Designer commentary FAQ update

[Vel'Cona]

So . . . are we angry that we have more options for our army lists? 

[Quixus]

So . . . are we angry that we have more options for our army lists? 

The anger/sadness is not directed at having options, but at being given options that are worse than what C:SM offers.

[Feral_80]

I couldn't care less for these options, frankly. I'd be much happier to see that GW is pursuing coherency, consistency, simplification, and balance. This is what it announced some months ago. It started well. Now, I'm not so sure. They really have messed/are messing up several things by now, and I am not too optimist in regard to the next steps.

 

1 manual to rule them all? Sure, great idea. But now we are back to having rulebook + THREE faq/fix files for it (read again: THREE; this fact alone drives me nuts, and I wonder why the mental(s) who devised this have not be fired yet) + Codex + Index (+ FW, ok), each with its own faq and erratas. At Christmas, we will add Chapter Approved, although I still have a small hope that it will incorporate the above faqs.

 

New coherent release policy. Finally! Well, no. The Primaris had to replace the old Marines, instead of creating this bizzare coexistence of unproportioned models with very weak background explanation. They are obviously two sets of rules that do not go well along together - just look at the ridiculous number of HQs in the Marine codex. Same for the index/codex conflict. You want to allow people to only play models as you produce them? Fine, that's stupid and kills conversions, but I will take it if that means consistency. You want to allow wargear that some miniatures are not produced with, as before? Even better, I'll take that as well, build these options in the codexes as you have always done so far. But no, they took the third way, the most idiotic one: relegate these options to an older manual that you still need to have and know (because, some opponents might use it), and create doublets of the same codex entries. Jeeeez, why in hell.

 

Easy, balanced, and simple rules? Awesome. But then you realize that the base rules leave quite some questions open, and that those for terrain are both terrible *and* unintelligible, like they have been written by someone who have never played a game, and then never tested. Was it so hard to test them just a bit more before releasing them?

 

Overall balance and an end to deathstars? Amazing. But then again, some things here and there seem to be making their way to the game, as the many recent nerfs have shown. Just to limit ourselves to our codex, was it really unavoidable to give the Commissars decent rules *before* printing it, instead of putting out a flawed nerf just a week later? A nerf that is so badly designed that, among other things, kills the Valhallan stratagem unnecessarily, and is overall so poor that obviously it will require further adjustments in the future? And what about a codex (Craftworlds) that lets you stack -1 to be hit two, three or four (possibly even five) times, making shooty armies out there utterly unable to even play them - that's an army-wide deathstar to me. Come on GW, what the hell are you doing here? 

 

 

 

I'm not salty, I'm genuinely worried. For what I care, AM could even go back to the bottom of the food chain as before - just give us a ruleset that works and does not seem written by a group of schizophrenic monkeys. So far I've been a great supporter of the 'new GW'. I still believe they are willing to change and listen to players. But they'd better start to listen to reason as well, because the way I see it they are quickly ruining anything good they did so far.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Feral_80

[Vel'Cona]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/353/279/e31.jpg

[Feral_80]

I think I got a talent for :cussposting.

[TheShredder]

So . . . are we angry that we have more options for our army lists? 

 

I think people are just irritated at how messy it is.

 

I mean, GW have stated that the reason they've reduced options in the codex is so that 'new players aren't forced to kitbash'.

 

Let's leave aside for a moment just how moronic that statement is (especially given that many GW kits are designed to be interchangeable in the first place). So, GW don't want to make things too complicated for new players. Okay. Except instead new players are faced with:

- An index with some rules.

- A codex that overwrites those rules except when it doesn't.

- A statement (helpfully not in the FAQ section) that explained that you could use stuff from the index if it didn't appear in the codex except then you used the index abilities except you then might get some abilities from the codex anyway. Also, you need to have the correct vintage models otherwise you're not allowed to do this at all.

- Now we have this latest sort-of-FAQ-but-not-exactly which provides a bloody flowchart to explain when to use stuff from the codex and when to use stuff from the index. 

 

Is this really simpler than just putting the options in the codex in the first place?

[patchestheclown]

 

I have a question about the FAQ (this may have been an older FAQ) when it talks about getting cover saves from indirect fire. From how I read it, GW is saying that if a unit is nearby a piece of terrain that has special rules to give it "aoe" cover then you would get cover saves from indirect fire.

 

1. Does this mean that if a unit is within 1" of sandbags that they would get a cover save from my arty?

2. Does that mean that a tank completely out of LOS behind a giant building does not get a cover save from my arty? 

 

I believe it's also referring to vehicles and such that need to not only be in cover but also be at least 50% obscured from the firer.

 

It's saying that, if you cannot see the target *and* the target is in cover (or near cover in the case of Barricades) then it counts as being obscured (and so will benefit from the cover save).

 

To answer your questions:

 

1) Yes. Even if they're in front of the sandbags.

 

2) Correct.

 

 

Well I'm glad that I understood it correctly but it still seems odd to me. I'm not sure if you've played company of heroes but that is always how I imagined the artillery in 40k, where buildings and wreckage could block artillery strikes. It would make more sense to me to just give everything hit by arty a +1 cover save if out of LOS or nothing gets a cover save since its straight up and down, rather than having sandbags behind you granting a save but the giant fortress in front of you not helping... oh well :)

[micahwc]

Realistically, it's very easy to block artillery shrapnel and it doesn't take a lot to do it. Unless you are directly hit by the blast most any hard cover will stop shell fragments and keep you safe. It doesn't even need to be that thick to do so, as artillery fragments are large and relatively slow moving compared to bullets. Source: Former 13B cannon crewmember for the US Army.

