Red Fury Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I don't mind the other chapters having access to the Raven at all. I mean really, a mini-thunderhawk? It seems totally natural and logical for a 40K game sized force. I mean compared to a real thunderhawk, which nobody would use outside some apocalypse sized game. Here's what I don't get...why not open up the Space Marine flyers completely? Ravens, StormTalons, DarkTalons, and Jetfighters for all! Hell, even let chaos have 'em. Maybe keep something back and let them have thier helldrakes instead. But why not just open this up across the lines with standard stats and FOC across the board. This just reeks of a major lack of any kind of foresight by the developers to me. The thing is, with allies, it was nearly open anyway. How hard do you need to persuade an Ultra guy that wants a Raven to take a unit of DC, or some Grey Kights to take that Raven? Or a scout squad and a libby? So really it hurts us more because who was going to take a smurf unit to get a Talon? The DA options are whatever, but why not remove the prerequisite for all armies and make a good flyer supplement to 40K! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 /sigh However it does make sense from a business point of view. The book will be bought by all those who missed the White Dwarf with the original flyer rules, those who missed the Crusade of Flyers book and almost every vanilla will buy a Storm Raven at £50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Little bit of a reactionary title to be honest. I dont feel GW is forcing us to do anything. Also, while it is heavily frowned upon, I doubt ill be spending hundreds of Rands on what will essentially be about 8 pages of rules I will need. I'll patiently wait for online copies to show up. If GW cant make a product worth buying, then I see no reason to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
company veteran Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 yes.. but if i want to play in any gw events here in the uk and this book has changed the ravens rules then gw is 'forcing' me to buy it so i can field my army.. 'oh you have a complete army that you have spent £100's on? nah..go ahead and spend £20 more for NOTHING extra' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 yes.. but if i want to play in any gw events here in the uk and this book has changed the ravens rules then gw is 'forcing' me to buy it so i can field my army.. 'oh you have a complete army that you have spent £100's on? nah..go ahead and spend £20 more for NOTHING extra' If codex > rulebook, then codex > expansion books. Do the Math, GW! Snorri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysteriousmaskedmystery Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 i'll probaby wait for a digital version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
company veteran Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 new BA FAQ.. we lost deep strike on the raven, if its carrying a dread when it crashes and the dread immobilises then you place the dread within 3'' of the crash, and using skies of blood now counts exactly like a deepstrike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gondow Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 And if you read BRB FaQ we don't have The raven either any longer... Q:LandSpeederStorms,StormravenGunships and StormtalonGunships are all listed as SpaceMarine vehicles in the Reference section.Does this mean that every Space MarineChapter now has access to these vehicles as well (i.e. SpaceWolves,BloodAngels,GreyKnightsetc.)?(p411) A: No–you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the armylist section of your codex. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: SpaceMarines and Codex: BlackTemplars. The rules for these Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3030012a_Blood_Angels_v1.3_FEBRUARY13.pdf Nerfbat anyone? Surely that defeats the point of putting jumpers inside it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtarador Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 And if you read BRB FaQ we don't have The raven either any longer... Q:LandSpeederStorms,StormravenGunships and StormtalonGunships are all listed as SpaceMarine vehicles in the Reference section.Does this mean that every Space MarineChapter now has access to these vehicles as well (i.e. SpaceWolves,BloodAngels,GreyKnightsetc.)?(p411) A: No–you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the armylist section of your codex. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: SpaceMarines and Codex: BlackTemplars. The rules for these Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium. AAHHAHAAHAHAH oh my that's the worst wording I've ever seen! xD edit:// So they also FAQ'd out that we can use descent of angels on skies of blood? It feels like they just copypasted the space marine section into our document without thinking at all... this can't be right, can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Well done, GW. Copy/paste mistakes that renders the Stormraven as transport useless not only to anyone else, but also us! We rule the skies? Yeah, think about that for a minute. *mutters* can't even disembark with DoA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlantic Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It might not be that bad. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong. I was under the assumption before that you had to switch from zoom to hover in order to disembark. This looks like you can zoom and drop guys and they just take a dangerous terrain test if they scatter. Am i missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Since its a Deep Strike, we can definitely use DoA can we not? Since Deep Striking with JP troops means we roll d6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtarador Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 that question aside mort, we also shouldn't need to take dangerous terrain tests if we have jump packs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
company veteran Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 We used to not take dangerous terrain from scattering from skies of blood... Now that we are more furious about it than bloody we might kill ourselves jumping out... £20 to make a unit worse? Thanks GW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It might not be that bad. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong. I was under the assumption before that you had to switch from zoom to hover in order to disembark. This looks like you can zoom and drop guys and they just take a dangerous terrain test if they scatter. Am i missing something? Nope. You could always do this. It was called "Skies of Blood" before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Since its a Deep Strike, we can definitely use DoA can we not? Since Deep Striking with JP troops means we roll d6? Indeed we can, but 'Skies of Blood' also included a part that prevented Dangerous Terrain tests at all when using the Descent of Angels rule. Now, GW dropped this from the entry entirely. Snorri Edit: Eh, ninja'd by company veteran. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodsurfer Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 This seriously sucks. I was onboard the whole way with CSM getting the raven until I saw the FAQ. Why for the love of god was it necessary, even from a business standpoint, to nerf the Blood Angels??