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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That Inexorable Advance FAQ doesn't make sense. It contradicts the part where IA also allows you to ignore penalties to Advance and Charge rolls.

So does IA work against penalties to Advance and Charge or not?

Yes, it does. It just happens to be that Difficult Terrain isn't a penalty to Advance or Charge. It is essentially a charge against your movement. I don't know if anything else that impacts Move, Advance, or Charge isn't a modifier.

How is Difficult Ground not a modifier?

[...] any of its models wish to move over any part of this terrain feature, subtract 2" from the maximum distance that every model in that unit can move (to a minimum of 0).

Compare that to the Custode's Tagglefoot Grenade stratagem:

[...] Your opponent must reduce that unit’s Movement characteristic or charge distance by the result until the end of the phase.

If GW's logic is that Difficult Ground doesn't modify the Movement characteristic, then wouldn't the precedent be that any rule that only modifies your Advance or Charge distance not ignorable?
If it's because Difficult doesn't modify the Advance or Charge rolls specifically but just the maximum movement of those moves, then wouldn't there be precedent for Death Guard units to not be able to ignore the penalty from Tanglefoot Grenades when charging? It doesn't specifiy "Charge roll" anywhere.

It just doesn't make sense. If they don't want IA to ignore Difficult Ground then fine, all the power to them. It should be an errata though, and not an FAQ that ignores the Advancing and Charging parts of both rules and basically implies that any rule that doesn't modify the Move characteristic can't be ignored.

Inexorable Advance is very clear:
Anything that changes your Movement Characteristic, Advance rolls, or charge rolls are ignored. Difficult Ground does not change any of these. It just reduces the maximum distance you can move. It doesn't happen before you move or when you roll the dice, only once a model in the unit enters the terrain piece.

It feels very pedantic and counterintuitive though. I think the correct move would have been to eratta it such that it works how players will assume it does (and probably will still assume it does unless they are very diligent with their rules).

That is one of the key GW problems. Such rapid generational rules design where you can wait near a whole edition for a new book, then get it to enjoy it for a couple months before your book is made pointless feeling once more.

They really need the books out much much quicker and then stretch model releases out over the time before the edition is done.

I think the opposite; slow down, take some more time to iron out the kinks. Cross reference with other parts of development to make sure they are on the same page.

Or just adopt whatever they do for AoS. It has it's flaws but 40k codex writing just seems a bit... clusterfethy by comparison.

I can see that to, but that would mean they'd need to slow down in edition roll out to do all this fine tuning work. Which I'd be fine with as well.

I think a slower edition churn with proper work done so all the books will feel better, can come out closer to one another, is a win for game balance and feel of the over all system. That however I don't think we will ever see. Closest we came was the index roll out in the start of 8th.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It feels very pedantic and counterintuitive though.

That's what litterally rules end up being. That's why it's not a perfect solution as well.

Guess they didn't change that because they wanted the rule to protect Death Guard from enemy special rules / psychic powers / strategems hindering their move, but not terrain (because they still wanted it to matter for the children of Mortarion as well).

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can see that to, but that would mean they'd need to slow down in edition roll out to do all this fine tuning work. Which I'd be fine with as well.

I think a slower edition churn with proper work done so all the books will feel better, can come out closer to one another, is a win for game balance and feel of the over all system. That however I don't think we will ever see. Closest we came was the index roll out in the start of 8th.

Supposedly the 9th ed books were written at the same time. Not officially from GW, but that was the subtex I've picked up from playtesters. Could be wrong though!

We will see I suppose and if the edition churn stays the same it'll end up meaning little to nothing as yet again by the time they all come out, it'll mean little to those on the end of the cycle.

I guess the Dark Eldar book will be the canary in the coal mine with if that is the case.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the opposite; slow down, take some more time to iron out the kinks. Cross reference with other parts of development to make sure they are on the same page

this won't work either
problem is that they not make rules within the game system but each codex within its own bubble

best case would be to write all the Codex rules the same time, by the same team so that those are coherent and based on the same design ideas

the longer the time between the Codex is the more time they might have to get things done, but also more time to get new ideas and change the design (or base the rules on the test-design for the next edition they are working on)

I don't get it, why is this a bad trait? This seems like a perfectly reasonable trait comparing it to other similar traits that exist. The movement thing is absolutely the weakest part of it, the main benefit obviously being ignoring modifiers to charge rolls which do occasionally crop up and do always suck ass, but move and shoot bolters at bolter discipline and heavy on infantry and vehicles fire at full in melee is a perfectly normal, average trait.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They didn't fix the pathetic Plague Marine and Blightlord entries. Amazing job, GW.

