Chapter Approved AM feedback

[Withershadow]

Just give it 6 shots like an old school scatter laser.

 

I still recommend not including the complaint about the Infantry point costs of forge world regiments. They have very strong additional abilities plus krak grenades, and clearly there is disagreement whether they are worth the extra point or not. Given the price hike on conscripts, continuing to harp on this subject is far more likely to get the regular guardsmen increased to 5, than getting any kind of reductions.

 

Regarding Summary Execution, how about something simple. If morale check is failed, Commissar kills a guy and the result of the roll changes to a 1. That way the only time it’s an active detriment is if you were going to fail anyway, and already rolled a 1, in which case you lose one more guy than normal. In every other situation he would be a benefit but not the crazy “morale means nothing” version we had before.

[Imperator Deus]

Regarding Summary Execution, how about something simple. If morale check is failed, Commissar kills a guy and the result of the roll changes to a 1. That way the only time it’s an active detriment is if you were going to fail anyway, and already rolled a 1, in which case you lose one more guy than normal. In every other situation he would be a benefit but not the crazy “morale means nothing” version we had before.

 

That's the best fix for Commissars that I've heard so far! Having said that though, one of the Eldar Craftworlds and the Dark Angels have gotten the Summary Execution rule so far, and considering the number of Codices yet to come, I think they should just reinstate the Commissar's Summary Execution rule to the original Codex version. If they're handing it out to other armies as an automatic buff (armies, I might add, with troops that are harder to kill in order to force those morale checks in the first place), without even tying it to a character's bubble, then surely it isn't over powered. A points adjustment might be in order, though I don't know if even that's necessary, since it only affects a 6" bubble around a 30+ point Commissar, rather than being a free army wide buff.

[Withershadow]

I think each bullet-point that presents a problem should present a potential  solution, so it doesn't come across as "waah, fix this".  Good effort so far.

My own issues with codex:

Master of Ordnance - his ability only granting re-rolls at ranges 36"+ is very limiting on a 4"x6" table, and seems incongruous with so many re-roll auras and abilities in the game.  Removing the range restriction would warrant his inclusion in artillery-heavy lists.  

Commissar and Summary Execution - this ability is currently an active detriment, often resulting in you taking more casualties than you would have without it.  The old version of this ability has reappeared in Eldar and Dark Angels, and the most problematic beneficiaries (conscripts) have been increased in cost.  The iconic Commissar can regain his place on the battlefield if the ability is reverted to the codex version, or failing that, if instead of a re-roll the ability changed the morale result to a '1'.  This would mean that the rule is almost always beneficial, but not as powerful as before.

Weapons with re-rollable damage - the ability to re-roll damage (melta, hellstrike missles, etc. ) is greatly overvalued.  A hellstrike missile (30 points as of chapter approved) is not 50% better than a lascannon (20 points) when the former loses a point of strength and a point of AP for its damage re-roll.  A meltagun's output does not exceed a rapid-firing plasmagun in theory or in practice.

Inconsistent cost updates - Autocannons received a much-needed discount in Chapter Approved, but the discount did not apply to Hydras or Leman Russ Exterminators, or indeed any twin-autocannon type weapon.  

Flamers - these weapons suffered the most from the transition to 8th edition,  hitting fewer targets and no longer ignoring cover.  Their 8" range means they can't  be utilized out of deep strike, and can't be relied on for overwatch.  These weapons should either be cheaper (5 - flamer/10 - heavy flamer), or have a longer range (10"?).  
 
FW - Inconsistent pricing
Leman Russes vs. Malcadors - The Russes have twice the firepower of Malcadors for 70-100 points less!  Giving the same grinding advance rule to both types of tank  would bring much needed parity.

Heavy Mortars, Quad Launchers, and Artillery Carriages - these iconic artillery pieces have been made more expensive than their tank versions, despite having 5 fewer wounds (so they die instead of degrading in accuracy), being unable to fight or fall back from melee, and disappearing if their T3 crew is killed.

