FAQs are up!

[Confused Word Bearer]

I'm surprised the Daemon Prince's weapon costs didn't go down. It still seems odd that the paired claws are much cheaper than the other options.

[Sception]

especially since the claws are objectively superior to the sword.  same average damage against big things, more average casualties against little things.  The only situation where the sword even might be better is against something with damage halving like abaddon, and that is not a large number of things.

 

No, if anything, the sword should be cheaper than the claws, not 30 points more expensive, and the axe is pretty much on par with the sword, so that shouldn't be that much more expensive than the claws, either.  Either the second claw need to be 30+ points more expensive, or else the other two need to be 30+ points cheaper.  Honestly, though, all the prince's weapons are pretty much equivalent.  They should probably all be zero points, and the prince itself should be 10 to 30 points more expensive, depending on which gear was priced appropriately to begin with.

[Prot]

Except that thousand sons also get regular sorcerers, at the normal points cost.  Why even, if they're only ever supposed to take the exalteds?  Nah, exalted sorcerers are supposed to be sorcerers ++, they should have a higher points cost to go with it.  If I had to guess, I'd say there was probably a late stage points increase to our sorcerers, and it just didn't quite filter through to all our other sorcerer-adjacent units.

Of course they get regular Sorcs. The lords of change find new wannabes every month pouring out of the Warp. You have to understand the Psychic phase isn't a shred of what it used to be.

[Prot]

 

I actually thought it was GW's way of being fluffy and showcasing the ease with which Thousand Sons could access Sorcs. With some other things being not too terribly good, it was a cool feature.

 

Don't get me wrong it's not the end of the world. Thousand Sons (like everyone else) just need a rulebook to properly define them. But that's part of the growing pains of 8th and I still welcome it even if the main thrust of my army has moved from psychic might to... doing stuff with dust bunnies!

 

Fluff has no place in points tho.

They could have shown that by giving TSons Sorcerer in the Elite slot (although one can just spam HQs these days anyway), but making them cheaper would be a dumb decision.

Fluff has no place in points? Is this according to you or the creators of the game? I could argue this going back several editions but it's moot. My hypothesis was just was just an after thought....not a golden rule I wanted people to live by. Edited July 3, 2017 by Prot

[Panzer]

 

 

I actually thought it was GW's way of being fluffy and showcasing the ease with which Thousand Sons could access Sorcs. With some other things being not too terribly good, it was a cool feature.

 

Don't get me wrong it's not the end of the world. Thousand Sons (like everyone else) just need a rulebook to properly define them. But that's part of the growing pains of 8th and I still welcome it even if the main thrust of my army has moved from psychic might to... doing stuff with dust bunnies!

Fluff has no place in points tho.

They could have shown that by giving TSons Sorcerer in the Elite slot (although one can just spam HQs these days anyway), but making them cheaper would be a dumb decision.

Fluff has no place in points? Is this according to you or the creators of the game? I could argue this going back several editions but it's moot. My hypothesis was just was just an after thought....not a golden rule I wanted people to live by.

 

It's according to me. Points should represent stats and special rules, nothing else.

[Plaguecaster]

I'm surprised the lord of contagion didn't get a price decrease oh well typhus still is the better and cheaper option

[sanityimpaired]

I'm sad about my Exalted Sorcerers getting more expensive.

It really did need to be addressed.  They were objectively better than regular sorcerors for fewer points, and you could toss one into any army since losing the re-roll 1s to hit thing doesn't matter to sorcs much anyway.

 

I agree that they should have reduced regular sorc's cost instead, but c'est la GW.

 

Surprised there was no points increase to Typhus. Not that I'm complaining.

I am, though I think it's the Lord of Contagion that is overpriced instead.

[Cheex]

 

 

Glad to finally have an official answer as to how to fight twice with 'zerkers.

I am so keen for this. I was playing the weaker interpretation, so this is huge for me.

