8th Edition – First FAQ

Games Workshop has dropped it’s first FAQ. A couple of good changes and a couple of stupid ones. I’ll try and go through them in order of the books.

Main Rulebook – 

Some clarifications on cover, the big one for non-infantry behind you need to be “on” a terrain piece and then 50% obscured from the direction of the shooter to gain cover. This is a good change – a nice combination of the strong restrictions for cover but also making a crowded battlefield (and things without bases like hills and warehouses) more useful. Still hard to get cover but not a case of being able to see 1% of a vehicle and it getting no cover.

Same with clarifications on deployment – no more putting your tank on top of a ruin.

Characters can be overwatched. Equidistant, controlling player of the effect chooses (i.e. shooter says which one is closer). Instead of shooting moves can be used when Falling Back such as Smoke Launchers. Confirmed have to be over 9″ when deep striking.

You can get two chainsword extra attacks but only one scything talon extra attack… poor Tyranids.

Abilities that are similar only stack if they specifically say so (i.e. the Ghostkeel plus drones but not multiple Darkshrouds).

Anything which creates models is specifically identified as having to use Reinforcement Points unless it specifically says otherwise and vice versa for bringing back models.

Imperium 1 –

Grenade launchers are -1 AP. Blood Angels ASM have their special weapon options back (phew). Ironclad Assault Launchers have a cost now.

Imperium 2 – 

Ratlings cannot scoot after Overwatch. Celestine is a unique character.

Acolytes are W1. Lame.

Chaos – 

All is Dust impacts invulnerable saves as well (same quantifiers).

Xenos 1 – 

Starcannons are D3 damage and now overpriced pieces of poop. They were easily doing the most damage but were also the most expensive – changing them to D3 and not adjusting their price means all that extra magnetising I did has been wasted. Imohtekh is Leadership 10.

Some confusing text on Ynnari which makes it seem like they cannot use transports – I don’t have the book in front of me so cannot see what has changed but one imagines they are just trying to say they can only get on Ynnari vehicles. Ynnari does have to be a separate detachment to their Eldar / Dark Eldar counterparts if they want to be Battle Forged.

RP provides models with full wounds and Quantum Shielding cannot be used against Mortal Wounds (they are rare so don’t worry ;)).

Xenos 2 – 

Shield Drones are literally useless. Unless you want to pay 8 pts for a cheap, not that durable, objective holder? (Saviour Protocols now inflicts one Mortal Wound on a drone – great for soaking >1D shots but now it’s one drone per shot). Commander ability can only be used once per game regardless of number of commanders. Multiple Scything Talons gives you +1A regardless of number (poor Trygon).

Longstrike affects himself so he hits on 2’s while moving. Biovores can shoot without LoS. Minimum numbers updated for some Ork and Tyranid units.

Genestealer Cult Genestealers are now… wait they went from 10 pts more expensive to a handful of points cheaper than their Tyranid counterparts. GW… ASM / GSC / Tyranids confirmed.

 


 

Conclusions

The majority of fixes were type-os but some of those type-os were horrendous (Acolytes being W3 and Celestine not being unique for example). Not as bad as the FW books… So a lot of the changes were pretty intuitive (i.e. Corbulo impacting models and not units). The actual changes were a mixed bag. I’m not a fan of this minimum three for some medium sized Elite units (Crisis, Hive Guard, etc.) and the whole poor wording around an undersized unit I can see being pretty hamfisted by some. That’s more aesthetics and unclear writing though but changes like D3 damage for Starcannons makes no sense. It was not broken – they cost 30 points each. Just sigh. Changing Saviour Protocols as well – makes sense in terms of not wanting people to tank a bunch of lucky saves with Shield Drones but not sure if this was the best compromise – time will tell. Others make no sense like double chainswords giving +2A but triple Scything Talons giving +1A. I know the chainsword is a different profile but Trygons getting +2A or Carnifexes / Tyrants +1A over their current profile with Talons also would not be game breaking and just lets people whine about Space Marines being the poster boys.

Other changes I do like… Genestealers for GSC being better costed (though I find it ironic they are now cheaper). Longstrike helping himself. Biovores not needing LoS. BA ASM getting their special weapons back. Cover and terrain clarifications.

Overall I’d call this neutral tending towards positive and if they release these relatively quickly to address glaring errors or oversights (i.e. Celestine and Acolytes) and make adjustments where necessary and backed up by data and games (i.e. not what they did with the Starcannon), this can only be a good thing moving forward. The fact this was quick and addressed a lot of the silly things early is good but still a lot of things that have not been touched (Imperial soup, Smite spam, etc.) which are much more likely to break the game than a Starcannon’s 3D, Drones tanking wounds, etc. (stopping someone from running three Darkshrouds and the entire army missing was good though).

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

121 Responses to “8th Edition – First FAQ”

  1. Track says:

    They covered a lot of what people have been asking about. And quickly too.

    Good quality FAQ

  2. Ish says:

    Blacksword Missiles on the Nephilim are still Heavy 10. 😉

    Okay, it’s an obvious typo, but I’m keeping it under my hat if I ever have to play against That Guy.

    • Kirby says:

      They changed Blacksword to heavy 1

      • Ish says:

        Oops. That’s what I get for just skimming! I read a bunch of entires for Dark Angels things, then they started in on the Deathwatch and I stopped skimming. I figured they were done… But they were organized by page number and the Blacksword error is from the summary chart far later in the book than the other Dark Angels content.

        Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

  3. chris says:

    You actually can find yourself only able to see 1% of a vehicle and it not get cover. You have to be in or on the terrain feature AND obscured by 50%. So if you're on open ground but around the corner of a building then no cover for you even if it's only the tiniest bit of the hull visible to the firer.

    Just to explain, ynnari units can still use transports. It basically just clarifies that even though they have the keyword ynnari you're still restricted to the units that can get into the vehicles. So wave serpents for instance can still only carry units with <craftworld> keyword, as opposed to being able to carry all ynnari such as those included from drukhari or harlequins.

