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.

So the FAQ states that the beta smite is through, but psykers with "Brotherhood of sorcerers" don't have to take the penalty.

That's all nice and good for Rubrics, except "Brotherhood of Sorcerers" does not do what GW thinks it does any more. It's not about the Rubric units and their nerfed smite.That was 7th edition. Brotherhood of Sorcerers now is the Thousand Sons Legion trait that gives +6" to the ranges of all spells.

So, every single character in the Thousand Sons codex has the Brotherhood of Sorcerers rule. Even Ahriman and Daemon Princes. Even Magnus. So, because GW can't distinguish between editions, everyone in the TS book can cast smite on a 5. Post FAQ.

Perhaps they could release a FAQ-FAQ adding the line "except for Characters" to that rule

Why would they exclude characters? Isn’t it the intent that all TS and all GK can cast Smite at 5+ that doesn’t increase each casting?

 KiloFiX wrote:
Why would they exclude characters? Isn’t it the intent that all TS and all GK can cast Smite at 5+ that doesn’t increase each casting?

For baby smites? Sure. For actual smites it can become an issue.

And here I was about to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I mean I guess it makes sense. They aren't painted Silver thus they don't need to be nerfed!

"Brotherhood of psykers" in 7th edition was the description of how rubric marines + aspiring sorcerers worked. So only the Rubric Marines (and the Scarab Occults) had it. Incidentally the two units that now have baby smite.

Now I would not bet my firstborn on it, but I would bet my second that they did not even glance into the codex and see whether or not the rule has changed, as in it has gotten a completely new explanation that is now a blanket rule.

So the same can be said for Grey Knights then?

I am not sure if this is "as intended, your psychic reliant army got a buff" or "we forgot to read our own rules"

I thought this was clear, it also couples up with the charictor targeting rules to make untargetable smite spam.
An avarage move of 15inch charictors all with smite and more motral wound powers with 24 inch range, been there and thats not a fun game.

This looks like an intentional balance change. Not much to say rules wise.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
This looks like an intentional balance change. Not much to say rules wise.

So they nerf smite spam because it's too strong, yet they allow the army with the strongest psykers to use it at will? This is kinda much, even for me, and I'm a TS player for Tzeentch's sake.

Interestingly enough though, you only get this bonus if you build an actual Thousand Sons detachment. So if you take Ahriman as a CSM character, he doesn't get the thing.

But man, Ahriman with +1 and 3 damage spells, Magnus with +2 and super smite, Terminator sorcerer with familiar, exalted sorcerer warlord with +1 to cast trait... There is going to be so much pain. You just forget everything about the baby smite, you give all your buff spells to the unit champions and use the real characters to go home with spreading MW all over the place.

I really think an HQ heavy Thousand Sons army will be a terrifying thing now.

...heres hoping

Confimed?

Err, how?

1) They are talking about Grey Knights, not Thousand Sons. Grey Knights all have a toned down Smite. Magnus etc do not.

2) Facebook is not a rulebook or errata. Literally meaningless especially since the Facebook team is wrong 90% of the time and they even say themselves they don't answer rules questions.

Please tell me I'm not tge only one wondering how they took some of what they say from the RAW FAQ?
It sounds like they confirm what I think RAI are ment to be, but how do GW not get thats not what the wrote in the FAQ?

Ice_can wrote:
Please tell me I'm not tge only one wondering how they took some of what they say from the RAW FAQ?
It sounds like they confirm what I think RAI are ment to be, but how do GW not get thats not what the wrote in the FAQ?

" we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Please tell me I'm not tge only one wondering how they took some of what they say from the RAW FAQ?
It sounds like they confirm what I think RAI are ment to be, but how do GW not get thats not what the wrote in the FAQ?

" we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So why isn't that in the "big" FAQ?

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Please tell me I'm not tge only one wondering how they took some of what they say from the RAW FAQ?
It sounds like they confirm what I think RAI are ment to be, but how do GW not get thats not what the wrote in the FAQ?

" we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

How is it not obvious you can't use shorthand when writing rules.
Rules need to be clear, consise and unambiguous.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Err, how?

1) They are talking about Grey Knights, not Thousand Sons. Grey Knights all have a toned down Smite. Magnus etc do not.

Don't GK characters have proper smite???

 BaconCatBug wrote:

2) Facebook is not a rulebook or errata. Literally meaningless especially since the Facebook team is wrong 90% of the time and they even say themselves they don't answer rules questions.

Not even responding to that. Flamebait.