[CrusherJoe]

Indeed, the Master of Ordinance is -- how to put this? -- uselessly redundant in a Cadian detachment. If your artillery is rolling around you're doing it wrong. I think he should give +1 to hit for any target over 12 or 24" away, something like that. At least then he would serve a purpose in one of the more (if not most) popular regiments.

[Feral_80]

Yes, the Master of Ordnance is completely useless, *especially* for Cadians, despite the fact that his only existing model is Cadian, and fluff-wise Cadians are supposed to use plenty of these. Ah well.

 

As for proposing fixes: I can agree that might be useful, but my fear is that GW might take this as a step a bit too farther. We don't want to appear as people who try to tell them how to do their job. Perhaps it is wiser to point out the problems and let GW decide how/if to solve them. 

 

Removed the thing about the +1/pt for FW infantry, and a few other things. The simpler the list is, the best.

[Feral_80]

So here it is, last revision. I tried to find a compromise between just pointing out the issues and providing specific fixes, ie in several cases I tried to indicate a direction for possible adjustments.

Last chance to jump in. I would send this tomorrow.

 

 

 

Dear GW,

 

I write to present you a collection of player-generated feedback based on actual matched-game experience and knowledge of the current state of the game. This is the result of a collective and autonomous effort by the player community of the Astra Militarum forum of The Bolter and Chainsword. The original forum thread, with all relevant discussions, can be found here. Each of the forum users listed here has provided feedback based on real game experience in his/her own gaming groups and clubs, as well from the tournaments and events he/she has attended.

 

The aim of this file is to provide a balanced and fair discussion of some issues that are widely regarded as a concern for the AM player base in relation to the current state of the game as per the adjustments introduced by GW up to and including Chapter Approved 2017 (henceforth, CA). This list includes suggestions for points adjustments (both increases and decreases), rules adjustments, and clarifications. While we understand that it might be impossible/inconvenient to accommodate all of these suggestions, we hope that you will find this file a useful resource. We are happy to play our small part in contributing to make our favourite hobby even better.

 

Your sincerely,

 

bigmic66 

Bonzi

CaptainMarsh

Chris521

CrusherJoe

dadieau

Dr_Ruminahui

duz_

FallenSoldiers

Feral_80

Galron

H311fi5h

Halfpint100 

holydiver

iceman2160

Imperator Deus

librisrouge

Major_Gilbear

micahwc 

Mitchverr

morroccomole 

NatBrannigan

OnboardG1

Pioantom 

Shamansky

shandwen

Spyboy 

Tedwardius

the ergonomic enginseer 

Tirak

tychobi

Tyr13

Withershadow

zero88

 

 

 

1. General points

 

Areas of concern due to the current state of the game perception and balance (often colloquially referred as 'meta'):

§  1.1. Multiplication of FAQs, fixes, and books: despite what originally announced for 8th ed., rules-related materials are quickly multiplying and bloating the game. To limit it to AM, currently in order to fully play a matched game a player needs:

1.       The general Rulebook

2.       The free Rulebook update pdf, currently released at v. 1.1

3.       The free 'Designers' commentary' pdf, which contains important clarifications on e.g. terrains, modifiers, etc. and the models/wargear flowchart

4.       The free 'Stepping into a new edition of wh40k' pdf, which also contains essential clarifications

5.       The AM codex

6.       The free AM 'Official update' pdf 1.0

7.       The FW Index: forces of the AM

8.       The free FW: Index: forces of the AM 'Official update' pdf 1.1

9.       The Index Imperium 2

10.   The free Index Imperium 2 'Official Update' pdf 1.1

11.   Chapter Approved 2017

12.   (expectedly forthcoming) free Chapter Approved update/faq pdf

This heavily discourages new players from even approaching a ruleset that they perceive as exceedingly complicated and confusing. It demotivates players to buy printed materials that quickly become obsolete. Writing an army list is a complex process that requires going back and forth among many books and files. Please consider unifying as much as possible these materials into single files (e.g. items #2 to #4). Also, while we understand that this may go against your current marketing strategy, often players express the need to revise this inefficient system and would like GW to consider offering constantly updated datasheets as free pdfs while still retailing printed codexes as a rich source of background, narrative, army building/collecting tips, and painting/modelling tutorials.