 

Of course realism is not something we tend to emphasize in our game of imaginary super soldiers, undead space robots, magic space elves and orks, and Sigourney Weaver antagonists.

[Vel'Cona]

I think I got a talent for :cussposting.

 

Haha not a bad post at all.  There's a lot of truth that GW makes mistakes and seems to repeat them.  These FAQs represent their change in approach circa 2016, however it has seemingly replaced one set of problems with another (as you stated in detail).  It's a shame that things haven't directly improved in terms of GW's ability to write clear, concise and direct rules, though hopefully we can generally agree that 8th edition is an overall improvement on previous editions if nothing more than their willingness to engage their playebase in a way that they rarely did in the past.

[Silas7]

Realistically, it's very easy to block artillery shrapnel and it doesn't take a lot to do it. Unless you are directly hit by the blast most any hard cover will stop shell fragments and keep you safe. It doesn't even need to be that thick to do so, as artillery fragments are large and relatively slow moving compared to bullets. Source: Former 13B cannon crewmember for the US Army.

 

Of course realism is not something we tend to emphasize in our game of imaginary super soldiers, undead space robots, magic space elves and orks, and Sigourney Weaver antagonists.

 

Man, I'm picturing sigourney weaver as like a Dark Eldar wychcult succubus. Totally badass!

 

Edit: to the topic, I can never find decent looking mauls for any of my guards man sized models but being able to take them without making a gentleman's agreement over it is nice.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Silas7

[Tyr13]

The genestealer cults sprue has one that looks pretty reasonable.

[micahwc]

I use the Tempestus command rods as power mauls for my Tempestors just because I have enough for my squads and don't generally need the command rod.

[Major_Gilbear]

Edit: to the topic, I can never find decent looking mauls for any of my guards man sized models but being able to take them without making a gentleman's agreement over it is nice.

 

Perhaps try a Space Marine power axe with the blade trimmed off. Cheap, easy to convert from a wide variety of plastic kits, surprising subtle yet effective. If it's for a Commissar, you can also stick a spare plastic skull on the end (or a backpack icon Aquila) should you wish. ;)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Alternatively find a nice cane for your Company Commander to sport and fluff it as him having an excellently-trained backhand. Shades, fine clothes and cigar optional.

[Silas7]

 hehehe

[Idlem]

Saw a conversion of a chain-sword with the teeth taken off and the top cut and glued at an angle to make a "hammerhead", can try that for a maul...

 

This FAQ only cements my desire to only have swords. They never go away and always have rules in one book.

[mertbl]

Check out mad robot, they have a sprue of power mauls.

 

 

 

Realistically, it's very easy to block artillery shrapnel and it doesn't take a lot to do it. Unless you are directly hit by the blast most any hard cover will stop shell fragments and keep you safe. It doesn't even need to be that thick to do so, as artillery fragments are large and relatively slow moving compared to bullets. Source: Former 13B cannon crewmember for the US Army.

 

Of course realism is not something we tend to emphasize in our game of imaginary super soldiers, undead space robots, magic space elves and orks, and Sigourney Weaver antagonists.

Man, I'm picturing sigourney weaver as like a Dark Eldar wychcult succubus. Totally badass!

 

Edit: to the topic, I can never find decent looking mauls for any of my guards man sized models but being able to take them without making a gentleman's agreement over it is nice.

[TheShredder]

What about using a bionic arm to represent a power maul?

[Vel'Cona]

What about using a bionic arm to represent a power maul?

 

I like this plan!  :D

[Beams]

The Genestealer cults have a good one

[olcottr]

Since Catachans have 4 Str, would ya'll recommend power axes instead? or still power mauls for that 2+ wound vs T3?

My Company Commander has a power cane!

Edited November 21, 2017 by olcottr

[TheShredder]

Since Catachans have 4 Str, would ya'll recommend power axes instead? or still power mauls for that 2+ wound vs T3?

 

Cost notwithstanding, I'd probably lean towards the Axe. 

 

However, for me at least, it would probably depend on what models I wanted to represent and what points I had left over after buying the core of my army.

[Halfpint100]

Since Catachans have 4 Str, would ya'll recommend power axes instead? or still power mauls for that 2+ wound vs T3?

My Company Commander has a power cane!

 

I prefer the maul, wound on 2s with -1 is better than wounding on 3s with -2 IMO, especially when you include the 1 point (doesn't sound like a lot). But if it is axe vs maul and bolter on the srg? I will take the maul and bolter

[Dr_Ruminahui]

If you are against other T3 armies, sure - but against the more common T4 they both need 3+ to wound.

 

So, at least for catachans, IMHO axes will almost always be better.  Which seems appropriate to the army.

[OnboardG1]

 

Since Catachans have 4 Str, would ya'll recommend power axes instead? or still power mauls for that 2+ wound vs T3?

My Company Commander has a power cane!

 

I prefer the maul, wound on 2s with -1 is better than wounding on 3s with -2 IMO, especially when you include the 1 point (doesn't sound like a lot). But if it is axe vs maul and bolter on the srg? I will take the maul and bolter

 

 

I put fists on the company commanders because who doesn't like hitting like a marine captain? Sarges I'm inclined to run cheap to keep my squad cost down but the vet sarges might get a sword or maul.