Funny that, Deathwatch players plainly told you this will happen from the very point idiotic loadout restrictions debiuted in our 7th edition book. Had there been immediate protest/pushback from all the other 40K players, GW would have backtracked and binned that nonsense. But somehow, all the other SM/CSM players just mostly laughed at DW plight for 4 progressively worse and worse books, until the ship long sailed and GW started to roll the exact same changes in other books too

So, did you protest the DW change? Because if not, let me play you the world's smallest sad song violin

 Irbis wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They didn't fix the pathetic Plague Marine and Blightlord entries. Amazing job, GW.

Funny that, Deathwatch players plainly told you this will happen from the very point idiotic loadout restrictions debiuted in our 7th edition book. Had there been immediate protest/pushback from all the other 40K players, GW would have backtracked and binned that nonsense. But somehow, all the other SM/CSM players just mostly laughed at DW plight for 4 progressively worse and worse books, until the ship long sailed and GW started to roll the exact same changes in other books too

So, did you protest the DW change? Because if not, let me play you the world's smallest sad song violin

Uh yeah I've been annoyed with how Deathwatch been handled for a while.

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't get it, why is this a bad trait? This seems like a perfectly reasonable trait comparing it to other similar traits that exist. The movement thing is absolutely the weakest part of it, the main benefit obviously being ignoring modifiers to charge rolls which do occasionally crop up and do always suck ass, but move and shoot bolters at bolter discipline and heavy on infantry and vehicles fire at full in melee is a perfectly normal, average trait.

They sound good on paper but in reality aren't.

For example the vehicles part of the rule. It only affects Helbrutes, Landraiders, Preds and Rhinos.
Rhinos, it's pointless, LRs and Preds are not taken in DG armies.
So it is only useful for a single model in the codex. And only if they are in a protracted combat.
Buff for Heavies on infantry.... They don't exist except for Reaper Autocannon which is a terrible weapon anyway and is never taken.
The bolters part. DG are expensive models. There aren't that many bolters. If lucky the rule adds a few more wounds over the course of a game.
If the inexorable advance rule was on a normal Marine army it would be amazing, but for DG the buffs are on such a limited number of models, or on weapons that are so lackluster it is barely worth it.

Plenty of other stuff in the codex is great, I am not complaining, but inexorable advance when compared to other 9th ed 'Chapter tactics' is extremely weak

Yeah, what makes Death Guard great is everything else, their "subfaction trait" is... you can play all your games without it and it would not make a difference.

 Irbis wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They didn't fix the pathetic Plague Marine and Blightlord entries. Amazing job, GW.

Funny that, Deathwatch players plainly told you this will happen from the very point idiotic loadout restrictions debiuted in our 7th edition book. Had there been immediate protest/pushback from all the other 40K players, GW would have backtracked and binned that nonsense. But somehow, all the other SM/CSM players just mostly laughed at DW plight for 4 progressively worse and worse books, until the ship long sailed and GW started to roll the exact same changes in other books too

So, did you protest the DW change? Because if not, let me play you the world's smallest sad song violin

Deathwatch have always been unique, in more ways than just that. And we have gotten numerous codex between 7th and now that did not do what has been done to PM and blightlords, reinforcing the notion that it was just deathwatch which were supposed to be that way. Your snark is misplaced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't get it, why is this a bad trait? This seems like a perfectly reasonable trait comparing it to other similar traits that exist. The movement thing is absolutely the weakest part of it, the main benefit obviously being ignoring modifiers to charge rolls which do occasionally crop up and do always suck ass, but move and shoot bolters at bolter discipline and heavy on infantry and vehicles fire at full in melee is a perfectly normal, average trait.

It's not the effectiveness, it's how counterintuitive and even nonsensical the ruling is. It makes the game harder to play, for no benefit.

arcanum wrote:

Voss wrote:
GW has made it really clear that temporary problems resulting from un-updated 8th edition books aren't a priority and not their problem. 9th edition's teething problems won't be solved until most of the armies are rewritten.

And given the 3 year cycle about 6 months before 10th edition comes out.

Yep! I can wait 3 years, hoping that either they fix PM/Blights or roll that nonsense out to everything...
Then will be a question if I bother to update build anything or scrap it and do whatever with such nice minis.