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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, but you then have 16.67% more wounds that can be saved 1/6th of the time.

To find out how much a FNP helps, take the reciprocal.

For instance, you need 6 damage on average to down a 4-wound Plague Drone. If you only added 1/3rd (since they have a 5+ FNP) you'd think it'd need 5.33 wounds, but multiply that by 2/3 (the amount of damage that goes through) and you'd get a little over 3 and a half wounds dealt-NOT enough to kill them.

I still don't follow.

To find how much more durable it makes you, find how much it reduces damage to.

A 6+ FNP, in this case, reduces damage to 5/6ths the normal.

Then, divide 1 by that number to get the actual durability improvement.

1/(5/6)=6/5=1.2

There is a lot going into why fnp is a variable increase in durability than a straight 1/6th of wounds.

First. for every 6 wounds that you save in this way, you're also going to save yet another wound, and for every 6 of these wounds, you'll also save another (going on and on with greater diminishing returns).

Second, when taking these fnp rolls against multi damage weapons which exceed, your wound pool per model, the fnp is less than 1/6 as effective, as taking 2 damage on a marine, you're not going to save that marines life 1/6 of the time, but rather 1/36 of the time.

Third, when taking these fnp rolls against multi damage weapons which perfectly match your wound characteristic, you are getting much more than 1/6th of your wounds back in value every time you make a save, as you're costing your opponent a second multi damage hit on the same already wounded model, this phenomena is particularly noticeable with 2 wound models, taking damage from damage 2 sources, with a 5++ fnp, with 2 rolls, its just over 50% that they roll one 5+, which effectively halves the damage output of the aggressor, when with a 5+ you would normally expect a 1/3 improvement in durability.

 p5freak wrote:

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
I think this errata was already covered. If a unit has fly the fly bit about falling back and shooting trumps the chapter tactic.

No, it doesnt. You must follow all rules when playing. And its specific trumps generic. The generic rule is that FLY units can shoot after falling back. The specific UM chapter tactic says they suffer a -1 to hit when falling back.

Youz a zoggin' git.

Entered a slow grow League with my crimson fists and had to submit my first 500pt list yesterday. Went for this...


++ Patrol Detachment (Imperium - Space Marines) [27 PL, -1CP, 500pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

**Chapter Selection**: Crimson Fists

Specialist Detachment [-1CP]: Crimson Fists Liberator Strike Force

+ HQ +

Primaris Lieutenants [4 PL, 69pts]
. Primaris Lieutenant: Expert Instructor, Master-crafted auto bolt rifle, The Vox Espiritum, Warlord

+ Troops +

Intercessor Squad [5 PL, 95pts]: Auxiliary Grenade Launcher, Bolt rifle
. 4x Intercessor
. Intercessor Sergeant: Power fist

Intercessor Squad [5 PL, 89pts]: Bolt rifle
. 4x Intercessor
. Intercessor Sergeant: Power sword

Intercessor Squad [5 PL, 85pts]: Stalker Bolt Rifle
. 4x Intercessor
. Intercessor Sergeant: Chainsword

+ Fast Attack +

Suppressor Squad [4 PL, 90pts]
. 2x Suppressor: 2x Accelerator autocannon, 2x Grav-chute
. Suppressor Sergeant: Accelerator autocannon, Grav-chute

+ Heavy Support +

Eliminator Squad [4 PL, 72pts]
. Eliminator Sergeant: Bolt sniper rifle, Camo cloak
. 2x Eliminator with Bolt Sniper: 2x Bolt sniper rifle, 2x Camo cloak

++ Total: [27 PL, -1CP, 500pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe

Intercessors are just versatile and great, while the suppressors are very cheap auto cannon fire for any armoured or tough targets (hopefully not too many at 500pts) the eliminators are great too and hard to remove.

With the lieutenant being the expert instructor with the vox esperitum it gives him a 12 inch re roll 1s to hit and a 9 inch re roll 1s to wound bubble for 1cp which I think is brilliant.

Downside of this list is I only have 2cp to use during the game but it's a 500pt game after all.

 GreatGranpapy wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
I think this errata was already covered. If a unit has fly the fly bit about falling back and shooting trumps the chapter tactic.

No, it doesnt. You must follow all rules when playing. And its specific trumps generic. The generic rule is that FLY units can shoot after falling back. The specific UM chapter tactic says they suffer a -1 to hit when falling back.

Youz a zoggin' git.

