Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[WH40K] The FAQ has arrived

1959799100101

Posts

  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks The Myth, the Legend, the Bowman, the Shambler FuckerRegistered User regular
    I'm a little salty because I use Iron Hands rules, like Terminators, and have some LOTD models, so the stuff about no more stacking FNP type rolls, deep strike limitations, and GW's stubborn refusal to make LOTD easily usable in a Space Marine army really sucks.

    I wish they'd just have a separate set of Tournament only rules. Yeah, sure, that is what Matched Play was supposed to be, but people who play in their garages or at game stores still want a structured, balanced set of rules but without all of the changes that have to be made to mitigate waac tournament players. Power Level was a great idea in theory, but is terrible and wildly unbalanced in practice. Open Play is great if you literally just want to put some models on a table and throw some dice (or teach someone how to play 40K), but there needs to be some level of play for people who want "friendly competitive" play (but not "cutthroat competitive" play). When you make numerous changes to desperately try and shore up exploits in your cutthroat competitive games that end up borking a ton of things for people who are playing friendly competitive games it really sucks. I could go more in depth, but the internet in general is probably whining enough about these changes, so I'll let it be.

    The LOTD/Assassin/Null Maiden special Vanguard detachments are ripe for exploitation due to the way the rule is written, so I expect GW will have to FAQ their FAQ relatively soon.

    The only portion of the fact that I am 100% unabashedly happy to see is that the Chinork is now open topped, which makes sense considering it looks like this.

    gRAhjXV.gif
    Khraul
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    The soup's off the menu makes me sad because of the Ynnari
    On one hand this means it's not a pamphlet on the other it means something else.....

  • BurnageBurnage irregular Registered User regular
    The LOTD/Assassin/Null Maiden special Vanguard detachments are ripe for exploitation due to the way the rule is written, so I expect GW will have to FAQ their FAQ relatively soon.

    I'm curious, what do you think is exploitable about the rule?

  • StragintStragint Do Not Gift Always DeclinesRegistered User regular
    I like the idea of that two battalion and one outrider detachment list but it feels so much like old necrons. I wish I had more options physically available. I still need to put together my deathmarks and my second triarch but I don't have a lot of the new stuff. No barges, arks, tesseract, obelisks, or tomb blades. I need to work on a list that can fit my two monoliths or at least one and also fit my nightbringer.

    Quick question for the tesseract and obelisk, is there a way to make it so I can switch between the two? Paying the price for it and only having access to one of them is pretty awful.

    PSN: Reaper_Stragint, Steam: DoublePitstoChesty
    What is the point of being alive if you don't at least try to do something remarkable? ~ Mario Novak

    I never fear death or dyin', I only fear never trying.
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Man, I'm really bummed out about the warptime nerf.

    My favourite unit/tactic to use was warptalons + sorcerer deep strike. That doesn't seem viable now.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks The Myth, the Legend, the Bowman, the Shambler FuckerRegistered User regular
    Burnage wrote: »
    The LOTD/Assassin/Null Maiden special Vanguard detachments are ripe for exploitation due to the way the rule is written, so I expect GW will have to FAQ their FAQ relatively soon.

    I'm curious, what do you think is exploitable about the rule?

    It doesn't have any limitations on what other units can be placed in the detachment. Obviously this will change if Battle Brothers becomes an actual rule, but RAW right now you could take a Vanguard Detachment with any Imperial units you want with no HQ and it will be battle forged as long as you have one unit of Damned Legionnaires included in it. One minimum wargear five man squad of LOTD plus two 8pt Inquisitional Acolytes is three Elites, so you can bring any other non-HQ Imperial model (or models) that would normally fit in a Vanguard but wouldn't fit elsewhere in your army and you wouldn't have to take the command point hit for an Auxiliary Support detachment. A Space Marine player could spend 141 points as a tax and then be able to bring two Basilisks, as an example. It might be more cost effective to just use an IG HQ and three Elites to do this, but someone will find a way to exploit it with one of the many Imperial armies (or the two other armies who now have this rule) to get some insane benefit because that is how people operate.