Ice_can wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Please tell me I'm not tge only one wondering how they took some of what they say from the RAW FAQ?
It sounds like they confirm what I think RAI are ment to be, but how do GW not get thats not what the wrote in the FAQ?

" we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

How is it not obvious you can't use shorthand when writing rules.
Rules need to be clear, consise and unambiguous.

True fact

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Err, how?

1) They are talking about Grey Knights, not Thousand Sons. Grey Knights all have a toned down Smite. Magnus etc do not.

Don't GK characters have proper smite???

 BaconCatBug wrote:

2) Facebook is not a rulebook or errata. Literally meaningless especially since the Facebook team is wrong 90% of the time and they even say themselves they don't answer rules questions.

Not even responding to that. Flamebait.

GK's have a special rule "Rites of Banishment" which limits their smite. Characters have this rule aswell, so yes they have baby smite. Unlike TS.

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Err, how?

1) They are talking about Grey Knights, not Thousand Sons. Grey Knights all have a toned down Smite. Magnus etc do not.

Don't GK characters have proper smite???

Only 2 of them, both are named characters I believe. Castellan Crowe and another one. Can not remember which other one.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Err, how?

1) They are talking about Grey Knights, not Thousand Sons. Grey Knights all have a toned down Smite. Magnus etc do not.

Don't GK characters have proper smite???

Only 2 of them, both are named characters I believe. Castellan Crowe and another one. Can not remember which other one.

Nope! Crowe has a version of the Purifier smite. Stern's got a special baby-smite too, but baby-smite it remains.

Some people take an Index Librarian because that one had the proper Smite, but no Codex option has it.

Yea those 2 do not have rights of banishment, but they have their own weird version of Smite.

Just saw that they did not have rights of banishment and did not read the other rules.

Yeah, but all GK have 3 DMG flat against Demons. So maybe its Not even but you have an Advantage Here. I Love to have such small differences between armies.

elodingens wrote:
Yeah, but all GK have 3 DMG flat against Demons. So maybe its Not even but you have an Advantage Here. I Love to have such small differences between armies.

And I find that awful-if GK are properly balanced against most things, they're too good against Daemons. if they're balanced against Daemons, they're not against everyone else.

 JNAProductions wrote:

elodingens wrote:
Yeah, but all GK have 3 DMG flat against Demons. So maybe its Not even but you have an Advantage Here. I Love to have such small differences between armies.

And I find that awful-if GK are properly balanced against most things, they're too good against Daemons. if they're balanced against Daemons, they're not against everyone else.

Keep in mind that it also comes at the price that we can never D6 Smite on an 11+. Even against Daemons. That brings our average damage way down.

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

elodingens wrote:
Yeah, but all GK have 3 DMG flat against Demons. So maybe its Not even but you have an Advantage Here. I Love to have such small differences between armies.

And I find that awful-if GK are properly balanced against most things, they're too good against Daemons. if they're balanced against Daemons, they're not against everyone else.

Keep in mind that it also comes at the price that we can never D6 Smite on an 11+. Even against Daemons. That brings our average damage way down.

No. No it doesn't.

There is a 1/12 chance of getting an 11+... Wait, GK have +1 to cast rolls.

There is a 1/6 chance of rolling an 11+ on 2d6+1, and a 3/4 chance of rolling a 5-10 on 2d6+1.

Average damage is 3.5*1/6+2*3/4=.58+1.5=2.08 damage on average, if they had full smite.

Or, in other words, 3 guaranteed mortal wounds with a 11/12 chance is far better than a slim chance at d6.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

elodingens wrote:
Yeah, but all GK have 3 DMG flat against Demons. So maybe its Not even but you have an Advantage Here. I Love to have such small differences between armies.

And I find that awful-if GK are properly balanced against most things, they're too good against Daemons. if they're balanced against Daemons, they're not against everyone else.

Keep in mind that it also comes at the price that we can never D6 Smite on an 11+. Even against Daemons. That brings our average damage way down.

No. No it doesn't.

There is a 1/12 chance of getting an 11+... Wait, GK have +1 to cast rolls.

There is a 1/6 chance of rolling an 11+ on 2d6+1, and a 3/4 chance of rolling a 5-10 on 2d6+1.

Average damage is 3.5*1/6+2*3/4=.58+1.5=2.08 damage on average, if they had full smite.

Or, in other words, 3 guaranteed mortal wounds with a 11/12 chance is far better than a slim chance at d6.

You misunderstand. I meant our combined average against Daemon and non-Daemon targets when compared to the average of normal Psykers against all targets.

Oh. Well yeah, duh.

GK are not in a good place-but making them better against ONE FACTION does not help them.