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.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
BaconCatBug wrote: Hooray for more special snowflake exemptions to their botched keyword system.
Oh, and they didn't answer the Drop Pod null deployment question. Looking forward to how the GW apologists that were insisting they would are going to spin this one.
This model and any units embarked aboard it are
exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule,
except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have
not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third
battle round, they count as having been destroyed.’
They're exempt from Tactical Reservers except for the bold part.
BaconCatBug wrote: Hooray for more special snowflake exemptions to their botched keyword system.
Oh, and they didn't answer the Drop Pod null deployment question. Looking forward to how the GW apologists that were insisting they would are going to spin this one.
This model and any units embarked aboard it are
exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule,
except that if it and any units embarked aboard it have
not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third
battle round, they count as having been destroyed.’
They're exempt from Tactical Reservers except for the bold part.
I recon the FAQ re. Drop Pods doesn't clear up anything re. Null Deployment or how to handle deploying units that aren't in pods
Proponents of Null Deployments: As above. They are exempt from Tactical Reserves other than the part about being counted as destroyed if they don’t arrive early enough. It doesn't say the excemption doesn't apply to deplyment restrictions/ requirements so it doesn't apply to them.
Proponents of 50% is 50%. They are exempt from Tactical Reserves other than the part about being counted as destroyed if they don’t arrive early enough. The section about deployment refers to the army, not the units so that element of the rules doesn’t apply to units to start with.
What is badly needed is a FAQ to show how the rule should work (both in regards to allowing null deployment, or not, and the interaction with the ability to place other units in deepstrike)
How about that, looks like the difference between "Captain in Gravis Armour" and "Master in Gravis Armour" is important. Also important is the difference between "Aggressor Squad" and "Aggressors". So, can we please have the people who constantly talk about "GW don't errata things only neckbeard WAAC players care about" please drop that tired and provably false line of reasoning?
Q. If an ability or rule generates an additional hit, (e.g. the Imperial Siege Masters Chapter Tactic), do these additional hits gain any other benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)? A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.
So now any Chapter that has "Whirlwind of Rage" now generates infinite hits when they roll a 6. Classic GW logic!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 17:29:14
Fixing something isn't evidence they intentionally didn't change something else. Indeed, this just shows that before this FAQ their intent didn't match RAW.
I would have thought you would be aware of GW's inconsistencies more than anyone. So no, I don't think I will stop calling out people who slavishly follow RAW to the point of absurdity.
"Can I use a Stratagems from the 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines..."
Stellar grammar there GW, top notch proofreading if I do say so!
Also if we want to be super technical, there is no such thing as a 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines, the book is called Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines.
1) GW confirms the RAW version of Masters of Snares works on aircraft. 2) GW confirms that the RAW Drop pod rule ignores all of the limitations of the rule because EXEMPT means Exempt. Tough this does create a problem for games that do not have the Sudden Death Rule, e.g. CA2018. As they have just copied one part of the tactical reserves rule. The you units explode for no reason past insert turn number. -This mean null deployment is RAI 3) While it is amazing index got some love WHY is the Chaplain on Bike only limited to ONE ability, it should be Litany of Hate (see below) and one litany from the Litanies of Battle (see Codex: Space Marines). 4) Vigilus stuff actually is cool and now works. For Space Marines and Ultramarines. 5) See Spoiler
Spoiler:
Q. If an ability or rule generates an additional hit, (e.g. the Imperial Siege Masters Chapter Tactic), do these additional hits gain any other benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)? A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.
This is amazing LUL.
6) Defensive Focus still allows up to X + 3 units to overwatch where X = the number of units your enemy targets to charge. double Overwatch was the minor issue.
Updates to post incoming
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 19:31:09
1) GW confirms the RAW version of Masters of Snares works on aircraft.
2) GW confirms that the RAW Drop pod rule ignores all of the limitations of the rule because EXEMPT means Exempt.
Tough this does create a problem for games that do not have the Sudden Death Rule, e.g. CA2018. As they have just copied
one part of the tactical reserves rule. The you units explode for no reason past insert turn number.
-This mean null deployment is RAI 3) While it is amazing index got some love WHY is the Chaplain on Bike only limited to ONE ability, it should be Hate + choice of one not just one.
Updates to post incomming
1) Master of Snares only works on Aircraft after they have been shot at a bit though. Obviously after they've been tagged by hand flamers a bit they are an easier target to snare or something.
2) They didn't confirm anything because they refused to answer the actual question of null deployment.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Can I use a Stratagems from the 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines..."
Stellar grammar there GW, top notch proofreading if I do say so!
Also if we want to be super technical, there is no such thing as a 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines, the book is called Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines.
