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.

This FAQ does seem to be a targeted application of nerf. I have a feeling that more will need to be done in the coming weeks/months, but at least the Malceptor has had some reigning in along with the shooty Hive Tyrant.

Its one thing when a top player pilots a list to a GT win - no need to panic with the nerf bat. When the list is dominating multiple events then something needs to be done. The cycle, though, is starting to get a little tiring. It would cost money to be done correctly, but they should bring some of the top players into the design tent to stress-test the Codexes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Replace bonesword with heavy venom cannon. Replace heavy venom cannon with shardgullet. Replace monstrous scything talons with heavy venom cannon. I dont have more than 1 heavy venom cannon, because shardgullet is a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nomeny wrote:
Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. If you really want two HVC 3D print it, or buy it from a bits dealer.

You muster armies, THEN select a Warlord, and having a HIVE TENDRIL Warlord is what allows picking relics from the codex, so you can't go back and change your mustered army.

There is no fixed sequence how you build your army. What does muster armies even mean exactly ? Can you provide a rules quote ? All it says that you muster an army from the miniatures from your collection. It says nothing about when you pick equipment, wargear, weapons.

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


While psychic actions are not in and of themselves psychic powers, they function in much the same way. For all intents and purposes, when a unit attempts a psychic action, this is treated the same as if they were attempting to manifest a psychic power, and as such triggers any rules that interact with manifesting a psychic power (e.g. rules that enable you to deny a psychic power can also be used to deny a psychic action). Note that a PSYKER can still only attempt to perform one psychic action in their Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest any other psychic powers.

You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.

I'm not entirely sure what people were doing. I read lots on the situation, but I figured there was some wargear/trait letting them work around restrictions as I haven't gone through the codex or played them yet.

If they're doing a psychic action they shouldn't be doing any other casting unless I've missed something crucial.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


While psychic actions are not in and of themselves psychic powers, they function in much the same way. For all intents and purposes, when a unit attempts a psychic action, this is treated the same as if they were attempting to manifest a psychic power, and as such triggers any rules that interact with manifesting a psychic power (e.g. rules that enable you to deny a psychic power can also be used to deny a psychic action). Note that a PSYKER can still only attempt to perform one psychic action in their Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest any other psychic powers.

You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.

I'm not entirely sure what people were doing. I read lots on the situation, but I figured there was some wargear/trait letting them work around restrictions as I haven't gone through the codex or played them yet.

If they're doing a psychic action they shouldn't be doing any other casting unless I've missed something crucial.

The Maleceptor Synaptic Imperative allows Psyker Units to perform psychic actions without sacrificing manifest attempts.

Ah ha. Ok - that makes more sense. Thanks.

From what everyone's saying, it seems that this is a specific change for Tyranids - Tyranid psychic actions are psychic powers - whereas that's not the case for everyone else.

And yes D, I know you quoted the rulebook, but the rulebook doesn't say psychic action = psychic power. If it did, there wouldn't be this issue.

Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.

Confirmation bias? I don't know what you're blathering about.

And it's all well and good to blame a lack of play-testing, but the people writing the rules should know better. They've been at this for long enough.

Errors sliping is something that happens, but it should be an exeption and not the norm. A codex shouldn't require a rewrite 1 day after it is out.

Typical that the edition that kills the game for me is the same edition that Sisters got new models AND tyranids get a good codex finally.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.

It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.

 p5freak wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.

It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.

*sigh*

So following your logic here a Tank Commander can now have a battle cannon AND hammer of sunderance. Neat.

 p5freak wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.

It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.

"I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.

They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.

At a certain point it kind of feels like this is less total ineptitude and more "generate controversy and stir up the community" with every release? If the rules were well balanced and worked fine out of the box there would probably be a tiny fraction of that - maybe they feel the stir profits them overall?

Im sure some will quit in frustration with the crazy rules churn and burn but how many others see all the forum discussions, youtube "analysis" of new codexes and such and go what's all this about and maybe 40K now gets on their radar when it wasn't before?

Pancakey wrote:

Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.

They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.

It isn't. When balance improves, sales improve. People forget that it takes 10 bandwagon players buying the new cheese to make up for 1 player who quits because of it. Further, when those things rotate out of effectiveness they don't get thrown away; they are sold off to other players who are buying them in lieu of buying new product from GW. The long term cost far outweighs the short term gain.

This is of course on top of the mountain of evidence that GW does not do this maliciously and is in fact just really bad at it. At most, they may intentionally avoid trying to do better.

 petrov27 wrote:
At a certain point it kind of feels like this is less total ineptitude and more "generate controversy and stir up the community" with every release? If the rules were well balanced and worked fine out of the box there would probably be a tiny fraction of that - maybe they feel the stir profits them overall?