    This obviously isn't GW's intention, but wording is everything when you're dealing with a hobby that has as many That Guys as ours does.

    gRAhjXV.gif
  • BurnageBurnage irregular Registered User regular
    It's upsetting a lot of players a lot but I absolutely love the change to deep striking. It means movement actually matters again, and that you can't expect absolutely every opponent to be able to charge you in the first turn.

    valhalla130
  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    Also in favour of the change to deep striking. Anything that hurts that alpha strike is good for fun games.

    Also glad GW is giving spam lists a bit of a kicking - always been a pet peeve of mine.

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    So I was looking through various armies' Relics because the extra CP let's you be a little more generous with regards to handing them out including some toys for the HQs.

    Relics (and Warlord traits) that offer a chance to give extra whenever stratagems used or cp expended now have additional value because of the extra cp floating around.

    This was a really good change, I can't wait to play! :D

    The CP buf was supposed to equalize the non-CP generation armies verse the CP engines like Guard. But really just gave Guard more CP for the same minimal investment.

    03x29di.png
    Lanlaorn
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »

    The CP buf was supposed to equalize the non-CP generation armies verse the CP engines like Guard. But really just gave Guard more CP for the same minimal investment.
    Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me.

    The only thing I can figure is that maybe they figure that paired with the detachment limits that, yeah, Guard would have more CP, but not that much more + we give everyone more CPs to have some fun with.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • BadablackBadablack Registered User regular
    Eh, Guard already had nearly unlimited CP anyway. Infinity+1 isn’t going to hurt too much.

    FC: 1435-5383-0883
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    I hosted two friends in a 1000 point game last week. Craftworld Eldar versus Guard / Blood Angels list. The game was for the Guard player, primarily, as he is just getting into them and wanted to learn them. It was 1000 points, so naturally the Guard player had a Brigade (it wasn't a good list and he lost).

    He had the relic for CP and Grand Strategist. He failed every roll except one for additional CP. It was hysterical.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
    Khraul
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Badablack wrote: »
    Eh, Guard already had nearly unlimited CP anyway. Infinity+1 isn’t going to hurt too much.

    This is quiet literally GW's logic. Guard already have 1 billion cp that regenerate and farm off the opponent so why not give everyone more CP because who cares if guard gets more. With the soup nerf though this might actually be okay. But again outside Celestine I am not sure what soup detachments guard would take anyway so still bringing a cheap +5 cp guard detachment with your marine army is still easy and worth it. Even more so now.

    03x29di.png
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Not being able to take more than three warlocks might give the warlock conclave a reason to exist. They still feel too expensive compared to each other and to the spirit seer, who is only 10 points more than a warlock. destructor also seems to be the worst of two worlds with the rules for smite.

  • BurnageBurnage irregular Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Not being able to take more than three warlocks might give the warlock conclave a reason to exist. They still feel too expensive compared to each other and to the spirit seer, who is only 10 points more than a warlock. destructor also seems to be the worst of two worlds with the rules for smite.

    I'm really curious about why Warlocks got hit quite so hard in the FAQ. They were good, but "increase the cost by 25 points" good? It's also bizarre that you can still take a Warlock on a jetbike for just 15 more points!

  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    Good question. Only thing I can think of is that you could have psyker coverage all over the map incredibly easy due to them, but I dunno.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • TheColonelTheColonel ChicagolandRegistered User regular
    I see a lot of complaining that the deep strike changes have killed close combat armies while still giving gun lines the ability to shoot you off the table in turn one. What tables are these people playing on? Who has half or more of their army completely out in the open in both LoS and in range on turn one? How little terrain are they using and then being upset when they're being shot?

    Getting the first turn is absolutely still an advantage, don't get me wrong. But the circumstances that are being described are just so outlandish.