    And yes, poor starcannons =[

    • Kirby says:

      Yes that can still happen but it's less likely. It's still annoying as being mostly behind a hill / warehouse / building etc will not get you cover but if your toe is in a piece of area terrain, you will. Weird and abstract but increasing access to cover is good.

      • chris says:

        Cover in general is a bit odd in this edition – perhaps a symptom of trying to simplify things a little too much. In a game system where you already need to check for LoS with every ranged weapon, it seems easy to allow a save modifier the target is blatantly obscured by terrain.

        I've always been an advocate of '"don't take the tabletop too literally", as it'd be impossible to place models on a realistic battlefield, and the action in real life would be constant as opposed to taken in turns. But it's still nice to have a slight degree of sensibility so that what you see on the table is at least slightly contextual to what's happening in the game.

        • Ish says:

          It’s just good sportsmanship to assume that an ambiguously worded rule / question of who’s in or out of cover / a charge being 1″ or 1.1″ distance / et cetera should be interpreted in the way least advantageous to oneself as possible.

          When in doubt, just give “it” to the other guy.

          • No One says:

            But it's not ambiguously worded (or it…technically still is, since they didn't fix the ambiguity in the Errata bit):
            Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
            etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
            least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
            on or within it?
            A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
            the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
            • All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.

            Which I don't like – means LoS blocking stuff midfield isn't really of any use (since you'll usually be able to see something, thus no mechanical effect) until you actually get in it.

          • Ish says:

            I was speaking in generalities: Giving the benefit of the doubt to your opponent is good sportsmanship.

            In this specific case, if only a teensy bit of a model is visible behind line of sight blocking terrain then I’d just call the whole thing blocked. Being generous with that sort of thing makes games move much more smoothly.

            • Matt-Shadowlord says:

              That's generous, but even when attempting to be so sportsmanlike you will still have a point where the rule kicks in and a model not in area terrain will not get cover, despite being mainly obscured from the firer's point of view.

              Reading it literally, if the firer can see 1% of a tank that's not in terrain, the tank does not get cover.
              Using Ish's generous interpretation, it would get the best possible cover save – being out of Line of Sight – even if 1% was visible. But would it if 2% was visible? 5%? 10%?

              At some point, that mainly-obscured tank is going to be shot without a cover save, despite most of it being obscured, and since it devalues the importance of terrain it's going to take some getting used to.

              • Matt-Shadowlord says:

                (BTW since this is the Internet, just to be clear, when I say 'Using Ish's generous interpretation' I am not being the slightest bit sarcastic. I have great respect for people who are willing to play in a sportsmanlike manner even to their own minor disadvantage)
                🙂

  4. rihker says:

    Page 242 – Understrength Units
    Change the second paragraph to read:
    ‘If you are using Power Ratings, you must still pay the
    Power Rating cost as if you had a minimum-sized unit,
    even though it contains fewer models. If you are using
    points, you only pay the points for the models you
    actually have in an understrength unit (and any wargear
    they are equipped with). An understrength unit still
    takes up the appropriate slot in a Detachment.’

    THIS is the most ridiculous ruling I have ever read. Whats the point of even having minmum unit sizes then? Everyone is now taking the Brigade Detachment.

    • Ish says:

      Anyone who fields a full Brigade (let alone multiple Detachments) made up of a majority of “understrength units” has officially crossed out of That Guy territory into the realm of That Fucking Guy.

      I don’t mind allowing a person to put an understrength unit or two on the table when it’s a result of a new gamer or a person starting a new army without the “correct” number of models but still making an honest effort at fair play. Starter boxes don’t always come with just the right numbers, budget conscious gamers may have bought second hand models in odd lots, and that sort of thing.

      I’m willing to let my opponent fudge things like unit numbers or proxy models. That’s good sportsmanship… But good sportsmanship is a two way exchange.

      • Mindwarp says:

        I would say the intent was that understrength units would be limited to one. It's not what they wrote, I know, but it seems obvious to me that it was intended to let you field that one extra unit, even if you were a model or two short rather than to let you ignore the minimum unit sizes altogether. I guess we'll see what the tournament organisers say until there's another FAQ.

        • rihker says:

          Why should it be up to TO's to fix the game.
          I agree that the intent is not to have people flood the FOC with cheap one offs, but why are we in this position? The original rule in the book was fine.

          As it is, the rule is the rule. I think its ridiculous, but its the rule and we have to take it on in order to build the best army possible or at least be aware of it as we will come across these armies.

      • rihker says:

        This means a lot to a person who intends to play matched play, say in a tournament. In a tournament, the TO will need to rule this in or out, and if out, then its changing the rules. As for being "That Guy", where do we stop with that? Is following the rules a problem?
        I brought this change to the game up, as it is a rule we need to be aware of. Its a real rule that cannot just be ignored or left to social contract to shame players into not following. If there rule was only intended to be used is casual play, then specifically rule it out of matched play. The game has those clear distinctions now.
        It's just disappointing how quickly GW can break their own game.

        • Ish says:

          The distinction between being a tough opponent and being That Guy, in my opinion, is one of intent. A tough opponent wants to win, but he wants to win clean. That Guy wants to win and doesn’t care what he does to get the win. It’s subjective and there’s no scientific way to measure a person’s level of “That Guy-ness.”

          But, in the oft misquoted words of Justice Potter Stewart: “I know it when I see it.”

    • Cryptix says:

      You can only do this ONCE. Read the actual rule in the rulebook before judging.

      • Stinkmunk says:

        Nope. Once per unit type.

        • rihker says:

          There are a lot of unit types. So ONCE per unit is not a big limitation.

          • Kadeton says:

            It's not a big limitation if the purpose of the limitation is to lock people out of getting lots of CP from taking Brigades with below-strength units. It's a huge limitation if you want to try to stop people spamming the same units over and over.

            Plus, all those random scraps of units will make it really easy to score First Blood.

      • Stinkmunk says:

        Read the rule before telling people to read the rule.

        • rihker says:

          I missed it the first couple of times I read it. It is so counter intuitive, particularly as you are told to pay full Power Level points for those units.