§  1.2. Short range focus: due to the plethora of 'deep-striking' units able to deploy at just over 9" from the enemy, as well as the multiplication of units and army rules that penalize shooting over 12" away, the game is heavily focused on mobility and short-range firefights/assault. All long-range firepower is becoming less and less effective and attractive to a balanced army. This should be addressed and, in any case, taken into consideration when calculating the points cost of some units.

§  1.3. Targeting characters: rule-as-written, Chapter Approved (p. 67) only mentions “Characters with less than 10 wounds”, failing to specify (as in the old Rulebook, p. 179) that Characters with a “Wounds characteristic of” (i.e. who started the game with) 10+ wounds can be targeted normally. Literally, CA prevents e.g. a unit from targeting Magnus if he is currently reduced to 9 wounds, unless he is not both visible and the closest unit. Is this intentional?

 

 

 

2. Codex Astra Militarum adjustments and points changes

 

From a matched-play, competitive point of view, while some CA adjustments are perceived as absolutely fair (e.g. Manticores, Primaris Psykers), others have been met with great perplexity.

 

§  2.1. Conscripts: certain over-popular Imperium builds have been limited (as generally reflected by CA points increases to some Space Marines entries) by punishing AM Troop choices instead of the abuses caused by the interactions among keywords. Additionally, between the problematic Commissars nerf (below, § 2.7) and the +1 pt/model introduced by CA, at the moment there is literally no reason for using Conscripts instead of Infantry squads, the latter costing exactly the same per model but featuring better WS, BS, Ld, weapon/wargear options, and reliability when receiving orders. We would suggest to either keep Conscripts as they are but reinstate the old Commissar rules, or vice-versa.

§  2.2. Ratlings: the +2 pts/model increase seems hardly needed. They were rarely fielded before, they'll be even rarer now.

§  2.3. Wyverns: already perceived as inferior to other similar choices (most popularly, mortar Heavy weapons squads) in the codex, at +10 pts/model they are now even less useful as a choice.

§  2.4. Meltagun: commonly perceived as inferior to plasma guns since the early days of the 8th edition. Now, at 17 pts/piece for BS 3+ models (vs. 13 pts for plasma guns), meltaguns will likely disappear from any list, which will flatten game variety and tactical options. If anything, we rather expected a reduction in the points cost of meltaguns.

§  2.5. Vanquisher battle cannon: a small decrease in points still makes this nowhere nearly effective in its alleged role of big game hunter – please reconsider its rules to reflect this.

§  2.6. Tempestus Command Rod: the points cost for a Tempestor Prime is already high compared to a Company Commander: now, at +15 pts (incl. the rod), a Tempestor gets a 4+ armour save and the Aerial drop rule, but loses a 5+ invulnerable save and the ability to take any pistol. The trade-off does not seem balanced.

 

 Points not addressed by CA:

 

§  2.7. Commissars: the AM codex update 1.0 has removed any reason to ever take a Commissar, which in many situations just inflicts additional casualties at no benefit. The current 'Summary Execution' rule is more a risk than an asset, and conflicts with other rules that have either required adjustment (e.g. Draconian disciplinarian) or that have not even been addressed yet (e.g. FW Elysian 'Iron Discipline'). Literally, the only Commissars we see in play are those on the codex cover. We believe this is not what a most iconic AM unit deserves. The rule introduced by the codex update should be seriously revised, and possibly brought back to or near to its original state now that Conscripts themselves have been heavily nerfed (§ 2.1). A popular proposal for a fix minor fix is currently: "If morale check is failed, Commissar kills a model and the result of the roll changes to a 1."

§  2.8. Chimera: the iconic AM transport currently sees very limited use: as it seems overcosted, having lost a lot of features from 7th ed. and offering only light or expensive weapon options. A substantial point discount (-15/-20?) could be needed.

§  2.9. Shadowsword: vastly outclasses any other Baneblade-type tank, and thus its points cost should be higher (+30?).

§  2.10. Other units often considered underperforming/overcosted are: Master of Ordnance, Platoon Commander, Veterans, Ogryns, Hydra, Leman Russ Exterminator, Leman Russ Eradicator, Taurox, Wyrdvane Psykers.