    NorgothBurnagevalhalla130
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    TheColonel wrote: »
    I see a lot of complaining that the deep strike changes have killed close combat armies while still giving gun lines the ability to shoot you off the table in turn one. What tables are these people playing on? Who has half or more of their army completely out in the open in both LoS and in range on turn one? How little terrain are they using and then being upset when they're being shot?

    Getting the first turn is absolutely still an advantage, don't get me wrong. But the circumstances that are being described are just so outlandish.

    US verse British and people who own terrain verse those at stores with limited terrain.

    I know I try to do a ton of LoS terrain but not everyone does or can. Most tournaments do. But a lot of folks who play have huge open swaths with a few los blocking ruins they scavenged at the store.

    And really the deepstrike nerf shouldn't hurt these folks much as if you were charging first turn you would be hitting a screen 90% of the time anyway. This way you have a turn of screen killing before you go in.

    I have been warming to the change the more I think about it.

    03x29di.png
    TheColonel
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    It makes me think Games Workshop should cheapen their terrain pieces / have them come pre-painted / something to encourage the acquisition of it. It'd be healthy for the game.

    I hit up Gamemat EU and picked up their desert stuff and it's awesome, but it was super expensive / even then the rocks / house / tower don't block that much in terms of LOS....or maybe my placing sucks :).

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
    TheColonelKhraul
  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    Cover needs to be more potent, I think. As it is, it's too hard to get. I'd like to go back to the old 50% obscured rule, rather than saying you must actually be in the terrain piece.

    (actually, I'd like to try -2 to armour if you're in hard (i.e. actually blocking the shot. A wall, or similar) cover or -1 if you're in soft (obscuring - foliage, smoke, intervening pieces you're not actually in) cover.)

    TheColonelKhraul
  • BurnageBurnage irregular Registered User regular
    Cover's incredibly easy to get for infantry on the right board. I've played and watched a few games where about 75% of the map provided cover; in Marine vs Marine games, nothing fucking dies.

  • LeztaLezta Registered User regular
    Burnage wrote: »
    Cover's incredibly easy to get for infantry on the right board. I've played and watched a few games where about 75% of the map provided cover; in Marine vs Marine games, nothing fucking dies.

    Sure. But the standard board traditionally had 25% of the board covered in terrain or thereabouts. I'm guessing most people are still playing with that. (or less!)

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    I like the simple cover rules. It makes everyone's life easier when playing.

    Its in cover, it gets +1 to its save.

    I mean a lot of my fire ignores cover anyway because it is sound but for when it doesn't it is easy.

    And actually getting standard cover is the easy bit and even most games should have that. LoS blocking cover pieces are harder.

    03x29di.png
  • BurnageBurnage irregular Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote: »
    Burnage wrote: »
    Cover's incredibly easy to get for infantry on the right board. I've played and watched a few games where about 75% of the map provided cover; in Marine vs Marine games, nothing fucking dies.

    Sure. But the standard board traditionally had 25% of the board covered in terrain or thereabouts. I'm guessing most people are still playing with that. (or less!)

    Yeah, this is definitely the issue. If you have a board and terrain that's designed specifically with 8th edition in mind, the system works pretty well for the most part. If you don't then you've got the equivalent of two armies facing each other across an empty plain and that's no fun for anyone.

  • KhraulKhraul Registered User regular
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    It makes me think Games Workshop should cheapen their terrain pieces / have them come pre-painted / something to encourage the acquisition of it. It'd be healthy for the game.

    I hit up Gamemat EU and picked up their desert stuff and it's awesome, but it was super expensive / even then the rocks / house / tower don't block that much in terms of LOS....or maybe my placing sucks :).

    Is there a source for inexpensive terrain out there?

    Bnet - Khraul#1822
    Gamertag - Khraul
    PSN - Razide6
  • KhraulKhraul Registered User regular
    RE: Cover, it does seem kinda weird that a lot of the cover at the shop I play at is only cover/blocks los if a unit is inside it. There are a couple of buildings that always catch me off guard because they look as if they should block LOS, but they have tiny window holes and that means you can shoot a lascannon though it at stuff behind the building.