I wouldn't put it past GW to just copy and paste the questions from the emails that they receive...
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
BaconCatBug wrote: "Can I use a Stratagems from the 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines..."
Stellar grammar there GW, top notch proofreading if I do say so!
Also if we want to be super technical, there is no such thing as a 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines, the book is called Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines.
I wouldn't put it past GW to just copy and paste the questions from the emails that they receive...
I'd bet money that is exactly how it's done.
Also why are they so instant on not having a common interpretation for FAQ's that are similar.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Can I use a Stratagems from the 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines..."
Stellar grammar there GW, top notch proofreading if I do say so!
Also if we want to be super technical, there is no such thing as a 2017 edition of Codex: Space Marines, the book is called Codex: Adeptus Astartes Space Marines.
I wouldn't put it past GW to just copy and paste the questions from the emails that they receive...
I'd bet money that is exactly how it's done.
Also why are they so instant on not having a common interpretation for FAQ's that are similar.
The big September FAQ is coming soon. We may be seeing a preview of some changes in the Space Marine FAQ.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
1) GW confirms the RAW version of Masters of Snares works on aircraft.
2) GW confirms that the RAW Drop pod rule ignores all of the limitations of the rule because EXEMPT means Exempt.
Tough this does create a problem for games that do not have the Sudden Death Rule, e.g. CA2018. As they have just copied
one part of the tactical reserves rule. The you units explode for no reason past insert turn number.
-This mean null deployment is RAI 3) While it is amazing index got some love WHY is the Chaplain on Bike only limited to ONE ability, it should be Hate + choice of one not just one.
Updates to post incomming
1) Master of Snares only works on Aircraft after they have been shot at a bit though. Obviously after they've been tagged by hand flamers a bit they are an easier target to snare or something.
2) They didn't confirm anything because they refused to answer the actual question of null deployment.
3) Gift horses and mouths I suppose.
1-What are you talking about OG master of snares is a 4+ to instant kill any aircraft regardless of stats if you are within 1" of them. The rules are changed to not effect units with min movement thus proving that the previous RAW interpretation to be the correct one.
2-No that faq complete confirms that null deployment is the RAI, as it means that every part of "tactical rules" other than the "can't be past turn 3" is EXEMPT.
3-No it's inconsistent there is no reason why a bike chaplain doesn't also get one choice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 19:39:47
1-What are you talking about OG master of snares is a 4+ to instant kill any aircraft regardless of stats if you are within 1" of them. The rules are changed to not effect units with min movement thus proving that the previous RAW interpretation to be the correct one.
What are you talking about ?
Page 57 – Master of Snares
Change this Warlord Trait to read:
‘When an enemy unit (other than a unit that contains a
model with a minimum Move characteristic) within 1" of
this Warlord is chosen to Fall Back, you can roll one D6;
on a 4+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn.’
An enemy unit with a minimum move characteristic is not affected by this warlord trait.
ThatMG wrote: My highlights of this update
2) GW confirms that the RAW Drop pod rule ignores all of the limitations of the rule because EXEMPT means Exempt.
Tough this does create a problem for games that do not have the Sudden Death Rule, e.g. CA2018. As they have just copied
one part of the tactical reserves rule. The you units explode for no reason past insert turn number.
-This mean null deployment is RAI
Updates to post incomming
2) They didn't confirm anything because they refused to answer the actual question of null deployment.
.
2-No that faq complete confirms that null deployment is the RAI, as it means that every part of "tactical rules" is exempt the can't be past turn 3 is EXEMPT.
As was gone over at great lengths, whilst exempt does mean exempt this wasn’t the sticking point.
It was more how does the rule work when the deployment requirements would seem to be placed upon an army, and that army may potentially be composed on units that are, as units exempt.
Both sides have a logic to them, however both sides are based on fundamentally different and incompatible axioms.
As I posted earlier the errata is consistent with both possible interpretations so adds nothing to resolving the debate.
Proponents of Null Deployments: They are exempt from Tactical Reserves other than the part about being counted as destroyed if they don’t arrive early enough. It doesn't say the exemption doesn't apply to deplyment restrictions/ requirements therefore these deployment requirements don't apply to such units.
Proponents of 50% is 50%. Such units are exempt from Tactical Reserves other than the part about being counted as destroyed if they don’t arrive early enough. The section about deployment applied to the army, not the individual units it's composed of, so that element of the rules didn’t apply to units to start with, so doesn't need to be mentioned in the errata.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 19:52:08
1-What are you talking about OG master of snares is a 4+ to instant kill any aircraft regardless of stats if you are within 1" of them. The rules are changed to not effect units with min movement thus proving that the previous RAW interpretation to be the correct one.