I have missed this. Could you point me to where in the fsq you're referring?

Rulebook FAQ, p3 :)

[sanityimpaired]

 

So for me this isn't a nerf or upgrade, just a change to wounds which now has him directly compete with Be'lakor, a battle the DPoC loses.

 

 

I don't see it that way.  Be'lakor is more expensive, and he doesn't get one of the god specific abilities like Ephemeral Form.  The CSM Daemon Prince doesn't get one either, but Dark Hereticus looks better than any of the Daemon psyker tables and their Auras effect CSMs and Daemons rather than just Daemons.

 

The Daemon Prince is a better unit on their own merit, while the CSM Prince is a better support unit.

[GreaterChickenofTzeentch]

unfortunate, but not unexpected.  would have preferred for regular sorcerers to come down in price instead, but still.

 

Definitive answer on the smoke question - you can advance & pop smoke - is nice.

 

A Defiler can now do something a Soul Grinder can't. For extra lulz, combine Smoke with The Changeling for a hilarious -2 to be hit while advancing.

[ArtificerArmour]

According to the FAQ re:understrength units, you can take 1 poxwalker as a troop choice for 6pts Edited July 4, 2017 by ArtificerArmour

[Azekai]

According to the FAQ re:understrength units, you can take 1 poxwalker as a troop choice for 6pts

I think the idea behind understrength units is to help players with limited collections get out there and have a game. Strategically speaking, tons of tiny units doesn't help much outside of force organizations shenanigans thanks to split fire and it can be a gigantic liability in terms of kill points.

 

The only time it might be advantageous on the table is to force your opponent to awkwardly split fire amongst lots of multi-wound models, but even then, it just sounds like it would bog the game down rather than be particularly effective.

[Commissar K.]

I also expect understrength units as a rule not appear in any competative tournamemt. As said the way its written now is indeed "breakable" bit the intend is simple. Play with whatever instead of play understrength to your advantage.

[Sception]

Keep in mind that you're only allowed an understrength unit if those are the only models of that unit in you're army. Like, you could have a 1 poxwalker unit, but that must be your only poxwalker in the army, and they kind of want to be big.

 

I suppose this is abusable to qualify for command points by taking several different one model troop squads, like one cultist, one csm, one poxwalker, one bloodletter, etc. But i'd be disinclined to throw the rule out, since it also allows for more reasonable things. Like a squad of four terminators, able to ride a land raider with a termie hq.

Edited July 4, 2017 by malisteen

[Filkarion]

This of the understrength units seems the big one to me.

 

I'm not sure I like the scenarios it opens (overcomplication).

The way rules are written you can make 3 models chaos SM/Noise marines squads with lascannon/blastmaster who are IMHO almost as effective as 5 men squads for a good price reduction  

 

I'm also not so sure of malisteen interpretation of "only one unit per type". So, more complication.

Why include minimum unit size in points costs tables at all if you then implement this rule...

 

Old habits are die-hard GW?^^

[Panzer]

This of the understrength units seems the big one to me.

 

I'm not sure I like the scenarios it opens (overcomplication).

The way rules are written you can make 3 models chaos SM/Noise marines squads with lascannon/blastmaster who are IMHO almost as effective as 5 men squads for a good price reduction  

 

I'm also not so sure of malisteen interpretation of "only one unit per type". So, more complication.

Why include minimum unit size in points costs tables at all if you then implement this rule...

 

Old habits are die-hard GW?^^

It's not complicated at all. The rules literally say that if you don't have enough models of the minimum requirements of a unit, you can use the ones you have.

The consequence that you can do such a thing only once is a logical one. You can only have not enough models or you have enough models. You can't have two, three or five times not enough models for Poxwalker or whatever.

 

The damage output vs points shouldn't be an issue either since each models point cost should represent the models capabilities so they units capability for their points shouldn't raise when you have less models in it.