Im sure some will quit in frustration with the crazy rules churn and burn but how many others see all the forum discussions, youtube "analysis" of new codexes and such and go what's all this about and maybe 40K now gets on their radar when it wasn't before?

No this is just what you get when your writers half arse the product.
And that is just a consequence of badly payed designer position.
You put crap in, you get crap out.

My friend is at Motor City Mayhem, and there is an Ork player there that is apparently wrecking Tyranids pretty handily. My friend (playing nids) went 2-0 through the first 2 rounds, then lost to said Ork player in the third round. In the 4th round said Ork player then went on to beat another nids player 100-34.

List is apparently:

Ghazz
Pain Boy
Weird Boy
30 Beast Snagga Boys
18 Squighog Boys
2 Planes (not sure which type)

chaos0xomega wrote:
2 Planes (not sure which type)

Wazboms I'd bet. Also, MCM is not using the FAQ.

Looks like he lost to nids in R5, sadly.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.

They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.

It isn't. When balance improves, sales improve. People forget that it takes 10 bandwagon players buying the new cheese to make up for 1 player who quits because of it. Further, when those things rotate out of effectiveness they don't get thrown away; they are sold off to other players who are buying them in lieu of buying new product from GW. The long term cost far outweighs the short term gain.

This is of course on top of the mountain of evidence that GW does not do this maliciously and is in fact just really bad at it. At most, they may intentionally avoid trying to do better.

Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?

Pancakey wrote:
Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?

Why would GW make Flyrants REALLY good when they were REALLY good early in 8th and are the literal basis for the rule of 3? People are going to have a surplus of them kicking around. It serves GW in no to have made them awesome again.

A book where everything is useful can sell every model. GW just needs to prompt people to buy, which is does with new codexes and campaigns.

And the majority of players aren't going to switch codex to codex. That's for the tippy top and they have access to a deep pool of models, second hand, borrowing, and 3d printing. I wouldn't be surprised that the more chaotic GW becomes the more prevalent printing will become.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?

Why would GW make Flyrants REALLY good when they were REALLY good early in 8th and are the literal basis for the rule of 3? People are going to have a surplus of them kicking around. It serves GW in no to have made them awesome again.

But that doesn't count because GW have loads of leftover Flyrant stock [citation needed], Lokhust Destroyers got nerfed because GW were all out of stock [citation needed], Flayed Ones model update resulted in GW buffing them because they produced a lot of them [citation needed] GW released Ophydian Destroyers with bad rules because they only had a partial STC scan so they couldn't produce big stonks for them [citation needed]. See how it all makes sense /sarcasm.

I think it stretches belief that GW printed loads of Maleceptors 8~ years back, and 3 editions later have made them OP for a handful of weeks in order to clear out the stock.

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.

They do playtesting.

But it requires GW to listen to the feedback that they get, which by all accounts they don't do.

 p5freak wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

I think you need to explain whether or not is is legal for a tank commander to have a battle cannon and relic battle cannon. Then we can go from there.

Alternately, this is exactly what the YMDC subforum is for, and it go be buried there.

yeah, the argument that you can loophole yourself into a second HVC through a relic is quite frankly, an embarrassingly bad hot take. Take it to YMDC and see how many people actually agree with you.

 p5freak wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.

It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.

Rapid Fire Battle Cannon+Thunder of Voltoris! Woo!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

Here's another fun one: Core rules state that the rules for mustering an army come from the mission. (subsection 1 under 'Missions")

However, none of the Grand Tournament missions have any rules for mustering an army. This can be seen by looking at any of the Grand Tournament missions. (the grand tournament pack has some rules about mustering an army but they are not part of the mission and only refer to 'games' which are not 'missions' so RAW they're irrelevant and ignored)

Therefore you cannot muster an army for any Grand Tournament mission. Therefore you cannot muster a Shardgullet+HVC Hive Tyrant.

Solved it. I have proved conclusively with citations that no one is allowed to play 40k.

 p5freak wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

I already have cited the relevant part. You muster your army (pick units, detachments, wargear options, etc) and then, once you've done that, you select your warlord. You only gain relic choices upon selecting a warlord, which you pick "once you've mustered your army" (per core rules).

So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

 p5freak wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.

There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.

There's no official order, but in order to put a relic on someone they must first have a weapon that the relic can replace, so clearly picking weapons happens before relics.