What are you talking about ?
Page 57 – Master of Snares
Change this Warlord Trait to read:
‘When an enemy unit (other than a unit that contains a
model with a minimum Move characteristic) within 1" of
this Warlord is chosen to Fall Back, you can roll one D6;
on a 4+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn.’
An enemy unit with a minimum move characteristic is not affected by this warlord trait.
Read my post OG Master of Snares not the FAQ...Works on aircraft thus the FAQ changed it to the current.
ThatMG wrote: My highlights of this update
2) GW confirms that the RAW Drop pod rule ignores all of the limitations of the rule because EXEMPT means Exempt.
Tough this does create a problem for games that do not have the Sudden Death Rule, e.g. CA2018. As they have just copied
one part of the tactical reserves rule. The you units explode for no reason past insert turn number.
-This mean null deployment is RAI
Updates to post incomming
2) They didn't confirm anything because they refused to answer the actual question of null deployment.
.
2-No that faq complete confirms that null deployment is the RAI, as it means that every part of "tactical rules" is exempt the can't be past turn 3 is EXEMPT.
As was gone over at great lengths, whilst exempt does mean exempt this wasn’t the sticking point.
It was more how does the rule work when the deployment requirements would seem to be placed upon an army, and that army may potentially be composed on units that are, as units exempt.
Both sides have a logic to them, however both sides are based on fundamentally different and incompatible axioms.
As I posted earlier the errata is consistent with both possible interpretations so adds nothing to resolving the debate.
There is no logic to the camp that is suggesting that "any word" in the tactical reserves rules applies to any unit in or are drop pods because of the deployment rules.
As the drop pod assault has the "matched play: This model and any unit embarked aboard it are exempt from the tactical reserves matched play rule."
For reference Tactical Reserves
Spoiler:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during deployment (including those that are embarked aboard Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of
your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as
reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having
been destroyed.
As they are exempt from this rule
They can drop turn 1
They can null deploy
There is no limit on "number of units/points cost of said units"
Other minor things.
The FAQ just means you have to deploy before the end of turn 3 or lose units/the game.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 20:10:35
ThatMG wrote: There is no logic to the camp that is suggesting that "any word" in the tactical reserves rules applies to any unit in or are drop pods because of the deployment rules.
As the drop pod assault has the "matched play: This model and any unit embarked aboard it are exempt from the tactical reserves matched play rule."
For reference Tactical Reserves
Spoiler:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined points value of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during deployment (including those that are embarked aboard Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of
your army’s total points value, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as
reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round.
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having
been destroyed.
As they are exempt from this rule
They can drop turn 1
They can null deploy
There is no limit on "number of units/points cost of said units"
Other minor things.
The FAQ just means you have to deploy before the end of turn 3 or lose units/the game.
Here's the part it doesn't address.
Let's say I have 2000 points of Space Marines. 1200 points is troops in Drop Pods. The other 800 points is all Terminators.
Can any of the Terminators deep strike?
Tactical Reserves refers to half the points value of your army. Read one way, the answer is no, because half the points are wrapped up in Drop Pods. Read another way, the answer is yes, because exempt can be taken to mean does not count towards the total points value.
Let's say I have 2000 points of Space Marines. 1200 points is troops in Drop Pods. The other 800 points is all Terminators.
Can any of the Terminators deep strike?
Tactical Reserves refers to half the points value of your army. Read one way, the answer is no, because half the points are wrapped up in Drop Pods. Read another way, the answer is yes, because exempt can be taken to mean does not count towards the total points value.
Did not see anything in the FAQ to clear that up.
There is no need the Drop Pod RAW means you have to have an entire army in or are drop pods. If you have a single unit that isn't then the drop pod rule breaks and does nothing.
You can RAI it to drop pods and units inside drop pods count as "0, units worth 0 points".
Meaning you have 800 points 400 of that can DS.
You can HIWPI to
You can DS 800 points because it is less than 1200. However these units would be limited to turn 1 in deployment only.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 20:45:20
How about that, looks like the difference between "Captain in Gravis Armour" and "Master in Gravis Armour" is important. Also important is the difference between "Aggressor Squad" and "Aggressors". So, can we please have the people who constantly talk about "GW don't errata things only neckbeard WAAC players care about" please drop that tired and provably false line of reasoning?
Q. If an ability or rule generates an additional hit, (e.g. the Imperial Siege Masters Chapter Tactic), do these additional hits gain any other benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?
A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.
So now any Chapter that has "Whirlwind of Rage" now generates infinite hits when they roll a 6. Classic GW logic!
Unlimited Tesla power!