    • abusepuppy says:

      It's pretty stupid, admittedly, but an army that abuses it is going to lose at No Mercy so hard it's ridiculous. In ITC, every one of those units is still worth the full Power Level, and in standard versions it's even worse. A 2000pt army attempting to abuse this could easily bloat to PL400 or more.

  5. Doom says:

    The biggest change was the limitation on IG Command Squads. (max 1 per officer, must share <Regiment> with him)
    No more HQ + 24x deepstrike plasma-gunner detachments 🙁

    Also SoB stormbolters are 2pts now.

    • Matt-Shadowlord says:

      Since those little HQ squads can consist of 4 men with 4 plasma, this is a good change. It removes the temptation to go crazy with Suicide Squads. 😀

  6. Nurgler says:

    Don’t forget that Chaos Daemons Daemon Princes went down to 8 wounds, meaning that they too can hide behind units.

  7. Prometheus says:

    I am really , really perplexed as to why they made shield drones pointless. I was already leaning in favor of just taking more gun drones, but at least there was an argument to be made for taking a few around the army.

    • Kirby says:

      Just reinforces taking Gun Drones, not shield Drones. It's really not a nerf for the edition as it's what all other bodyguard type effects are but its a huge nerf for what Drones were like before in terms of potential options to tank hits.

      • Prometheus says:

        I'm not sure that Saviour Protocols HAVE to be brought in line with every other "bodyguard" rule, isn't that the point of not having USRs and every rule listed individually? That said, I don't mind the (in my opinion very minor) nerf to the rule because SP was very, very good. What I DO mind is effectively making shield drones pointless. Not that I was building lists with Shield drones, really, because I just figured a lascannon shot meant a dead drone and the 4 shots was usually more valuable. But the old rule was elegant in a way because it allowed shield drones to function. If you're going to change it to mortal wounds (again, in most cases the same result) you really need a special exemption for shield drones.

    • davethegamer says:

      they made them pointless because they did not think about it.

      It is sad really, the average tau player figured this out in less than five seconds.

  8. Prometheus says:

    So, it's funny about Longstrike Kirby….I was about to argue with you, and say "I read removing "other" as making clear that Longstrike is not, himself, a hammer head. Nothign about him says "hammerhead"".

    Then I remembered that 8th ed has keywords. Man I love keywords. Longstrike is even more badass than before.

    Correct me if I'm wrogn but this means he could fire an Ion Cannon and never suffer the mortal wound if he doesn't move? NOT that that would make it better than the railgun due to his tank hunter rule. It does make SMS more attactive on him.

    • No One says:

      I believe a natural roll of 1 is still a 1 (Designers Commentary I think), and thus would Gets Hot.

      Also, on the topic of Keywords…GW haven't been totally clear on this. But, Longstrike's rule isn't formatted like they format Keywords (i.e. bold/capitals – they haven't specifically stated this for 40k, but there is an AoS FAQ stating that, while normal formatting is for unit names. Would be weird if they didn't do the same here, and have formatting refer to Keywords and…not formatting refer to Keyowords as well??), thus would probably be referring to unit names, rather than Keywords. But…then why the heck would they remove "other"?? GW's rule writing at its finest *sigh*.

      • Prometheus says:

        I'm actually not clear how the modifyiers work, since they made quite clear that -1 can still make it a 1. People have also made the argument that 5 ML hits keep you from suffering the mortal wound.

        Anyway, pretty sure a keyword that says "hammerhead" makes Longstrike a hammerhead. You're overthinking it by a mile.

        • Alastores says:

          they are pretty clear about it in the Design Principles/Transition Totally Not An Explanation For Insufficient Rules thing.

          Modifiers apply FIRST. Then if it's a 1, you die.

          • Prometheus says:

            I'm not sure they did "make it pretty clear" but a possible result is the die still "fails" (i.e. misses)but doesn't count "as a 1" so that no wound occurs.

            Anyway, everyone else seems agreed that this is true, if unmoving, longstrike can't suffer the wound from Ion Cannons.

      • abusepuppy says:

        The mortal wound from an Ion Cannon don't trigger on a "natural 1", they trigger on any to-hit roll of '1'. That means that his +1 can prevent it from occurring, and other penalties can potentially increase the chances of it doing so.

        • Prometheus says:

          right….so like I said, Longstrike can fire an Ion cannon and if he wasn't moving, have no chance of suffering a wound.

        • No One says:

          My bad – was thinking of the whole 'less than 1 counts as 1' thing, and completely mixing them up in my head (thinking that a 'natural 1' always counts as 1, rather than just always fails).

  9. artemi71 says:

    …Aw man. They changed the Sisters of Battle Hand flamers. I thought that getting d6 shots was actually super fluffy and in character for them. :/

  10. Sister_Acacia says:

    Now I'ven't played since some time in 5E, and with this being even worse than 7th I was never going to go back to it, but it's nice to see that they felt the need to tell Sisters "Your Hand Flamers are the same shitty ones nobody else is electing to use" without saying "Oh right, this isn't Necromunda, weapon AP is not tied to your Strength value, your Eviscerators that you're probably not using have the same AP as Space Marine ones". They still have "fuck Adepta Sororitas, WE HAVE MORE SPACE MARINES TO SELL" as their key commitment.

    • Kadeton says:

      I feel like the hand flamers would be fine if they cost 0. A free swap from twin bolt pistols to twin hand flamers would be acceptable… but paying 12 points for them is ridiculous.

      Not sure what you mean on the Eviscerators – they have the same AP for both Space Marine and Sororitas versions?

      • Sister_Acacia says:

        Sorry, the one regular Eviscerator that the Canoness can take (but won't take, because obviously you'll take two Storm Bolters or Combi-Weapons) is a normal AP -4 one, but the unit that has to have it, the Repentia, have "Penitent Eviscerators" that are AP -2, changing them from anti-tank to… anti-Ork Boy? Anti-Dark Eldar Kabalite?

        Still, nobody took Repentia before, no need for them to start doing it now I guess.