    Bnet - Khraul#1822
    Gamertag - Khraul
    PSN - Razide6
  • McGibsMcGibs TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2018
    The ITC rule for counting level 1 windows/ruins as LoS blocking also goes a long way to actually being able to hide things and establish sight lanes. All the GW terrain is full of holes, and without any obscuring rules, doesnt really do a whole lot other than look pretty.

    McGibs on
    website_header.jpg
    InquisitorKhraulBurnageLezta
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Khraul wrote: »
    RE: Cover, it does seem kinda weird that a lot of the cover at the shop I play at is only cover/blocks los if a unit is inside it. There are a couple of buildings that always catch me off guard because they look as if they should block LOS, but they have tiny window holes and that means you can shoot a lascannon though it at stuff behind the building.

    This is why I like the ITC ruins terrain rule.

    The bottom floor of all ruins block LOS regardless of windows. Honestly it just makes the game play so much cleaner.

    KhraulH3Knuckles
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote: »
    Also in favour of the change to deep striking. Anything that hurts that alpha strike is good for fun games.

    Also glad GW is giving spam lists a bit of a kicking - always been a pet peeve of mine.

    One of the games I played this weekend had deepstriking terminators, librarian and assault marines coming down behind my opponent's army turn 1, and the terminators and after shooting, the terminators and librarian made their 9+ inch charges. It was pretty brutal. Making them wait to come down until turn 2 definitely would've changed things, probably for the more even.

  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    Well first, it's the type of cover. Most people/stores use various types of ruined buildings for their 40k stuff. The ruins by their nature are full of holes, do not block line of sight and you get shot off the board. I've read that many people adopt a house rule of "the first floor of ruins blocks LOS" and that should probably be made official rules. Even if there are LoS blocking pieces, they usually can't cover tall or wide vehicles entirely or from many angles.

    Next, many gunlines are either highly mobile or completely ignore LoS with their artillery. So even if there is LoS blocking terrain, it doesn't matter where I set up my units against the Imperial Guard, their Basilisks and Manticores will chew through my army irrespective of the table layout. Something with good movement like Eldar or Dark Eldar or ANY flyer will just move to where they can see me around the edge of the LoS blocking terrain. Other armies will just scout move or infiltrate units into LoS if they need to, which is allowed because...?

    Remember you only need to see one part of one model to be able to shoot the entire squad, it's pretty hard to deny LoS.

    Lastly, with regards to "you were only deep striking next to chaff anyway", for my Grey Knights that was my only choice. I needed to chew through those units with stormbolters and/or melee and a 5" movement speed isn't going to get me there. The phrasing of this rule also limits Interceptor Shunt moves and Gate of Infinity in turn 1 as well. They basically described my current army list, 3x Interceptors, a gating unit of Pallies and then characters and more pallies in deep strike - and told me to put it on the shelf because it's going from weak to unplayable.

    Meanwhile the flying hive tyrants they were so scared of? Those damn things can still just turn one fly up the board and alpha strike shoot whatever they want. The only reason you would deep strike something like that is to protect it in case you don't get first turn/get siezed on[.

    This is what annoys me the most, the greatest value in deep striking is that it protects your units from first turn shooting. The REAL alpha strike. You deep strike a GMDK because otherwise every lascannon on the board lights it up and it doesn't even get a turn. I'll probably only get to deep strike it like 12 inches out of my deployment zone but whatever, that's more than it's move value, that's something.

    So, while yes clearly I'm biased because this kills my personal favorite army, I also feel that this rule is objectively stupid. Just like the Anti-Soup rule doesn't actually do anything, people were already keeping the detachments separate to benefit from Chapter Tactic-equivalents and strategems. The only time you saw a mixed detachment was when you were taking a grab bag of Index options because there was no downside. Are we really concerned about the guy taking Inquisitors and Deathwatch with his Space Wolves right now?

