

Because IRL on actual gaming tables there is no problem. I have never seen anyone have a problem with this rule in a game. Never .... nobody has ever had a problem with this outside of typing away on a keyboard.

This.

Technically, no you can't select the unit if it advanced, so you never get the chance to choose the weapon. But equally, you could say that the assault weapon rule overrides that and means you can select the unit even if it advanced. And of course that's what everyone does IRL. Sometimes I think people would rather argue about things like this on the internet than actually play the game.