        • Kadeton says:

          Ah, my apologies, I totally missed that there were two weapon profiles. That does seem unnecessary!

          (I feel like their 2 damage flat actually makes them best against Primaris Marines, even though the Primaris would still get a 5+ save. Purge the gene-heretics!)

          • Ish says:

            I honestly think they’re still fine as an anti-MEQ unit, sheer weight of attacks and the comparatively low-cost of the unit makes them pretty good in this role. They won’t be too great against dedicated MEQ mêlée units (e.g., Khorne Berserkers) but most Marines are “shooty” units and so are most Battle Sisters… Repentia serve a useful role of tying down a Marine squad and stopping them from shooting while your Battle Sisters get into rapid fire range.

            • abusepuppy says:

              With a Mistress around to help them work, they actually put down quite a lot of damage- not quite on par with Berzerkers, but good enough to break most things in half pretty effectively, especially those that are T6 or less.

    • abusepuppy says:

      Sisters of Battle are actually really, really good right now. They are potentially one of the top armies in the game and are scoring very highly at tournaments.

      Repentia's problems aren't and never have been the AP on their weapons.

      • Alastores says:

        As an actual army? I know there's lots of interest in taking Celestine + One Unit, but I didn't think they were doing all that well as an army in their own right.

      • Kadeton says:

        If you don't mind, could you give a quick rundown on why Sisters are good in this edition? I have a friend who plays them, and he's often complaining about their treatment in this edition, so it would be good to have some arguments against that.

        His main complaints are:
        – Exorcists cost too much for their damage output ("Why wouldn't you just take Basilisks, which cost heaps less and are way more effective?");
        – Seraphim aren't worthwhile, and their hand flamers just took a huge nerf;
        – Celestine is amazing but she works as well or better in non-Sororitas armies where she can hog the Acts of Faith for herself;
        – Every Sisters-only army gets forced into a cookie-cutter build of Melta/Storm Bolter Dominions in Immolators/Repressors, backed up by Retributors with Heavy Bolters. Nothing else seems worth running.

        Is he wrong? None of his points actually make Sisters a weak army, he's just annoyed that they have no variety in their selection of worthwhile units and have thereby lost a lot of what makes them interesting. Thoughts?

        • TheFinisher4Ever says:

          Abusepuppy is right, sisters are amazing. Immolators and Repressors are some of the best transports in the game. The Immolator with Immolation flamer can potentially move 18″ and still fire their 12″ auto hitting twin flamer. Seraphim are still great as a Celestine support unit. Near celestine, they have a 5+ rerollable invuln. You’re correct that the hand flamers aren’t great, but the Inferno Pistols are awesome. Unlike in 7th, being in melta range isn’t as important which is a buff to the 6″ range melta pistol. Regular BSS squads are still solid since they can take a melta gun, heavy flamer and Immolators for dirt cheap. Dominions with Melta or Stormbolters in Repressors are incredible. Repressors with Heavy Flamer Retributors are insane as well. Penitent Engine are crazy good. Death Cult Assassins are also very good. It’s true that exorcists aren’t as good anymore and that Repentia are still a little weak. But sisters of battle are in a far better place than they were last edition.

        • abusepuppy says:

          Sisters are good for a number of reasons, but they all sort of play into each other. They have two excellent transports (the Repressor and Immolator) which have really good weapons on them; moreover, their basic squads to go inside the transports can carry a bunch of special weapons and hit very hard with them. Combined together, what you get is incredibly strong anti-tank Troop units riding in powerful anti-infantry vehicles. This duality of threats is a big part of where 8E seems to be heading.

          Additionally, the weapons that SoB traditionally focus on (flamers and melta) are much, much better this edition and are arguably some of the best in the game. Heavy Flamers in particular are absolutely brutal against many targets. They also are one of the cheapest ways to get BS3+ infantry units, and with the increased relevance of basic guns they end up being surprisingly good shooting platforms.

          Acts of Faith itself is also a very powerful rule, especially since it's pretty easy to get it to trigger three times per turn virtually every turn. Three extra actions of any kind you want is a hugely powerful tool and can enable all sorts of shenanigans that wouldn't otherwise be doable.

          Now, yes, most SoB armies are going to mix in some other Imperial units (like Conscripts, artillery, etc) to fill gaps in the army, but that should hardly be surprising- other factions will do the same, where possible. But there's still a strong incentive to take a lot of actual Sororitas units in order to use your Acts effectively, and I think you'll continue to see plenty of armies with majority SoB doing well in tournaments.

          (Also, Finisher above makes a number of good points as well.)

          • Kadeton says:

            Thanks for the reply 🙂

            It does sound like both sides are basically right, to some extent – the Sororitas are powerful but they don't offer much variety, because several of the units in their already short roster are amazing and several are either pretty lackluster or merely eclipsed by the "good" choices.

            "But there's still a strong incentive to take a lot of actual Sororitas units in order to use your Acts effectively"

            Is there? This was a major sticking point in our last discussion about problems with Sisters. He's of the opinion that once you've got Celestine and another unit you've used up all the "free" and "reliable" Faith, as everything after that requires an Imagifier, and if you don't roll that 4+ then you've essentially spent 40 points on a single boltgun. This was expressed as "not scaling well", since only two to three units would ever be likely to benefit from Acts of Faith anyway – why take more?

            • abusepuppy says:

              I would still disagree. Yes, you obviously want Celestine- she's amazing for her price point and is a durable warlord as well as a solid assault unit _and_ a bonus Act every turn. Honestly, I think you also want an Imagifier- sure, you have to roll a 4+ to trigger it, but that's what Command Points are for; any other army in the game would gladly give up a CP to take an extra action with one of their units.

              Beyond that, Immolators and Repressors are some of the most efficient transports in the game, better than Razorbacks/Rhinos in many ways. Battle Sister squads are also very efficient special weapon caddies, since they have all of the requisite qualities that you want- the army even gets access to the fabled "five guys five specials" squad without needing to jump through any particular hoops, something that not many others manage. Pound for point, a Dominion unit in a Repressor is about as efficient a source of firepower as you'll see on the table.