    Badablack
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    Lezta wrote: »
    Also in favour of the change to deep striking. Anything that hurts that alpha strike is good for fun games.

    Also glad GW is giving spam lists a bit of a kicking - always been a pet peeve of mine.

    One of the games I played this weekend had deepstriking terminators, librarian and assault marines coming down behind my opponent's army turn 1, and the terminators and after shooting, the terminators and librarian made their 9+ inch charges. It was pretty brutal. Making them wait to come down until turn 2 definitely would've changed things, probably for the more even.

    In this edition if anyone ever deep strikes behind your lines it's because you have allowed them to.

    You could easily just spread out your units, up to eighteen inches apart and nine inches from the sides to deny them the ability for the entire board .

    Tables that look wide open, where before you'd risk a 2d6 scatter drop with no concern, are actually deep-strike proof now.

    Argh I'm just so upset by this! Terminators aren't even good, any "problem" with deep striking was always someone using a strategem on Tzangors or whatever!

  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    Can Grey Knights use land raiders or flying transports?

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Can Grey Knights use land raiders or flying transports?

    Stormravens and I think they also get land raiders but I have never seen them on the table.

    03x29di.png
  • TheColonelTheColonel ChicagolandRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Can Grey Knights use land raiders or flying transports?

    Stormravens and I think they also get land raiders but I have never seen them on the table.

    Correct on both counts.

  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Both those and rhinos/razorbacks are available but I'm certainly not going to put a Land Raider down on the table and it's quite telling that you mostly see (saw?) Razorbacks and Stormravens used empty (...and with Guilliman standing next to them).

    With a transport you don't get to use your unit until Turn 2 anyway (because you can only dismount before the transport moves) so I might as well deep strike. At least with deep strike the cultists/guardsmen/whatever can't surround your transport before it gets shot to death so that all your units die.

    Edit: With Grey Knights specifically I feel like they should get a faction exemption the way Genestealers do, even the basic power armor troop GK marine has innate deepstrike (and clearly pays for it in his point cost). Teleporting around is a thing they do, and maybe the devs will figure this out by the time the rule goes live, but in the meantime (just like with the beta smite rule) the army is needlessly screwed over in every case where those rules are used.

    Anyway I realize I'm coming off as quite salty here, but really I feel this is a stupid rule for ANY faction's Terminators or Crisis Suits or whatever. Anything that has innate deep strike isn't the problem, it's "Pay a Command Point to have your 40 man whatever appear!" that's the problem.

    Lanlaorn on
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    How often does a Stormraven get surrounded? They can't be charged by guardsman / cultists etc. unless they hover.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    I just want to point out that this is twice now that Guilliman has had his points cost raised, because even on the tabletop he has to be an over-achiever. ;)

    KhraulLanlaornGnomeTank
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    How often does a Stormraven get surrounded? They can't be charged by guardsman / cultists etc. unless they hover.

    Don't need to charge it, just move towards it then "Move, move, move!" or Warp Time if you need to. Advance each time, of course, if you need to.

    Or, hilariously for this topic, you deep strike them in surrounding it with some strategem and then Warp Time to tighten up the circle.

    In fact you specifically don't charge it, so that it can still be shot by your lascannons or whatever. Works against any transport with any large unit of chaff, since y'know, you can give them all those extra mobility they don't pay for in their profile.

  • KhraulKhraul Registered User regular
    The infiltration stratagems for first turn charges typically only work if you go first, right?

    If you're going second, your units are already on the board prepped to get shot back off it?

    Bnet - Khraul#1822
    Gamertag - Khraul
    PSN - Razide6
  • McGibsMcGibs TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Yeah, infiltration has the downside of relying on first turn to actually work. It's a bigger gamble, but now seems like it's even more valuable to pull of t1 charges.
    You also infiltrate AFTER the 1st turn roll off, so if you lose, you just put the infiltrated unit in cover or somewhere else.

    McGibs on
    website_header.jpg
This discussion has been closed.