Power Field Generator Changes

[Grushdeva]

According to a recent FAQ released for DA it reads that ... "If a model carrying a PFG is embarked upon a transport vehicle that the saves only apply to models embarked upon that vehicle."

 

Here is the question, does that mean that it no longer applies to the vehicle they are in?  If so, that seems a little odd as a vehicle is at most 7" or so.  If a model is standing in the middle, even inside of a Land Raider, a 3" bubble covers the entirety of the vehicle.  I understand restricting it to not project out of the hull anymore, however not to protect the vehicle seems very stupid.  Especially since we do not have a single unit that has less than a natural 4+ save already.  The 4++ save for vehicles seemed to be the only real reason to take one IMO.

 

Thoughts?  It also seems pretty odd that a Psychic Hood protects a vehicle embarked upon only, but the PFG no longer does.

[Azatoth]

I think the wording is very clear:

 

models embarked upon that vehicle.

So no the vehicle is not protected. And there is quite the difference between 3+ and 4++.

[elphilo]

Azatoth is correct. No more 4++ for the vehicle if the bearer is embarked upon it. It still affects the vehicle if the PFG bear is outside the transport though

[Grushdeva]

Again, this seems very very misworded or a bad change for the PFG.  Look at the math involved ....

 

3" bubble totally encompases an embarked upon vehicle.  Meanwhile, if you are 2.5" away from a vehicle with a PFG it will only truly be shielding 1/8th or so of the total vehicle.  So how does a unit INSIDE of a vehicle not protect it, but the guy only protecting a miniscule portion of it protect the entire thing?  My previous point with the Psychic Hood also shows the previous precedent set for items providing protection only shielding embarked on vehicles.

 

Then there is the issue of the wording itself.  It "Protects units embarked upon the transport" ... There is no way to target a model inside/embarked upon a vehicle until the vehicle is destroyed.  So how is it really assisting anything?  Whenever a transport explodes, it would be foolish to use the PFG to protect them from the ensuing explosion when they have a 3+ save.

 

This feels more like gimping a 30pt wargear item than doing any "nerfing" to balance the game.  Elimination of 3" bubble from hull made total sense.  As this could be used to create a scenario where ALL vehicles were suddenly getting a 4++ save.  I don't think there is anyone who would say that usage such as that would be fair.  Unless they just really liked cheese.  

 

I don't really play any tournaments yet, so I know that people at my local shop would agree to eliminate 3" bubble and keep protecting vehicle.  Though, it bothers me severely that GW would create such a problematic issue and violate the standard already in place in their core rules.

 

Please do tell if people think I am being unreasonable in my confusion about the logical thinking behind not protecting embarked upon vehicles.  

[Disruptor_fe404]

It is a 'gimping' of a 30pt piece of wargear, yes.

 

The FAQ is written clearly. The motive behind it is perhaps a little more inscrutable.

[Brother Landrain]

It is an over-reaction to a problem that really didn't exist.

 

The three inch bubble outside the Land Raider, would give a 4++ save to other vehicles or models in range.

Is this powerful? Sure. 

But it is a 30 point piece of wargear.

 

Using it on multiple vehicles requires keeping those vehicles very tightly packed. Which leaves them open to Large Blast templates.

It also restricts your movement and shooting due to staying close together.

Also, killing the Character stops the save.

 

 

There are a lot of ways to give Vehicles a save...

KFF 50pts for a 5+ Cover save, with larger radius.. which can be improved with Stealth/Shrouded etc...

Flickerfields 10pts for a 5++

Holo-Fields

BA Psychic Power - Shield of Sanguinius

 

It is not like the 3 Landraider force with PFG was tearing up the meta-circuit.

 

Removing the bubble, is misguided but acceptable.

Removing the save on the Vehicle itself, is a huge over-reaction.

[Grushdeva]

Another fun little thing, the FAQs contradict each other   I was on GW site reading the core rulebook FAQ and on page 7 it has the question about AOE wargear, specifically Forcefields.  They state IN THE FAQ that such items are measure from the hull of embarked vehicles.  Then they contradict each other in the DA FAQ about the PFG.

 

https://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

 

Listed on Page 7 of the FAQ for Core Rulebook, towards the bottom of page.

 

I find it interesting that one type of force field projects from the hull while another one is being turned off before getting into a vehicle.