              So you have Celestine, the Canoness (who is basically a cheaper Captain), the Imagifier, Battle Sisters, Dominions, and Retributors on the list as "good" unit, on par or better than equivalents in other factions. I think that the Penitent Engine and Repentia (with the Mistress) are also worth testing out as melee beatsticks, along with DCA and Crusaders, as melee is a much more important part of the game now.

              Long story short, Sisters have access to a lot of great tools. Not ones that can fill every role, obviously- their army listing is still laughably small in many ways. But the units that they do possess are no longer simply bad versions of other things, and in fact are consistently better for a number of reasons already discussed.

              With regards to "not scaling well," it's important to remember that the strength of Acts of Faith is not just in that it gives you another action- you can already get that from simply spending points on a unit. Its real power is that it gives you another action (or two, or three) _where you need it most_. You can double-shoot with a squad of Melta to eliminate a key vehicle; you can swing twice with a melee unit to clear out the enemy before they swing back; you can move twice with an assault unit in order to get them into combat. Getting to take multiple actions with a single unit is a potentially gamebreaking ability, as anyone who has played turn-based tactical or strategic combat games will know- it completely changes the pace of the game and what your opponent has to assume you can do.

              • Kadeton says:

                Nice. I shall go well-armed into the next round of Sisters complaints.

                Thanks for the discussion. 🙂

              • artemi71 says:

                This is fantastic to know as a guy who's long had a SoB army covered in dust, but I don't have Repressors, since FW is being so stingy about this supposed broken mould issue. Is the Rhino worth taking as a bus? Or should I just focus on Immos and Exos instead for my vehicle needs?

                Also, how are the Imperial Assassins this time around? I have a Vindicare and Callidus that I used for a while to plug holes, but since then picked up the other two in that assassin board game. Are they worth looking at these days?

                • abusepuppy says:

                  I know some people are using Rhinos as cheap rides, but I think having the duality is important- you really want to make both the vehicle and its passengers a threat. The Immolator is a fantastic tank, though the Exorcist maybe less so- I haven't played around with it yet.

                  The Assassins are hit and miss; Eversor is quite good, if quite suicidal. Vindicare… okay at sniping Commissars and the like, I suppose? He's a dedicated character-hunter, if you feel you need that. Callidus has some interesting charge shenanigans, but I don't think she's worth it overall. Culexus is still an anti-psyker tool, but I don't think that's nearly as necessary this time around.

              • Sister_Acacia says:

                Another way to get more out of your Faith is just to take lots of small detachments. Nothing seems to suggest that your Acts of Faith are across the entire army rather than "per detachment", so basically you have a bunch of "1 HQ + 2 Troops + whatever" instead of aiming for one big Brigade.

                Looking at the prices of the special and heavy weapons, I'm not convinced they're typically worth taking over "more models with bolters". You could probably do a weird list where it's basically a smaller version of the 100 Guardsman tide, except with better Saves, Leadership and shooting.

                Ultimately, the fact that Flamers are now worthless against swarms of enemies (who now have no reason not to cling together in tightly packed formations so they can all reach you and wipe you out in close combat), instead being designed to kill multi-wound characters, and melta guns are incapable of destroying vehicles in one shot (indeed, they're only even Wounding on a 3+ or 4+ to begin with, never mind the 1d6 vs 10 Wounds some of these things have) means their only special weapons are not good for the job, and they don't have unique toys there to save them, so basically they just need to pile the models on the table, try to maximise the extra shooting their Faith gives them, and hope for the best. So really, the problem is the same one they've always had ("they have twenty individual minis total, so we'll scribble out some quick notes on how to field them if we have to, can't you just stop playing them so we can stop needing to do this?") except worse. Heck, their only way of dealing Mortal Wounds (unlike essentially every other army) is to drive their transports up next to them and hope they explode – it's like 2nd Edition all over again!

                • Kadeton says:

                  I'm not sure how more detachments make a difference? The rule is army-wide: "On a roll of 2+, one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith…"

                • abusepuppy says:

                  Flamers aren't worthless. Meltaguns are still one of the best tools for killing vehicles. Most armies don't have many efficient ways of dealing mortal wounds.

  11. No One says:

    I…even playing Cult, who the heck thought 10 pts (well, I think they forgot that RC are free for Cult, and thus thought 12 pts) was a good price for Cult?

    They've now got probably the worst internal balance out of any Codex – Purestrains are, model for model, more killy than everything else in the Codex (bar aberrants/heavy weapons). Are more survivable, and more mobile. And more killy pt for pt than the aforementioned units. Even ignoring them, metamorphs are utterly terrible too.

    The only reason to take anything else is because you don't have enough stealer models…

    • No One says:

      *was a good price for purestrain stealers.

      • Matt-Shadowlord says:

        So THAT'S what happened!
        Because the first thing NoOne did after this FAQ was start a game with me on vassal and drown the table in (what I now find out are ridiculously cheap) genestealers. 😀

        Can't blame him either, at that price they're a steal. 😉

    • Kirby says:

      And because you are allying in AM and Tyranids!

    • Auretious Taak says:

      Just make sure you take GSC purestrains not Tyranid purestrains as the Tyranid ones don't have the cult ambush rules and need either a trygon or a tyrannocyte to get as close or close on.

      As to not enough genestealers, I'm at around 200 or so including a dozen or so metal rt era purestrains…not enough points in a standard tourney for all my stealers, alas.

      • No One says:

        Tyranid genestealers aren't Purestrains. They're just Genestealers (while Cult are Purestrain Genestealers). Only referring to Cult stealers with that post, because they're the only thing that changed.

        Alas, I only have about 30 stealers. But over 70 acolytes/metamorphs…

  12. FCE says:

    The drone nerf puts them on the same status as every other bodyguard rule with the benefit that it goes off automatically.

    • Neil Phillips says:

      Nope, still quite different. It just sounds similar.

      It happens before rolling armour saves or damage. So better against multi-damage weapons like Lascannons, and much worse against things like Bolters.