One Necron Immortal hits with it's Tesla gun with a 6+ the target has to roll infinite number of dice to save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/02 21:09:32
How about that, looks like the difference between "Captain in Gravis Armour" and "Master in Gravis Armour" is important. Also important is the difference between "Aggressor Squad" and "Aggressors". So, can we please have the people who constantly talk about "GW don't errata things only neckbeard WAAC players care about" please drop that tired and provably false line of reasoning?
Q. If an ability or rule generates an additional hit, (e.g. the Imperial Siege Masters Chapter Tactic), do these additional hits gain any other benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?
A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.
So now any Chapter that has "Whirlwind of Rage" now generates infinite hits when they roll a 6. Classic GW logic!
Unlimited Tesla power!
I just imagine it turn all your marines into
Akuma's "Shun Goku Satsu"
OR
Kenshiro's "Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/02 20:50:25
Very sad. They halfway updated the Chaplain on bike, but failed completely to change the Ancient on bike's ability so that it helped bikers (the way the new codex banner does). A small oversight I hope. Sure, how many people ran bikers before the new codex, and certainly few were running Ancient on bike. No model no rules, I know, but man it was SO hard to attach a banner to a biker...(or did I miss something that did change his ability?)
Keeping the hobby side alive!
I never forget the Dakka unit scale is binary: Units are either OP or Garbage.
They finally fixed the UM Flyer Fall back for a -1 problem. And created a new one. Now someone COULD claim that the UM ability removes the ability for models with the FLY keyword to use the FLY keyword to fall back and shoot, instead of claiming IF they do so they suffer a -1 from their chapter tactic, even though they're allowed to do so from the FLY rule.
They screwed up their own keyword system with ADEPTUS ASTARTES and non Codex chapters/stratagems.
They kicked the Vigilus stratagems right in the twig and berries.
They again screwed melee in favor of shooting - a plasma anything (and potentially a Combi-Anything) with multiple profiles gets the bonus to each profile, while the Boltstorm Guantlet (melee) and (shooting) do not.
A Phobos Captain turned into a Chapter Master no longer has the Rites of Battle, nor does the Phobos Wargear that works with Rites work with the Chapter Master ability, so buy your Phobos Captain a Gruel packet, they just got screwed.
Successor Chapters can't use their founding chapter's Warlord Traits. Unless you buy the supplement for the founding chapter. Assuming it's out yet.
My favorite - the casualty modifier for Morale Tests is now not a modifier. Despite it being a modifer in everything but name.
They updated Tactical Expertise without actually rewording it to explicity state stacking.
Not only did the Index Chaplain on bike lose the rest of the Litanies they lost their automatic Litany and now have to roll for it.
The Forgeworld Chaplains get the rest of the Litanies.
We updated the Index Drop Pod datasheet... who is still stuck using the index for a Drop Pod datasheet?
If i include FW units in my codex SM army i cant use combat doctrines, because FW dont get it ?
Designer’s Note: The Bolter Discipline ability is described in a previous
update, and the Shock Assault ability can be found above. Combat
Doctrines is a new ability exclusive to Codex: Space Marines – units in
Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Deathwatch Detachments
(or in Detachments of any of their successor Chapters) cannot currently
make use of this ability.
p5freak wrote: If i include FW units in my codex SM army i cant use combat doctrines, because FW dont get it ?
Designer’s Note: The Bolter Discipline ability is described in a previous
update, and the Shock Assault ability can be found above. Combat
Doctrines is a new ability exclusive to Codex: Space Marines – units in
Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Deathwatch Detachments
(or in Detachments of any of their successor Chapters) cannot currently
make use of this ability.
No it's saying if you make an all FW army of those named chapters even then you dont get the bonus, not that FW units dont get angles of death.
It is them trying to fix the mess they have made because they haven't controlled thier use of keywords strictly enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/03 09:24:25
How about that, looks like the difference between "Captain in Gravis Armour" and "Master in Gravis Armour" is important. Also important is the difference between "Aggressor Squad" and "Aggressors". So, can we please have the people who constantly talk about "GW don't errata things only neckbeard WAAC players care about" please drop that tired and provably false line of reasoning?
How can you turn GW actually listening to you and cleaning up their wording into a bad thing?!
Seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThatMG wrote: 1-What are you talking about OG master of snares is a 4+ to instant kill any aircraft regardless of stats if you are within 1" of them. The rules are changed to not effect units with min movement thus proving that the previous RAW interpretation to be the correct one.
Fun fact - ork grabbin' klaws used to do exactly that in 7th edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/03 11:27:57
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
They have updated the FAQ again within the last day or so (i.e. the second update this week!). The Chaplain on Bike now gets an extra litany after all.
means Exempt.