And it's important to note that this particular issue isn't even a contradictory case in which specific needs to trump generic. Both rules are 100% compatible. Both allow the unit to fall back and shoot, but the UM tactic adds a further condition of -1 to hit.

Does it need an errata because it's dumb? Absolutely.
Until then is there a rules discrepancy that merits pregame discussion or a roll-off? Not from a RAW perspective.

HIWPI is that UM units with FLY would not suffer -1, but with full acknowledgment that this would be 100% a house rule I would give to my UM opponents.

-

 p5freak wrote:

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
I think this errata was already covered. If a unit has fly the fly bit about falling back and shooting trumps the chapter tactic.

No, it doesnt. You must follow all rules when playing. And its specific trumps generic. The generic rule is that FLY units can shoot after falling back. The specific UM chapter tactic says they suffer a -1 to hit when falling back.

Isn't that specific trumps generic thing also a major assumption being made? I haven't seen it specifically written anywhere in 8th edition yet, but I admit I may have stupidly missed it since I rarely if ever have to actually argue rules in an actual game. It's not like anybody was playing Inceptors and Suppressors as if they received that nerf anyway before it applied to vehicles.

Lemondish wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
I think this errata was already covered. If a unit has fly the fly bit about falling back and shooting trumps the chapter tactic.

No, it doesnt. You must follow all rules when playing. And its specific trumps generic. The generic rule is that FLY units can shoot after falling back. The specific UM chapter tactic says they suffer a -1 to hit when falling back.

Isn't that specific trumps generic thing also a major assumption being made? I haven't seen it specifically written anywhere in 8th edition yet, but I admit I may have stupidly missed it since I rarely if ever have to actually argue rules in an actual game. It's not like anybody was playing Inceptors and Suppressors as if they received that nerf anyway before it applied to vehicles.

Thats how the rules work. The generic core rules are the basis, they tell you what you can do, and you cant do. The special rules like stratagems, chapter tactics, abilities on a units datasheet, etc., allow you to do things you couldnt normally do.

Competitive list building question:

Can you have an army with three different ultramarine 'successor chapters' with different chapter tactics and still access 'scions of guilliman'. Apologies, I can't provide the exact wording of the rule, don't have the new codex yet!

If that's possible it would be super helpful for optimising list building - could have a 'first to the fray' and 'whirlwind of extra attacks' detachment for a smash captain and some vanvets, then a 'stealthy' and 'master artisans' detachment for your gunline / backfield units.

 DoomMouse wrote:
Competitive list building question:

Can you have an army with three different ultramarine 'successor chapters' with different chapter tactics and still access 'scions of guilliman'. Apologies, I can't provide the exact wording of the rule, don't have the new codex yet!

If that's possible it would be super helpful for optimising list building - could have a 'first to the fray' and 'whirlwind of extra attacks' detachment for a smash captain and some vanvets, then a 'stealthy' and 'master artisans' detachment for your gunline / backfield units.

You can do that if they are all separate detachments yes. Your auras however will not cross over.

I don’t think you can. It says something like the entire army must be UM or all the same successor.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to know, cause I had this idea originally as well.

Odd question:

Does the introduction of the new codex + suppliments supersede all books that came before it in regards to SM? So in other words, did they just remove the last two years of rules bloat for SMs? FAQs, etc?

bort wrote:
I don’t think you can. It says something like the entire army must be UM or all the same successor.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to know, cause I had this idea originally as well.

Don't recall anything of the sort. You were probably reading about detachments. Not armies. Why would you be allowed to play a detachment of ultras and a detachment of iron hands in the same army but not a detachment of 2 or 3 ultramarine successors in different detachments?

 Xenomancers wrote:

bort wrote:
I don’t think you can. It says something like the entire army must be UM or all the same successor.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to know, cause I had this idea originally as well.

Don't recall anything of the sort. You were probably reading about detachments. Not armies. Why would you be allowed to play a detachment of ultras and a detachment of iron hands in the same army but not a detachment of 2 or 3 ultramarine successors in different detachments?

Its in the individual supplement rules for the super-doctrines. You must be either a primogenitor chapter or a single successor chapter to get the super-doctrine. You cant mix different successors, or successors and primogenitors in the same army without losing said bonus.

You wouldnt get super-doctrines for your proposed Smurf and Iron Hand teamup either.