      Giving it the actual same wording as Bodyguard would make sense, but that’s not what they’ve done. (It would still blank shield drones, but no worse than a bodyguard unit with storm shields).

    • Vordy says:

      They had to change some of the wording to stop Riptides bouncing it's nova wounds on to them I guess.
      Still you have a choice take ablative wounds which can shoot or one which the opponent has to dedicate some fire power to clear.

  13. Kadeton says:

    Mobile Fortress and Open-Topped (on the Battlewagon) don't interact, with no explanation as to why that specific modifier is the only one that doesn't apply to the passengers. >:(

    That also skews the preferred choice of transport in almost every case toward Trukks, and diminishes the value of Flash Gits and Lootas by extension. Oh well.

    • abusepuppy says:

      The passengers don't benefit from Mobile Fortress for the same reason that they don't benefit from the other rules that vehicles have: they are a separate unit from the vehicle and don't have its special rules. You'll note that Open-Topped transports with Fly specifically note that passengers cannot fire if the vehicle chooses to fall back, which presumably has the same rationale.

      • Kadeton says:

        The specific note is exactly what I want to see. Open-Topped has that specific Fly exception written right there in the rule for models where it would be relevant… but in the absence of a rule-specific exception to Mobile Fortress, "any restrictions or modifiers" would generally be taken at face value.

        If the Battlewagon's version of Open-Topped had ended with "Note that the passengers still suffer the -1 To Hit penalty from moving and shooting Heavy weapons, even though the Battlewagon does not," in the same way that the Open-Topped Flyers do, then there wouldn't even be a discussion about this… but without changing the rule, arbitrarily denying that modifier from being passed on to the passengers feels wrong to me.

        All I'm really saying is that this should have been an errata, not an FAQ.

        (Almost all. I'm also saying that it seems to make Battlewagons a poor choice for anyone, where before they were at least a solid choice for Flash Gitz, but that's a separate issue.)

        • abusepuppy says:

          I think the Battlewagon is pretty solid in the roles it's always been used for- delivering a large number of Boyz into melee or acting as a shooting platform for another unit. It's big and tough and holds a lot of models, and with the changes to how vehicles work it's no longer nearly as easy to one-shot.

          With regards to the wording of the Open-Topped rule, certainly a perfunctory note at the end of it could've made the interaction clearer- but it's certainly not _necessary_. Models don't gain each others' rules automatically just for embarking; that simply isn't how the game works. I don't think there's really any ambiguity about it, and it matches up with the way that vehicles have always worked and it makes perfect sense from a fluff perspective as well.

          • Kadeton says:

            Sure, it's fine… but it costs more, is less survivable, and less flexible than taking two Trukks. Units of 20 Boyz exist in a terrible space where a single casualty reduces their effectiveness by 25%, and basically anything else will fit in a Trukk. Battlewagons aren't terrible, they're just outclassed.

            Models don't gain each others' rules by embarking, but when the passengers shoot they absolutely are affected by "any restrictions or modifiers that apply to" the Battlewagon. Ignoring the penalty for moving and shooting Heavy weapons is a modifier that applies to the Battlewagon, just like the ability to shoot normally after Falling Back is a modifier that applies to a Raider – that's why they had to make a specific exception in the Open-Topped rule to stop it applying to the Raider's passengers.

            • Prometheus says:

              Not an ork expert, but mostly heard people say Battlewagons are better than trukks for the pts.

              • Kadeton says:

                I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning on that! I've got five Battlewagons for my Orks, but at the moment I'm struggling to include them in any lists.

                The most basic problem, as I see it, is that they're never really going to *do* much on their own. You can load them up with all the firepower you want, but at the end of the day, Ork shooting is pants and anything you spend on guns that aren't crewed by Grots is inherently very inefficient.

                In the absence of a clear firepower argument, we have to look at their merits as a transport. Compare them to two Trukks: same transport capacity, same armour, same speed. The +1 Toughness over a Trukk is nice against S6-7 attacks, but with four fewer wounds and no Ramshackle the Battlewagon isn't going to last as long. It also can't be in two places at once. Obviously there's the advantage of being able to carry more than 12 models, but aside from Boyz (who always run in mobz of 30) there's no real incentive to have big units of Burnas, Tankbustas, Nobz etc. Small units work just as well.

                So, points. The Trukks are 82 points each with their compulsory big shootas. For three points less you can get an unarmed Battlewagon, but I feel like we should give it at least two big shootas to be on par with the Trukks (the shooting is pretty insignificant, but let's keep the comparison as close as possible). 164 points for the Trukks, versus 173 for the Battlewagon.

                The big thing the Battlewagon has going for it is the ability to add a deffrolla and be a serious contender in melee. But then again, Orks have got melee for days and don't actually need the help – all they really need is something to charge in before them and shut down the overwatch fire, and both vehicles are basically the same in that regard. Also, a deffrolla is 20 points.

                Again, Battlewagons aren't bad, especially compared to some of the similarly-priced rubbish in other armies, like Leman Russes. I'll definitely be trying them out, since I have a lot and love seeing them on the table. But better than Trukks for the points? I can't work that out.

                • sgt says:

                  Vehilce h2h is an extremely useful tool for the ork list. It has won me lots of games already. Having vehicles that hurt the smaller (usually shooty backfield units) is amazing.

                  Wrecking balls are cheap and makes trucks good for +3pts. Deffrolla's make Battlewagons insane.

                  I have pretty much got off 2nd turn charges every game and in some games 1st turn charges. When that is happening your vehicles are able to pick and chose there targets alot of the time and with decent h2h they add a great deall to the end game destruction/tarpitting of enemy units.

                • abusepuppy says:

                  >Ork shooting is pants

                  Not true- Orks can get lots of good shooting units. Just because they're BS5+ doesn't mean they're bad at shooting.

                  Also, remember you can put more than one unit inside a transport now.

                  Trukks are much more vulnerable to being dropped by lighter/medium class weapons, whereas a Battlewagon (like most heavy vehicles) requires more dedicated firepower.