§  2.11. Weapons that could need a points increase/rules adjustment: mortars, currently 'spammed'; Punisher cannon, probably slightly too efficient for its current points.

§  2.12. Weapons that could need a points decrease/rules adjustment: multilaser, an iconic AM-only weapon, is overall avoided as very ineffective against most targets; missile launchers are generally inferior to lascannons; flamers and heavy flamers are unattractive due to a combination of high points cost and inability to fire overwatch in the now very common scenario of an enemy unit charging from over 9" away (a fundamental game mechanic).

§  2.13. Wargear rarely (if ever) seen in any list due to its points cost and/or rules: medi-pack, vox caster, dozer blade, augur array.

§  2.14. ‘Send in the next wave!’ stratagem:  codex update 1.0 has removed any usefulness from this stratagem. It was not too powerful originally, and Valhallans have been hit badly by this adjustment.

§  2.15. Rules clarifications are urgently needed for the following:

§  ‘Ambush’ Tallarn stratagem (as modified by the codex Official update 1.0): if the single vehicle unit chosen is a transport, do units embarked inside it count against the 3-unit limit?

§  Relic of Lost Cadia heirloom: please clarify that this is a once per game use.

§  The Dagger of Tu’sakh heirloom: is it intentional that this can be used with any ‘one infantry from your army’ (not just infantry with the Astra Militarum keyword), i.e. any Imperium-keyword unit from any detachment, such as Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, etc.? Is it intentional that the Officer of the Fleet, being an Officer with no <Regiment> keyword, still allows non-<Regiment> units (e.g. Auxilla) to be used with the Dagger?

§  Heavy Weapons squads: are these equipped with 1 or 2 lasguns? When added to an Infantry squad, is the cost of the squad (before any weapons and upgrade) 40 or 38 pts? Please also clarify the same issues about Veteran heavy weapon squads.

§  Regimental Standard: how does the +1 Ld provided by the Standard interact with the ‘Aura of Discipline’ ability of Commissars and Lord Commissars?

 

 

 

3. ForgeWorld Astra Militarum adjustments and points changes

 

§  3.1. Avenger, Lightning, and Thunderbolt fliers: all have received substantial points increases (with little internal consistency: cp. Lightning and Thunderbolt), but they were already rarely used in the first place. 

§  3.2. Earthshaker battery and Earthshaker carriage: while obviously undercosted before, they are now vastly inefficient compared to a Basilisk. We'd welcome a fair points adjustment over their original (in the region of +15/+20 pts?), while the current huge increase hardly justifies taking such units anymore.

§  3.3. Heavy quad launcher battery, Medusa carriage battery, Rapier laser destroyer: all already hardly seen on the field, being considered ineffective/overpriced from the beginning. Even more so now.

§  3.4. Salamander command vehicle and Sabre platform Defence searchlight: the huge points increase makes both these units no longer points-efficient. They were already a debated choice before: e.g., even at 20 pts/model a Sabre platform with Defence searchlight would effectively bring the cost of a buffed Infantry squad in line with that of a Veteran squad.

§  3.5. Leman Russ Stygies Vanquisher: still vastly overcosted compared to other Leman Russ variants.

§  3.6. Stygies Destroyer Tank Hunter and Stygies Thunderer Siege Tank: still vastly inferior to similar Leman Russ variants. The Thunderer seems to include the cost of its Demolisher cannon, effectively paying double points for it.

 

Points not addressed by CA:

 

§  3.7. Hades Breaching Drill squadron: it should be possible to take the Drill along with the DKK Engineers it is sold with by ForgeWorld.

§  3.8. Malcador and Macharius tank patterns cannot compare in terms of points efficiency with Leman Russes. These underperforming FW tanks would need to receive a benefit similar to the Grinding advance rule to remain attractive choices.

§  3.9. All FW Leman Russ variants would be expected to become available steeds to codex Tank Commanders.

§  3.10. Vendetta Gunship: despite its nominal firepower, it is considered too unreliable and expensive for what it brings to the table. It should at least receive updated rules that conform to those introduced for the codex Valkyrie, and/or possibly a points discount.