Cassius is kind of interesting. He basically gives marines acid blood and he knows 2 litanies. So he can give a unit +1 to hit (probably the best use of a chaplain) and then when things get ugly he can give you reroll all hits in CC or something else like +1 to wound a target that is close. Not terrible for 85 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bort wrote:
I don’t think you can. It says something like the entire army must be UM or all the same successor.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to know, cause I had this idea originally as well.

Don't recall anything of the sort. You were probably reading about detachments. Not armies. Why would you be allowed to play a detachment of ultras and a detachment of iron hands in the same army but not a detachment of 2 or 3 ultramarine successors in different detachments?

Its in the individual supplement rules for the super-doctrines. You must be either a primogenitor chapter or a single successor chapter to get the super-doctrine. You cant mix different successors, or successors and primogenitors in the same army without losing said bonus.

You wouldnt get super-doctrines for your proposed Smurf and Iron Hand teamup either.

That doesn't make sense. Can you post the Verbatim rule? I am at work and away from my codex.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That doesn't make sense. Can you post the Verbatim rule? I am at work and away from my codex.

It makes perfect sense. You'd be able to get three distinct and perfectly tailored armies out of a single codex otherwise.

Look at the 12 minute mark on the GMG white scars review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5K004krwI

 Xenomancers wrote:
Cassius is kind of interesting. He basically gives marines acid blood and he knows 2 litanies. So he can give a unit +1 to hit (probably the best use of a chaplain) and then when things get ugly he can give you reroll all hits in CC or something else like +1 to wound a target that is close. Not terrible for 85 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bort wrote:
I don’t think you can. It says something like the entire army must be UM or all the same successor.

If I’m wrong, I’d love to know, cause I had this idea originally as well.

Don't recall anything of the sort. You were probably reading about detachments. Not armies. Why would you be allowed to play a detachment of ultras and a detachment of iron hands in the same army but not a detachment of 2 or 3 ultramarine successors in different detachments?

Its in the individual supplement rules for the super-doctrines. You must be either a primogenitor chapter or a single successor chapter to get the super-doctrine. You cant mix different successors, or successors and primogenitors in the same army without losing said bonus.

You wouldnt get super-doctrines for your proposed Smurf and Iron Hand teamup either.

That doesn't make sense. Can you post the Verbatim rule? I am at work and away from my codex.

He's right it's on page 72 of the supplement for ultramarines.

If battleforged wafle.So long as, UNALIGNED waffle, every unit from your army is an ULTRAMARINES unit or every unit from your army is from the same Ultramarines sucessor chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

That doesn't make sense. Can you post the Verbatim rule? I am at work and away from my codex.

It makes perfect sense. You'd be able to get three distinct and perfectly tailored armies out of a single codex otherwise.

Look at the 12 minute mark on the GMG white scars review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5K004krwI

I think it's because we're all digesting the rules and none of the reviews have made much mentioned it.

It makes sense to you that 3 types of Ultramarines armies/ successors that have access to a rule naturally - will lose access to that same rule if they are played together? I guess they all forgot how to please Guilliman who is the founding Primarach of all their chapters.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes sense to you that 3 types of Ultramarines that have access to a rule naturally - will lose access to that same rule if they are played together? I guess they all forgot how to please Guilliman who is the founding Primarach of all their chapters.

Integrated command and control across three distinct, separate and independent forces is a bitch. Or to put it anotherv way...

Want to keep your super-doctrine? Don't try cheat the no-soup rule with a special kind of soup.

It's a bit silly, but luckily White Scars won't care as much and Raven Guard don't have anything yet.

I'm still sticking with my Lias Bomb and melee Minotaurs based on this. Yeah Relentless Aggressors from Ultramarines is cool, but I'd rather have everything good to fight.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It makes sense to you that 3 types of Ultramarines that have access to a rule naturally - will lose access to that same rule if they are played together? I guess they all forgot how to please Guilliman who is the founding Primarach of all their chapters.

Integrated command and control is a bitch. Or to put it anotherv way...

Want to keep your super-doctrine? Don't try cheat the no-soup rule with a special kind of soup.

It's not soup - they are in the same codex. Heck I am not trying to do it myself. I play pure Ultras. Ultramarines successors I don't think should get Scions of Guilliman. That should be a reward for playing true with a craptastic chapter tactic. If they get access to it normally though - it makes approx 0 sense for them to lose it because they decided to join forces with their parent chapter...likely to defend Macragge or something. Where they will yield to the orders of the Ultras commanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's a bit silly, but luckily White Scars won't care as much and Raven Guard don't have anything yet.