[Brother Immolator]

Brain maggots...

[elphilo]

While I agree in that I think it is kind of dumb to not affect the transport the model with the PFG is embarked upon. I understand why they made it so it doesn't emanate to the outside. I'm just as perplexed as you as to why they decided to take it away from us, then clarify it in the BRB FAQ. I guess its just GW's way of rubbing salt into the wound a little more :P

[pueriexdeus]

Another fun little thing, the FAQs contradict each other   I was on GW site reading the core rulebook FAQ and on page 7 it has the question about AOE wargear, specifically Forcefields.  They state IN THE FAQ that such items are measure from the hull of embarked vehicles.  Then they contradict each other in the DA FAQ about the PFG.

 

https://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

 

Listed on Page 7 of the FAQ for Core Rulebook, towards the bottom of page.

 

I find it interesting that one type of force field projects from the hull while another one is being turned off before getting into a vehicle.

That is only because its a Dark Angel thing. Sheesh, hasn't anyone figured that out yet?

[Raven Angel]

Does it mean that the tank still gets saves for shaken and stunned results as that effects the crew embarked on the tank not the tank itself?

[Azrell]

Another fun little thing, the FAQs contradict each other   I was on GW site reading the core rulebook FAQ and on page 7 it has the question about AOE wargear, specifically Forcefields.  They state IN THE FAQ that such items are measure from the hull of embarked vehicles.  Then they contradict each other in the DA FAQ about the PFG.

 

https://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

 

Listed on Page 7 of the FAQ for Core Rulebook, towards the bottom of page.

 

I find it interesting that one type of force field projects from the hull while another one is being turned off before getting into a vehicle.

ANother Fun'er fact is that the change to the power field generator was an actual rules change not an FAQ. FAQs can only clarify a rule not change it in any way. 

They added more words to the description of the power field generator. 

[march10k]

Another fun little thing, the FAQs contradict each other   I was on GW site reading the core rulebook FAQ and on page 7 it has the question about AOE wargear, specifically Forcefields.  They state IN THE FAQ that such items are measure from the hull of embarked vehicles.  Then they contradict each other in the DA FAQ about the PFG.

 

https://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

 

Listed on Page 7 of the FAQ for Core Rulebook, towards the bottom of page.

 

I find it interesting that one type of force field projects from the hull while another one is being turned off before getting into a vehicle.

 

 

Pardon the eyeroll.  The FAQs don't contradict one another, one overrides the other.  Big difference.  I agree that the PFG should probably protect the vehicle, but I'm not falling on my sword over it, or flopping on the ground foaming at the mouth in my hysterics.

 

It is an over-reaction to a problem that really didn't exist.

 

The three inch bubble outside the Land Raider, would give a 4++ save to other vehicles or models in range.

Is this powerful? Sure.

But it is a 30 point piece of wargear.

 

[dripping sarcasm] Oh, right, because 80 points (including the techmarine) divided by 3 is ~27 points...and that's totally a fair price to double the survivability of a 250 point tank!  [/dripping sarcasm]

 

80 points to give just the one tank a 4++ seems about right though.  I think that's what was intended, but c'est la vie, we're stuck with the wording that we got...and a bike-mounted PFG can still protect at least two land raiders, so...

[facmanpob]

While I agree in that I think it is kind of dumb to not affect the transport the model with the PFG is embarked upon. I understand why they made it so it doesn't emanate to the outside. I'm just as perplexed as you as to why they decided to take it away from us, then clarify it in the BRB FAQ. I guess its just GW's way of rubbing salt into the wound a little more

Just to clarify, the entry in the BRB FAQ regarding area of effect wargear isn't new, its been there for years...pretty much since someone first put a KFF inside a Battlewagon and wondered if he measured the area of effect from the hull or not. So when the PFG became an option in January, it was obvious that we could stick it in a vehicle and it would follow the same rules as the KFF. Right? ...... well, wrong actually it would seem......