§  3.11. Weapons that could need a points decrease/rules adjustment: twin autocannons should receive a discount consistently with the autocannon as per CA. The points increase given to Hellstrike missile seems unnecessary as they were already hardly a popular choice; there is an apparent inconsistency (in name and points) between the FW Hellstrike missile and the codex Hellstrike missiles. 

§  3.12. Other units that are often considered underperforming and unappealing: Colossus Bombard, Medusa carriage battery, Heavy mortar battery.

[Tallarn Commander]

Thank you all for taking the time to develop this communique. It is both substantive and articulate!

[Spyboy]

The armoured sentinal could use a points decrease as currently the scout sentinal is just plain better.

[Tirak]

I don't agree with your logic on the Vulture needing a rules change or a price increase. It's already 10pts more expensive than it's tank counterpart and if taken as an AT choice it's a hopeless 220pts for less firepower than the 190pt annihilator.

[Tyr13]

I dont really have anything to add, but feel free to put me on the list as well. :)

[Chris521]

Did you remove the bit about the heavy weapons teams or am I just blind?  There are two things about them that have needed a clarification since release.

 

1. The cost in infantry squads ( and veterans);  When adding a heavy weapons tam to and infantry squad, do you use the cost of two infantry(squad cost before weapon = 40) or a heavy weapons team(squad cost 38)?

 

-For the record I say it's 40 point before the weapon, but this has been argued about and left without clarification.

 

2. Weapon load out of the heavy weapons team when joining a squad; Does a heavy weapons squad within and infantry squad have 1 or 2 lasguns?

 

-I think most of us would agree that it's 1, but the way the HWT is added doesn't make it 100% clear that the troops lose their lasguns.  Like the first one, this has also been debated enough for clarification.  

 

 

 

I got a couple of other things that we've debated about.

 

The Laurels of Command Relic allows for multiple orders on a couple squads.  This has brought up the debate on what it means to "resolve an order".  Some people have claimed (I do NOT agree with this interpretation), for example, if you give a squad FRFSRF,  that squad must shoot ( they claim that this is resolving the order) before another order (such as take aim) is given.

 

 

Another one, how leadership buffs stack;  A Commissar allow infantry to use his leadership and a Regimental standard gives +1 Ld to the squad ( not the Commissar) the question is if that takes place before or after they use the commissars leadership.

 

Unfortunately, we mostly agreed that these can't stack but I'd say it's worth checking. 

 

I know you don't really want rules suggestions, but I have previously put forward the idea of adding the Ordo Prefectus keyword to the Regimental Standard to avoid this issue all together.

[CaptainMarsh]

 

Regarding Summary Execution, how about something simple. If morale check is failed, Commissar kills a guy and the result of the roll changes to a 1. That way the only time it’s an active detriment is if you were going to fail anyway, and already rolled a 1, in which case you lose one more guy than normal. In every other situation he would be a benefit but not the crazy “morale means nothing” version we had before.

 

That's the best fix for Commissars that I've heard so far! Having said that though, one of the Eldar Craftworlds and the Dark Angels have gotten the Summary Execution rule so far, and considering the number of Codices yet to come, I think they should just reinstate the Commissar's Summary Execution rule to the original Codex version. If they're handing it out to other armies as an automatic buff (armies, I might add, with troops that are harder to kill in order to force those morale checks in the first place), without even tying it to a character's bubble, then surely it isn't over powered. A points adjustment might be in order, though I don't know if even that's necessary, since it only affects a 6" bubble around a 30+ point Commissar, rather than being a free army wide buff.

 

This would go a very long way to making Commissars effective without being too good. If any one change could be supported, it'd be this.

 

Conscripts- If they're going to cost the same, then they need to be better. Since no one wants that, either change them back to 3 points or let the squad size of 50 come back. As it stands Conscripts are such a terrible choice under almost any circumstance that no one wants to bring them- ever. First they were limited in size and only take orders on a 4+. Then the Commissar change actively murdered them. Then a point increase? Yikes!

 

 Feral_80, suggested addition to the list of advantages of 2-3 squads of Infantry vs 1 Conscript:

 

The tactical flexibility(battlefield use) and strategic (force organization in detachments) that comes with multiple units. 