[Kol Saresk]

Yeah, what they're trying to do is make it as neat and orderly as possible, while at the same time discouraging people from going "I have one unit of one Poxwalker!"

Of course, the FAQ even adds the condition that you still have to pay for the full power level in narrative play.

But I agree with malisteen and sfpanzer that only one understrength unit of each datasheet would be a natural restriction since it has to be a "you don't have enough" situation, not "you just want 9 million units of one Poxwalker each."

[Sception]

"If you don't have enough models to make a minimum sized unit, you may include one unit with as many models as you have available."  One could argue available as 'owned' vs. 'in the army', I'd argue the latter.

 

Very clearly you are only allowed one under-strength unit, and very clearly only if you don't have enough total models for even a single minimum sized unit.  So you can't have two units of one poxwalker, nor can you have one unit of 10 and another unit of 1.  Both are explicitly not allowed.

[Panzer]

"If you don't have enough models to make a minimum sized unit, you may include one unit with as many models as you have available."  One could argue available as 'owned' vs. 'in the army', I'd argue the latter.

 

Very clearly you are only allowed one under-strength unit, and very clearly only if you don't have enough total models for even a single minimum sized unit.  So you can't have two units of one poxwalker, nor can you have one unit of 10 and another unit of 1.  Both are explicitly not allowed.

That's not quite right tho. RAW you could perfectly fine play 1 1/2 Poxwalker units. "a unit" != "a single unit"

[Sception]

"Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; if this is the case you may..."

 

If your army has 15 pox walkers, then you DO have enough pox walkers to make a minimum-sized unit, and as such your army does NOT meet the necessary condition to include an under-sized unit of pox walkers.

[Filkarion]

Ok ok sorry, my fault for reading only the FAQ and not the entire rule before posting, there is clearly a "one unit" "logic" limit

 

That will teach me a lession^^

[tbone]

I suppose this is good news for any folks that used only 3 terminators in previous editions.

Unfortunately, it's broken. Hypothetically, someone could bring only one of several different troop choices for meeting battalion detachment minimum requirements. This really dilutes the whole 'troops tax' and we end up with battalions that don't looks like battalions anymore.... :(

I would suggest that they add something to the last sentence in the FAQ like..."An understrength unit still takes up the appropriate slot in a Detachment, but cannot be used to fill any compulsory battlefield role slot."

Ehhh ...maybe next time?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Sception]

IMO, that would be a good compromise on the matter, though for practical purposes under-sized units probably just shouldn't be allowed in competitive environments at all.

[Commissar K.]

 

 

So for me this isn't a nerf or upgrade, just a change to wounds which now has him directly compete with Be'lakor, a battle the DPoC loses.

 

 

I don't see it that way.  Be'lakor is more expensive, and he doesn't get one of the god specific abilities like Ephemeral Form.  The CSM Daemon Prince doesn't get one either, but Dark Hereticus looks better than any of the Daemon psyker tables and their Auras effect CSMs and Daemons rather than just Daemons.

 

The Daemon Prince is a better unit on their own merit, while the CSM Prince is a better support unit.

 

Give Warp Time a go on a Talon Daemon and see which one of the two wins out on terms of seeking out the relevant combat.

12" movement versus 24" movement isn't much of a competition. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by Commissar K.

[sanityimpaired]

 

I think the idea behind understrength units is to help players with limited collections get out there and have a game. Strategically speaking, tons of tiny units doesn't help much outside of force organizations shenanigans thanks to split fire and it can be a gigantic liability in terms of kill points.

 

The only time it might be advantageous on the table is to force your opponent to awkwardly split fire amongst lots of multi-wound models, but even then, it just sounds like it would bog the game down rather than be particularly effective.

 

It also allows you to field a Chaos Lord in termie armour alongside four termies and stick them in a Land Raider.  There are a few other examples like that such as Necron Warriors and a character being put in a Ghost Ark, which wasn't possible before since the min squad size was the max transport capacity.