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Admetus Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 This is now beyond ridiculous. "Here, have a £20 book that tells you precisely sod-all that you didn't already know". GW's quality has been steadily dropping of late, and its now at the point where I'm considering simply taking up a different hobby. White Dwarf had a promising reboot with the first new issue, but now its even more of a "This is our new stuff. Buy it! BUY IT! BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" than ever before. The new Dark Angels book had so many printing errors that it required an FAQ within DAYS of its release. Copy-pasting the same rules to everyone just means there is little to no reason to use any codex other than regular ultrasmurfs, and that stupid section that's just been put into the rulebook FAQ just stinks of GW's policy of 'do first, think 3 months down the line'. I remember when the website had plenty of articles, loads of nice things featuring armies, the best way to get started, fluff articles and more, but now there are precisely 0 articles. And it offends me, I'm not sure why but it does, that they advertise all these fancy things like "Skyhammer Squadrons" or "Caliban's Wrath" or all this rubbish which is simply 2 copies of the same kit. The prices are skyrocketing stupid amounts even as the models cost less to produce, and I wouldn't complain if it wasn't for the fact that the quality is decreasing simultaneously. I'll be buying no more from Games Workshop until the quality improves (since there's absolutely no way the prices will ever come down), as I absolutely refuse to pay £20 for a hardback supplement to use a solitary model. No dice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I've thought about this whole 'thing'. The Stormraven becoming a vanilla toy wasn't surprising in the end, was it? And I was expecting the Skies of Blood rule to change accordingly when that happens. A few FAQs here and there, and bob's your uncle, so to speak.What was the real slap in the face is the brash, ruthless and quite honestly sloppy way GW put this whole flyer-madness on the line. I mean, why should I pay for an overpriced book of which I'll be using 2 pages maximum? Especially when the information that I need is found in the other book I've already paid for? Sorry, that seems irrational, even from a company's POV. Then, when shelling out the Stormraven to C:SM and Templars(they really needed something to compete with flyers) why not give the Space Wolves some of the good stuff as well? Are they so independent from the imperial doctrine that they can't have nice things? Well, their codex is still pretty good, or let's say very good, but still. It was obvious for the Dark Angels, they've already got two flyers of their own. Again, not a good move from a company's POV. Another thing comes to mind. The FAQ that actually have popped up on the site don't help at all selling the 'new' flyers. The Stormraven for example is available to C:SM and Black Templars, both of which could need a flying transport...yet with the new FAQ you don't want to transport anything with the SR at all. Skies of Blood was actually a decent alternative when boosting the 'Raven over the field, now it's rubbish. Makes no sense at all. Not even mentioning the errors that were obviously made while copypasting through the lot. And I agree with Admetus, the quality has considerably dropped while the prices have (hopefully) reached the zenith. I'm also buying from independent stores that offer me a discount on GW products, just to keep it affordable as a hobby. We all know that hobbies are expensive, blah blah blah, but it has gotten ridiculous. Not a rant, just a summary of the current situation from my perspective.Snorri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 lol the FAQ department is even lazier than the Codex spell check department Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokhar Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Is it annoying that we take dangerous terrain tests when using Skies of Blood now? Yeah, its stupid. But am I missing something? This isn't 5th ed anymore, guys. Dangerous Terrain allows armor saves. You have a 1 in 18 chance of losing a model to dangerous terrain while using Skies of Blood if you scatter. Is that really going to discourage you from using it? I don't think I've ever put jump pack Assault Marines inside one, even when we didn't run that 5.56% chance of death. That's the same odds of killing yourself with a single plasmagun shot. Do we not use them anymore either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kem Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Is it annoying that we take dangerous terrain tests when using Skies of Blood now? Yeah, its stupid. But am I missing something? This isn't 5th ed anymore, guys. Dangerous Terrain allows armor saves. You have a 1 in 18 chance of losing a model to dangerous terrain while using Skies of Blood if you scatter. Is that really going to discourage you from using it? I don't think I've ever put jump pack Assault Marines inside one, even when we didn't run that 5.56% chance of death. That's the same odds of killing yourself with a single plasmagun shot. Do we not use them anymore either? Tell that yourself when you lose a key model to that test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnorriSnorrison Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Is it annoying that we take dangerous terrain tests when using Skies of Blood now? Yeah, its stupid. But am I missing something? This isn't 5th ed anymore, guys. Dangerous Terrain allows armor saves. You have a 1 in 18 chance of losing a model to dangerous terrain while using Skies of Blood if you scatter. Is that really going to discourage you from using it? I don't think I've ever put jump pack Assault Marines inside one, even when we didn't run that 5.56% chance of death. That's the same odds of killing yourself with a single plasmagun shot. Do we not use them anymore either? The point is that now, our so-called jump pack experts look as clumsy as footslogging marines of lesser chapters when disembarking from a Stormraven, despite having the 'innate' wish to fly(loosely quoted from Ward's madness) and hours over hours of training with jump packs exclusively. For me, it's not really another opportunity they missed to integrate the fluff in the rules, because they'd actually done that with Skies of Blood and everything was fine. It was even sense-making! The new FAQs are a mistake that was made out of carelessness, probably in the middle of the night and shows how much GW proof-reads their official documents and what they give about the result of their foolish and unappreciative 'work'. Not a single damn. Snorri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokhar Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Snorri: I agree, but I've sorta come to expect it from GW. If rules actually reflect fluff properly, its more a pleasant surprise than something to get annoyed about in reverse. Tell that yourself when you lose a key model to that test. If its really that game-breaing for you, I'd recommend not tossing guys out the back of your Stormraven. Its a very unlikely occurrence during a maneuver of dubious tactical value. Its really not worth nerd-raging over. If its necessary, I'll take my chances, same as having jump packers move into or out of terrain. I don't get bent out of shape when that forces a terrain test either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.