                  • Kadeton says:

                    "Just because they're BS5+ doesn't mean they're bad at shooting."

                    True. Having BS5+ along with sub-par weaponry and a strong reliance on the outcome of random dice rolls makes them bad at shooting.

                    Run the maths, and show me an Ork unit that's "good at shooting" in terms of point-efficiency compared to dedicated shooting units from other factions. (Not a Grot unit, they're actually pretty close to par, but they're not what we're talking about here.)

                    I can save you some time if you like, because I've gone over the numbers pretty extensively. As an example, Tankbustas are as good as Ork shooting gets against heavy armour, and they're significantly less efficient than, say, lascannon Devastators (all the way up to 40% less efficient at the Land Raider end of the target scale). If you include the transport that they need in order to stay alive long enough to bring their 24" rokkits to bear, their efficiency goes way down, while the Devs are still sitting pretty in cover in the backfield with their 2+ saves and 48" guns. (LasDevs aren't even particularly efficient in the greater scheme of things.)

                    • abusepuppy says:

                      Why don't Grot units count? They're available to the Ork faction.

                    • Kadeton says:

                      Because your statement was "Just because they're BS5+ doesn't mean they're bad at shooting," and Grots aren't BS5+?

            • abusepuppy says:

              Trukks aren't T7/T8. That is a pretty significant downgrade against a lot of weapons.

              Ignoring the move/shoot penalty is an ability of the Battlewagon. The penalty itself is a modifier; the ability is not.

              • Kadeton says:

                Without an 'Ard Case (and let's face it, stopping the passengers from firing removes most of the advantages of Ork transports, so 'Ard Cases will be rare at best), it's only relevant against S6 and S7, and even then the increase in damage taken is largely compensated by simply having more Wounds for the points. With an 'Ard Case, yeah, they're a lot tougher, but they're also pretty useless in the transport role.

                We can agree to disagree on what constitutes a modifier to shooting. GW is taking your position, so… eh. It just draws into question everything else that might affect the Battlewagon and its passengers – what counts as a modifier, and what doesn't?

                • abusepuppy says:

                  'Ard Case is good for Battlewagons that intend to dump their contents into the enemy's face, like squads of Boyz or Nobz/Meganobz. Obviously it's not relevant for the "stand back and shoot" versions, but since most of the weapons that can reach to that 48" range are S8/9, it's fine that they don't want the upgrade.

                  It's really easy- a modifier is what the rulebook defines a modifier as. It is something that adds to or subtracts from one of your characteristics. The -1BS penalty from moving and shooting a heavy weapon is a modifier. Ignoring a -1 modifier is _not_ a modifier, it is an ability. It's really not that complicated at all.

                  • Kadeton says:

                    So why did they feel the need to clarify that a Flying transport's passengers can't shoot normally in a turn when it falls back? That's an "ability", not a "modifier", according to your definitions… if it's really not that complicated, why even mention it?

                    Where is "modifier" defined, by the way?

  14. Manu says:

    I don’t get why charging with a Soulbust in the fight phase won’t allow you to fight.

    Let’s say you are engaged in CC in your shooting phase and some unit dies. You fight and kill the opponent’s unit. Now your winning unit is able to shoot.

    The same will happen in the charge phase. Some unit is overwatched to dead, a unit you control moves to get less than 12″ away to an opponent’s unit, and then charges.

    My point: Soulbursting actions allows you to participate in the ongoing phase when you wouldn’t be allowed to without soulbursting first, EXCEPT in the fighting phase…

    I guess people were abusing it, or they were afraid of possible abuses. But just nerfing that feels arbitrary.

  15. Dalinair says:

    No update for Twin devourers surprised me

    • Sister_Acacia says:

      Also, are Tyranid Warriors no longer able to take two melee weapon choices? I have one with Whip + Sword + Rending Claws and while I just collect and paint rather than playing, it's still a dick move on their part.

      (The solution of course is, when playing and photographing the battlefield, to stick a big scrap of paper with the mini, with "GW are stupid and this model actually has a Deathspitter + Claws" in crayon. And a little card saying your address for where they can mail you replacements.)

      • abusepuppy says:

        You can't get Whip/Sword+Rending Claws anymore, but you can get Whip/Sword+Scything Talons still.

        • Sister_Acacia says:

          That's not particularly useful for models already made and painted.

          • abusepuppy says:

            Well, edition changes often result in different ideal or legal weapon loadouts. This is hardly the first time this has happened. I feel your pain (I've got a bunch of illegal double-heavy Carnifexes from back in 4E), but it's hardly anything new or surprising.

  16. vipoid says:

    Something that hasn't been mentioned yet – the CCB is now a character and so can hide behind other units.

    • abusepuppy says:

      Yeah, it really takes that thing from being a garbage boat into a pretty devastating combatant.

      • punchymango says:

        No kidding, it's pretty much a straight upgrade to a foot overlord (lacks in inv. in CC, but Necron characters aren't really there to solo units anyways). An HQ that packs a gauss/tesla cannon is pretty ace.

  17. No One says:

    "Abilities that are similar only stack if they specifically say so (i.e. the Ghostkeel plus drones but not multiple Darkshrouds)."
    I feel that there's an important point in this:

    Q. Lots of aura abilities say they grant an ability to nearby units that are within range of any such models. Are the bonuses cumulative (i.e. if I am within range of two models with identical aura abilities, is the bonus doubled)?
    A. Unless stated otherwise, no. The bonus for such an ability applies once if any (i.e. one or more) of these
    models are within range.

    Namely: "grant an ability to nearby models that are within range of any such models", the "any (i.e. on or more)" bit.

    They only don't stack when they have:
    "that target friendly Dark Angels units within 6" of any friendly Ravenwing Darkshrouds.’"
    Rather than:
    "that target friendly Dark Angels units within 6" of this model."
    i.e. It did stack until they changed the wording there. (Note they also added this 'any' to Stealth Field on the Ghostkeel).