What I really don't understand is why the need for 2 conflicting FAQ entries about area of effect wargear......surely if they are worried about Dark Angel players putting PFGs inside Land Raiders and running a 750 point wall of AV14 4++ doom, then they should have been equally worried at seeing tournament lists with Battlewagons, Deff Dreads and Killer Kans covered with KFF cover saves, which also used to be 4+ in 5th Ed if I recall correctly. But they didn't seem bothered about that......hmmmm.....I get increasingly cynical about this, and part of me wonders if they are playing 'Retail-hammer' with their FAQs - "Oohhhhh, I really need 3 Land Raiders to make my beardy net list work......£££££ kerr-ching......Oh, my PFG net list has been nerfed.....I don't need those extra Raiders any more.......Oooohh, Ravenwing command Squads can take 5 members, must buy another box....££££££ kerr-ching....."

Maybe I should do what Stanley Kubrick advised: Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb and maybe paint some Fantasy Ogres

[Brother Landrain]

 

It is an over-reaction to a problem that really didn't exist.

 

The three inch bubble outside the Land Raider, would give a 4++ save to other vehicles or models in range.

Is this powerful? Sure.

But it is a 30 point piece of wargear.

[dripping sarcasm] Oh, right, because 80 points (including the techmarine) divided by 3 is ~27 points...and that's totally a fair price to double the survivability of a 250 point tank!  [/dripping sarcasm]

 

80 points to give just the one tank a 4++ seems about right though.  I think that's what was intended, but c'est la vie, we're stuck with the wording that we got...and a bike-mounted PFG can still protect at least two land raiders, so...

Shield of Sanguinius is a 6" bubble... Easy to fit in 8-9 tanks... and all it takes is a roll of <11

[Grushdeva]

Okay ... lets take this scenario:

 

Techmarine + Servo-Harness + Bike + PFG.  He is an expensive Son of  a B!% but he'll provide a fast moving 4++ to any tank he can get that 3" bubble to barely touch.  ... Does this seem more or less broken than having him protecting only one vehicle from inside of it?

 

I don't see anything listed in our DA book to prevent such a concept from being fielded.  I do know that in the Space Marine Codex it states THEY can't do it though.  However, such a limitation is not listed in the DA book.  So does this mean our guys are just much more skilled at bike riding than the Smurfs?  Or will they patchwork this in the near future as people start trying it do you think?

 

125pt roving bubble with repair ability.  He then would have a Toughness value of 5 from bike, and 2+/4++ saves.  Also, compared to several of our other HQ choices, 125pts is not bad at all.  Thoughts?

[Brother Immolator]

I personally dont give a damn about the LR wall nerfing. Against a decent list said deployment would face serious predicaments.

I am more worried by the fact that I lost the LRs hull as a measuring point for the PFG in regards to other units that synergize with the banner.

Namely I cant have the command squad inside a LR and extend the PFG to the rest of the army. Probably with the cuts on the Razorbacks and the LR I will be adding a deathwing knights squad. Mechanized be damned!

[elphilo]

What I really don't understand is why the need for 2 conflicting FAQ entries about area of effect wargear......surely if they are worried about Dark Angel players putting PFGs inside Land Raiders and running a 750 point wall of AV14 4++ doom, then they should have been equally worried at seeing tournament lists with Battlewagons, Deff Dreads and Killer Kans covered with KFF cover saves, which also used to be 4+ in 5th Ed if I recall correctly. But they didn't seem bothered about that......hmmmm.....I get increasingly cynical about this, and part of me wonders if they are playing 'Retail-hammer' with their FAQs - "Oohhhhh, I really need 3 Land Raiders to make my beardy net list work......£££££ kerr-ching......Oh, my PFG net list has been nerfed.....I don't need those extra Raiders any more.......Oooohh, Ravenwing command Squads can take 5 members, must buy another box....££££££ kerr-ching....."

While I know they are the same. Getting rid of a cover save is much easier than getting rid of an Invulnerable save. Its probably why they didn't mess with the KFF while they messed with the PFG. Like mach10k said, I'm not going to fall on my sword about it, its just rather annoying. Oh well.

Okay ... lets take this scenario:

Techmarine + Servo-Harness + Bike + PFG. He is an expensive Son of a B!% but he'll provide a fast moving 4++ to any tank he can get that 3" bubble to barely touch. ... Does this seem more or less broken than having him protecting only one vehicle from inside of it?

I don't see anything listed in our DA book to prevent such a concept from being fielded. I do know that in the Space Marine Codex it states THEY can't do it though. However, such a limitation is not listed in the DA book. So does this mean our guys are just much more skilled at bike riding than the Smurfs? Or will they patchwork this in the near future as people start trying it do you think?

