FAQs are up!

[MoGuy]

It's actually very important for my Dark Eldar, as the Venoms can only carry five models. So if I wanted to play an Archon with some Incubi I can just take 4 Incubi and have enough room for the Archon.

[sanityimpaired]

I just found a use for that rule myself.

I was putting together a Khorne Daemonkin list for a game later today, and I remembered at the last minute that putting aside a pack of bloodletters for summoning doesn't count as a troop choice, so I needed a cheap troop to retain my CPs from a battalion without having to scrap something valuable to free up the points.

Enter Bob the cultist champion.  Bob has been especially homicidal since he murdered the few surviving members of his cult after they fled a recent skirmish.  The berserkers have decided that Bob may just have the stuff, so he's riding shotgun in one of their Rhinos.

That gets me my third troop, but doesn't increase my number of deployments.

Today is Bring Your Cultist to Slaughter Day.

[Commissar K.]

Enter Bob the cultist champion.  Bob has been especially homicidal since he murdered the few surviving members of his cult after they fled a recent skirmish.  The berserkers have decided that Bob may just have the stuff, so he's riding shotgun in one of their Rhinos.

 

That gets me my third troop, but doesn't increase my number of deployments.

 

Today is Bring Your Cultist to Slaughter Day.

 

The edition is getting funnier by the minute, so I'd say go for it.

 

Locally however I know that our tournaments will house-rule this 'bring a lad' rule out of their system. Which to me is the most obvious way to go about it for tournaments as the rule itself seems designed for newer players and not tournament veterans...

[Plaguecaster]

I just found a use for that rule myself.

 

I was putting together a Khorne Daemonkin list for a game later today, and I remembered at the last minute that putting aside a pack of bloodletters for summoning doesn't count as a troop choice, so I needed a cheap troop to retain my CPs from a battalion without having to scrap something valuable to free up the points.

 

Enter Bob the cultist champion. Bob has been especially homicidal since he murdered the few surviving members of his cult after they fled a recent skirmish. The berserkers have decided that Bob may just have the stuff, so he's riding shotgun in one of their Rhinos.

 

That gets me my third troop, but doesn't increase my number of deployments.

 

Today is Bring Your Cultist to Slaughter Day.

Your army so do what ever though expect a lot of hostility from others as it is basically a :cuss move exploiting / cheating the rules

[CrimsonReign]

playing within the rules to your own advantage? not sure how that's a dick move 

 

Wouldn't be something I'd do in a friendly environment (without telling my opponent that they can take advantage of this too)

[Commissar K.]

Everybody in a Tounament setting does it, so I wouldnt call it a dickmove either.

 

In addition mixed chaos is essential to competitional Chaos, we arnt dicks because GW created it this way.

[Sception]

How does it not increase your number of deployments? An under-sized unit is still a unit to deploy.

[Filkarion]

Everything in a transport and the transport itsef is deployed as one unit

 

(After yesterday I double checked this one^^;;)

[Sception]

Where is the bit that says you don't separately deploy units into their transports?  I though that if, for instance, you were deploying a unit and a character in a rhino that that was three deployment drops, like first you'd deploy the rhino, then on your next deployment you'd say you were deploying the unit into the rhino, and then on the next you'd say you were deploying the character into the rhino, and it would eat up the same number of drops as if you deployed them all standing next to each other?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right then i and the people I've been playing against have been doing it wrong, and I'm having trouble finding the exact bit that says which way is correct.

[Chronozoah]

The price increase on Exalteds still confuses me. Tigurius is a boss at 3 pts more.

 

They also increased Disks for the sorcs, but the actual value in them is poor especially because they did not clarify whether it was intentional or not to turn the Rider into a "daemon" thus removing his own aura benefits.

 

Now the discussion here is whether or not it's a case of Sorcerers being too expensive or Tigurius being too cheap. I've no idea myself either way.

 

Due to that little discrepancy (huehue) in conjunction with the price increase, I'm not overly eager on the idea of running discs, at least not until the unit-type / aura ruling is clarified / altered. It seems like something of an oversight to me, but who knows.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Chronozoah

[Cheex]

Where is the bit that says you don't separately deploy units into their transports?  I though that if, for instance, you were deploying a unit and a character in a rhino that that was three deployment drops, like first you'd deploy the rhino, then on your next deployment you'd say you were deploying the unit into the rhino, and then on the next you'd say you were deploying the character into the rhino, and it would eat up the same number of drops as if you deployed them all standing next to each other?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're right then i and the people I've been playing against have been doing it wrong, and I'm having trouble finding the exact bit that says which way is correct.

Transport vehicle rules state that when you set up a transport, you declare what (if anything) is going inside it.

[Sception]

Ah, thank you.  Right where I would expect it to be, and could have sworn I already looked.  I swear, I'd lose my own head if I didn't wear one of those GPS keychains as an ear ring.

[jumai]

Understrength units in this form really can't shake out to be a lasting, acceptable optimization tool, right? Units have minimum sizes for a reason, and it's more than just preventing detachment bingo... points costs are sometimes only fair per-model because the total investment in the unit is assumedly a certain amount or more.

 

Like, a terminator champion with lighting claws will run you 44pts, and I doubt most people think that's undercosted. But a 2w character with 4 attacks at -2 AP, rerolls wounds, a 2+/5++, and deep strike? 44pt is crazy cheap for that, port behind your opponent turn 1 and if he refuses to immediately divert a non-trivial amount of resources, he'll start losing whole squads. That's not supposed to happen for less cost than a naked squad of cultists...