I'm still sticking with my Lias Bomb and melee Minotaurs based on this. Yeah Relentless Aggressors from Ultramarines is cool, but I'd rather have everything good to fight.

For 1 CP you can count as stationary. It's a stratagem in the space marine codex. You are in business.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's not soup - they are in the same codex. Heck I am not trying to do it myself. I play pure Ultras. Ultramarines successors I don't think should get Scions of Guilliman. That should be a reward for playing true with a craptastic chapter tactic. If they get access to it normally though - it makes approx 0 sense for them to lose it because they decided to join forces with their parent chapter...likely to defend Macragge or something. Where they will yield to the orders of the Ultras commanders.
.

2.0 custom CT combinations are exquisitely powerful, and a capacity to cherry pick three different builds for separate units would be a huge boost. It damn well is soup no matter how you dress it up.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's not soup - they are in the same codex. Heck I am not trying to do it myself. I play pure Ultras. Ultramarines successors I don't think should get Scions of Guilliman. That should be a reward for playing true with a craptastic chapter tactic. If they get access to it normally though - it makes approx 0 sense for them to lose it because they decided to join forces with their parent chapter...likely to defend Macragge or something. Where they will yield to the orders of the Ultras commanders.
.

2.0 custom CT combinations are exquisitely powerful, and a capacity to cherry pick three different builds for separate units would be a huge boost. It damn well is soup no matter how you dress it up.

How can you honestly say that with the Ironhands chapter tactic existing?

 Xenomancers wrote:

How can you honestly say that with the Ironhands chapter tactic existing?

Because a 6+++, OW on 5 and a superior wounds table means jack all for an army without invulnerable saves in a meta designed to liquify knights in one salvo.

But nice try on changing the subject to your latest bogeyman.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's not soup - they are in the same codex. Heck I am not trying to do it myself. I play pure Ultras. Ultramarines successors I don't think should get Scions of Guilliman. That should be a reward for playing true with a craptastic chapter tactic. If they get access to it normally though - it makes approx 0 sense for them to lose it because they decided to join forces with their parent chapter...likely to defend Macragge or something. Where they will yield to the orders of the Ultras commanders.
.

2.0 custom CT combinations are exquisitely powerful, and a capacity to cherry pick three different builds for separate units would be a huge boost. It damn well is soup no matter how you dress it up.

How can you honestly say that with the Ironhands chapter tactic existing?

Well the Raven Guard important bit + the 3" bonus to range weapons is pretty darn good if you ask me.

For 1 CP you can count as stationary. It's a stratagem in the space marine codex. You are in business.

Only got Bolter Discipline, though.
No super Agressors, sorry.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

How can you honestly say that with the Ironhands chapter tactic existing?

Because a 6+++, OW on 5 and a superior wounds table means jack all for an army without invulnerable saves in a meta designed to liquify knights in one salvo.

But nice try on changing the subject to your latest bogeyman.

This anti knights meta is a joke. People would take the exact same weapons regardless of knights. Literally nothing would change without knights except different armies would win. If you can't kill a knight you can't kill a repulsor or a LR ether.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Literally nothing would change without knights except different armies would win.

"nothing would change except everything would change"

Yup, makes total sense to me

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Literally nothing would change without knights except different armies would win.

"nothing would change except everything would change"

Yup, makes total sense to me

That's not what he meant and you know that.

Ill rephrase. If Knights did not exist - other armies would remain roughly the same and instead of knights winning most of the time (they can't win because they don't exist) other armies would win in the place of knights.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ill rephrase. If Knights did not exist - other armies would remain roughly the same and instead of knights winning most of the time (they can't win because they don't exist) other armies would win in the place of knights.

Lovely little anecdote. Only one issue: Knights exist and must be dealt with. Rendering anything with a similar target profile (IE: vehicle targets) at an immense disadvantage when they can't present the same level of durability. The 6+++ Iron Hands CT gives does not remotely mitigate that.

 p5freak wrote:

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
I think this errata was already covered. If a unit has fly the fly bit about falling back and shooting trumps the chapter tactic.

No, it doesnt. You must follow all rules when playing. And its specific trumps generic. The generic rule is that FLY units can shoot after falling back. The specific UM chapter tactic says they suffer a -1 to hit when falling back.

Absurd results are discarded. Unless you think 40K rules are superior to real law.