    Of course, this might just be a pedantic point (as I think basically everything is worded like that. The only exception I know of is Acolyte Iconward – which is on a per model basis anyway, and just as with the Ghostkeel, it's probably not intended. Just no one brought it up because Iconward's suck and you're not taking multiples for this bit of silliness). But I think the far more important part of that FAQ is the 'any model' part of the rule, not the 'similar ability' – because why would, say, my Patriarch not give +1 to stealers when they're also within range of a Primus (+1), if relevant? (As you're suggesting with the Ghostkeel).

    • winter says:

      Is the key that it is "identical aura abilities"?

      For example, Wulfen have "Curse of the Wulfen (Hunt)" which gives "make 1 additional attack" for friendly Space Wolves infantry, Cavalry and Bikers within 6". Blood Claws get "Beserk Charge" which gives 1 additional attack in the fight phase" if the Blood Claws charge.

      So do these stack or not stack? It is not the exact same aura, and the wording is slightly different, but they both give 1 additional attack.

      • No One says:

        I'd say stack. Sure, they give identical bonuses, but are not identical abilities (technically, they're completely different apart from bonus).

        The point I was making was it needs the 'any such model' to not stack.
        So, this is (presumably) the case with the Curse of the Wulfen: e.g.
        "if they are within 6" of any Wulfen model, they may make 1 additional attack" or whatever. Then, any identical auras i.e. saying:
        "if they are within 6" of any Wulfen model, they may make 1 additional attack"
        would not stack, since it says 'any Wulfen model' and is identical.

        But Blood Claws is completely different and not even an aura (presumably). Stack away.

  18. Kadeton says:

    "Some confusing text on Ynnari which makes it seem like they cannot use transports – I don’t have the book in front of me so cannot see what has changed but one imagines they are just trying to say they can only get on Ynnari vehicles."

    No, they're just saying that the vehicles don't change their restrictions – a Starweaver can only transport Masque models, a Venom can only transport Drukhari Infantry, etc. Even though they're both Ynnari units, you can't put your Wyches in a Wave Serpent. Ynnead's Will still means Yvraine and the Visarch are able to board basically anything they want. I'm not sure why this was even a question, to be honest.

    "Ynnari does have to be a separate detachment to their Eldar / Dark Eldar counterparts if they want to be Battle Forged."

    This isn't really much of a thing, since the only Eldar / Dark Eldar units that can't be Ynnari are "Haemonculus Coven units, Urien Rakarth, Drazhar, Mandrakes and the Avatar of Khaine". If you want to include any of those, they have to be in a separate detachment, otherwise you're fine.

  19. Vordy says:

    Little bit gutted there's no change in Dire Avenger points cost 🙁
    As for a Star cannons, they still do more damage on average against most things than other basic heavy weapons.

    • Kirby says:

      They are also easily the most expensive weapon – they effectively lost 33% efficiency when they were clearly not the most broken thing.

  20. Nuffsed says:

    I was not so disappointed with Blood Angel Assault Marines losing meltas and plasma, because company command veterans could all be equipped with any special weapons and given jump packs.

    The big loss for the BA is the Baal Predator. It’s inferno cannon was an Assault weapon. Combined with the overcharged engines (Advance 2D6, pick the highest) the thing seemed deadly. Now it can either advance or shoot the cannon

    • Neil_Phillips says:

      The stats on the datasheet didn't match the summary, or the LR Redeemer. They seem to have gone with the majority version if a weapon has different profiles in two places (the Demolisher Cannon in Index Imperium 2 summary got upgraded to match Index Imperium 1).

      They should have given it a different name to make it Assault (similar to what was done with the Immolation Flamer)

      • Dakkath says:

        It's not like it needs to be assault, you can still fire it (auto hitting, even) on the move.

        • ScottyPrime says:

          But you can't advance and fire it.

          • abusepuppy says:

            Sure, that just brings it in line with the other heavy template weapons out there, like the Heavy Incinerator, the Flamestorm Cannon the LR Redeemer, the Heavy Flamer itself, etc. It's an unfortunate loss, but a pretty easily predictable one.

  21. Scuzgob says:

    if my opponent and i cant agree on something and we use the most important rule to roll off, can i use a command point to re-roll that?

    • No One says:

      Yes 😛 . And if they say otherwise, use the most important rule to roll off on whether you can roll off with your CP.

      Look at us, breaking the game with the most important rule (it is, after all, the most important – you can't say it's not there).

  22. Tirend says:

    Weird thing for them to specify that when deep striking you need to roll a charge distance of 9 in order to successfully charge.

    The rulebook itself was pretty clear about it "The charging model must end its movement within 1'' in order for the charge to be successful" and even in the same exact FAQ they clarify that being exactly 1'' away is the same as being within 1''. Wonder if that's just assumptions being made by the developers or them overriding their own main rule.

    • Sokhar says:

      You need to roll a 9 because deep strike rules say you have to place your models MORE than 9" away, so at least 9.000001", which translates into needing a 9" charge.

  23. malloc() says:

    I’m convinced someone at GW still thinks starcannons are heavy 3.

  24. Tirend says:

    Here's a question:

    Do Lightning Claws grant +1 Attack for each one then?

    Under the main rulebook FAQ it states:

    "Q. If a model is equipped with two chainswords, do they get to
    make 2 extra close combat attacks?
    A. Yes (though both must be made with a chainsword)"

    But then going to Xenos 2 it states:

    "Q. Monstrous scything talons say that if the bearer has more
    than one pair it can make one additional attack. How many
    extra attacks does a Trygon, which has three pairs of monstrous
    scything talons, make?
    A. It makes a total of one additional attack. "

    Lightning Claws state:

    "If a model is armed with two lightning claws, each time it fights it can make 1 additional attack with them"

    Is it assumed by 'them' it means with the pair and thus having 2 Lightning Claws is equivalently one wargear option?

    The FAQ for Xenos 2 seems to indicate this. But the wording on the additional attack is nearly identical with Chainsword with the only replacement being 'them' with 'this weapon'. But then looking at the Trygon profile the wording is again the exact same as the Chainsword. Am I missing something here?

Leave a Reply

`