125pt roving bubble with repair ability. He then would have a Toughness value of 5 from bike, and 2+/4++ saves. Also, compared to several of our other HQ choices, 125pts is not bad at all. Thoughts?

I think this would be a viable thing. Its what I'm going to be trying with the dual land raider list in my next game. And its pretty much what mach10k and my self suggested to do :P

[facmanpob]

What I really don't understand is why the need for 2 conflicting FAQ entries about area of effect wargear......surely if they are worried about Dark Angel players putting PFGs inside Land Raiders and running a 750 point wall of AV14 4++ doom, then they should have been equally worried at seeing tournament lists with Battlewagons, Deff Dreads and Killer Kans covered with KFF cover saves, which also used to be 4+ in 5th Ed if I recall correctly. But they didn't seem bothered about that......hmmmm.....I get increasingly cynical about this, and part of me wonders if they are playing 'Retail-hammer' with their FAQs - "Oohhhhh, I really need 3 Land Raiders to make my beardy net list work......£££££ kerr-ching......Oh, my PFG net list has been nerfed.....I don't need those extra Raiders any more.......Oooohh, Ravenwing command Squads can take 5 members, must buy another box....££££££ kerr-ching....."

While I know they are the same. Getting rid of a cover save is much easier than getting rid of an Invulnerable save. Its probably why they didn't mess with the KFF while they messed with the PFG. Like mach10k said, I'm not going to fall on my sword about it, its just rather annoying. Oh well.

Out of interest, could you let me know what in our codex can get rid of a cover save and penetrate AV14, because I'm struggling at the moment to think of anything (admittedly I don't have it in front of me to refer to)? That's the issue when you have a KFF protecting a bunch of battlewagons....

[march10k]

Out of interest, could you let me know what in our codex can get rid of a cover save and penetrate AV14, because I'm struggling at the moment to think of anything (admittedly I don't have it in front of me to refer to)? That's the issue when you have a KFF protecting a bunch of battlewagons....

Who said anything about our codex? In the metagame, such things exist. That's enough. Anyway, a 5++ from a KFF on a vehicle with 12" side armor is junk compared to a 4++ on a land raider....and we can still do that, albiet from a bike that hides behind the land raiders, instead of from inside.

Shield of Sanguinius is a 6" bubble... Easy to fit in 8-9 tanks... and all it takes is a roll of <11

Yes. And eldar have lance weapons. You want those, too? What another codex has isn't relevant. You get shield of Sanguinus, they get vengeful strike, right?

[Master Avoghai]

Who said anything about our codex? In the metagame, such things exist. That's enough. Anyway, a 5++ from a KFF on a vehicle with 12" side armor is junk compared to a 4++ on a land raider....and we can still do that, albiet from a bike that hides behind the land raiders, instead of from inside.

 

Well IIRC the auspex will lower the KFF by 1...

So yes we do have items like that in our codex... But of course, it doesn't bring us to a Tau level ;)

[Master Sheol]

The PFG issue and DW sgt issue is a clever plan by GW to get some time to think about How to fix other DA problems.

They Will make another FAQ in june after eldar codex to fix these things so they can posticipate until new vanilla dex the faq about flyers, LSV, BoC....

they are Smart.... :P

[facmanpob]

@March10k

Dude, I asked a simple question.....chill out!

@Master Avoghai

....and here was the answer....I knew we had something that could help, but couldn't put my finger on it! thanks Avoghai

[Brother Immolator]

@March10k

Dude, I asked a simple question.....chill out!

@Master Avoghai

....and here was the answer....I knew we had something that could help, but couldn't put my finger on it! thanks Avoghai

As once I have been told on this very forum (by someone I dont remember), there are no such things as a simple question or humble opinions on the Internet.

You dare voicing questions....

[facmanpob]

@March10k

Dude, I asked a simple question.....chill out!

@Master Avoghai

....and here was the answer....I knew we had something that could help, but couldn't put my finger on it! thanks Avoghai

As once I have been told on this very forum (by someone I dont remember), there are no such things as a simple question or humble opinions on the Internet.

You dare voicing questions....

I do, foolish of me really