[sanityimpaired]

 

Your army so do what ever though expect a lot of hostility from others as it is basically a move exploiting / cheating the rules

 

 

My other option was to split a 10 Berserker unit into two separate units, which would give me more tactical flexibility and a free champion upgrade for the same points cost.  That would have been far more powerful without requiring the FAQ removing minimum squad sizes.

 

I went with the solo cultist because it was funny to me despite being a slight handicap, and because it reduced the odds of getting confused as to which berserker was from which unit.

 

Now, if I was to take 1 CSM squad consisting of a champion + heavy weapon dude, 1 Havoc squad consisting of a champion + heavy weapon dude, 1 Fallen squad consisting of a champion + heavy weapon dude, and 1 termie squad consisting of 1 champion and 1 heavy weapon termie, then I'm twinking and deserve to be called on it.  That's clearly gaming the system.  One cult champion with an autopistol and CC weapon is not going to accomplish much, and he was in fact a free VP to my opponent since we ended up playing No Mercy.

Edited July 6, 2017 by sanityimpaired

[Plaguecaster]

It's more the fact you know you can't fulfill the restrictions of a battalion so you are purposely taking a single cultist just to get the 3+ command points that is still gaming the system especially since you are taking the most cheapest option possible just to get that extra Troop tax to gain the CPs.

 

Everybody in a Tounament setting does it, so I wouldnt call it a dickmove either.

 

In addition mixed chaos is essential to competitional Chaos, we arnt dicks because GW created it this way.

That literally is the dumbest excuse it's still a :cuss move regardless if others do it though I expect TO to outright ban it, GW created it so new players could play games with their models even if they didn't have enough I doubt they did it so WAAC players could take advantage of it by using it to fulfil detachment restrictions for extra CPs Edited July 6, 2017 by Plaguecaster

[Excessus]

Why would you want to have an understrength unit if you still need to pay for the whole unit?

[sanityimpaired]

It's more the fact you know you can't fulfill the restrictions of a battalion so you are purposely taking a single cultist just to get the 3+ command points that is still gaming the system especially since you are taking the most cheapest option possible just to get that extra Troop tax to gain the CPs.

 

As I already said, I had another way to get the third troops choice and meet the battalion requirement by splitting a 10 man unit into two 5 man, which was a more powerful option.  You're continuing to assume twinkery when I was actually handicapping myself for the purpose of narrative.

[sanityimpaired]

Why would you want to have an understrength unit if you still need to pay for the whole unit?

The FAQ changed that so that in a matched game you only pay for the models you field.

[sanityimpaired]

As MoGuy mentioned above, this also fixes something that GW broke in 8E.  There are armies that can no longer include HQs to support units in transports for those units because they upped the minimum sizes, and that needed to be remedied.

It's a hacky solution, and I expect they'll find a better resolution for it, but it demonstrates a perfectly valid reason to take an under min size unit.

[Trevak Dal]

 

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 must be blind, what exactly is it?

 

Edit; seems it's in the Rulebook FAQ/errata not the chaos index...

Edited July 6, 2017 by Trevak Dal

[Brother Aiwass]

 

 

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 must be blind, what exactly is it?

 

Edit; seems it's in the Rulebook FAQ/errata not the chaos index...

 

I think you missed the joke xD

[Commissar K.]

 

Everybody in a Tounament setting does it, so I wouldnt call it a dickmove either.

 

In addition mixed chaos is essential to competitional Chaos, we arnt dicks because GW created it this way.

That literally is the dumbest excuse it's still a move regardless if others do it though I expect TO to outright ban it, GW created it so new players could play games with their models even if they didn't have enough I doubt they did it so WAAC players could take advantage of it by using it to fulfil detachment restrictions for extra CPs

 

There is no excuse to be made. As stated before I know our TO has removed the rule as an option specifically. What I hope is that locally TO's will follow that because if you read my previous post on it you'd know that my vision on this is that GW created it for newer players with partial collections.

 

What I do not understand is why GW put the rule in there in the first place. They don't sell products too often like that, have no real gain in the secondary market and generally I think rules like this actually are not helping anyone out. Not even new players with partial collections because it sets a suggestion or trend that this is an useful option for the game.

 

GW made a ton of gotcha rules and this just another one for this edition. Which on the long term arnt healthy for the game.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Commissar K.

[Excessus]

 

Why would you want to have an understrength unit if you still need to pay for the whole unit?

The FAQ changed that so that in a matched game you only pay for the models you field.

 

 

Did it? That's wierd and goes against their own rules. Why have a minimum unit size at all then?

[Commissar K.]

 

 

 

Did it? That's wierd and goes against their own rules. Why have a minimum unit size at all then?

 

I think it's not so much weird but rushed, rushed like those other 10 codexes comming up.

Personally I dont really know why but GW seems inclined to turn the production up to 11, while quite honestly I believe it will cause them more FAQ and Errata work as anything else. 

 

One of the reasons as to why GW is re-using art aswell has to do with how artists cant keep up with GWs demands. AoS has some terrible art for those who could "keep up". 

[Cryptix]

 

 

Why would you want to have an understrength unit if you still need to pay for the whole unit?

The FAQ changed that so that in a matched game you only pay for the models you field.

 

 

Did it? That's wierd and goes against their own rules. Why have a minimum unit size at all then?

 

You can only have one understrength unit. Read. the. rules.