[dadieau]

I hope this isn't too late although it may not add anything to the missive. I recieved my copy of Chapter Approved Thursday evening and played my first game today. My 2000 pt. army went up to 2319 pts. It wouldn't bother me except as noted in this topic not every adjustment makes sense. If we knew what GW was trying to accomplish I think this entire topic would be easier to address.

 

The Warhound Titan going from a barely useable 1500 pts to 2000 pts and the Dominus Bombard from 450 to 600 tells me they want to take the big stuff out of the competitive circuit. Then as pointed out above the Earthshaker and Earthshaker carriage points increase past the Basilisk and the increase to the Heavy Quad mortar might indicate GW wants to inhibit the use of Forge World all together. Though there is disagreement here Elysians are still very useful and in other threads on this site one of the things that needs to be addressed by GW.

 

Not to belabor the point but what are they trying to accomplish? Whatever it is it certainly isn't balance.

[Withershadow]

I don't agree with your logic on the Vulture needing a rules change or a price increase. It's already 10pts more expensive than it's tank counterpart and if taken as an AT choice it's a hopeless 220pts for less firepower than the 190pt annihilator.

I agree, being a flyer carries a significant drawback, especially compared to an objective secured Leman Russ. If anything, the Vulture is the only FW Imperial Navy flyer with an appropriate cost. It's not supposed to have the same rules as a Valkyrie/Vendetta because it is a significantly different plane with different engines. It's like the Stormtalon Gunship vs Stormhawk Interceptor.

 

We could go after the punisher cannon and make it 30 points, but it's really only underpriced if firing two times. This would also kick the Vulture even more as it would have to pay the price hike twice. I also am not convinced the Punisher cannon is significantly better than a Conqueror or Executioner cannon.

 

That said, I really like the latest draft of this document. It is concise while being detailed, and sticks to the point without crossing over into whiny territory. Two thumbs up. Now if only GW reads it.

[Tirak]

The Punisher is only useful against chaff infantry. On a BS4+ model and with no AP, truly sturdy infantry will shrug it off. You get something in the order of 4.4 wounds against a normal Space Marine and only 2.2 against targets like Plague Marines. It's nice to have, but not overpowered or overpriced.

[Feral_80]

Oook. I have removed the text from p. 1 and edited directly the latest version on p. 4.

 

Updates:

 

- added the heavy weapon squad clarification, although the answer seems to me quite obvious

- removed the Vulture thing, that was actually a leftover from when we considered increasing the pts of the Punisher but then agreed on discarding it. It also had a wrong numeration.

- added the Conscript proposal

 

As for the rest of the point rasised, honestly I don't really see the problem here. It seems to me that you just need to apply the rules:

 

• Laurels of Command: I just read the rules as written. 'Resolve an order' means to carry out what is written in its text. For frfsrf this means that all lasguns change to rapid fire 2. Period. There is nothing else in the order, and certainly it nowhere states that you must fire as part of the order. You might even decide not to fire at all, for some weird reason. Two orders only instruct to actually execute an action 'immediately', and those are the only that require you to resolve an action before trying to issue the second order with the Laurels. I do not think there is anything to clarify here, if GW intended anything different they'd need to rewrite two pages of the codex and I am unwilling to ask that. Anybody who argues differently is just unable or unwilling to read a short text as it is written.
• Regimental standard: here I'd be also inclined to discard the problem. The standard gives +1 to the Ld of a squad. A squad can use the Ld of a Commissar if in range. There is no before or after, with a Lord in range in all cases the squad Ld *is* to all effects 9, so you treat it as a squad that has that base stat. And then you apply the modifier for a +1 = 10. But if I am alone here in thinking so I'll add it to the requests for clarification.

 

One last thing that came to my mind. It seems to me that the codex update very obviously tried to limit the use of the Dagger relic to <regiment> only infantry. They probably overlooked the fact that the Officer of the fleet still allows to use it with Auxilla stuff. I have the suspect that this is not intentional, and honestly the idea of this guy in white dress uniform and gloves that leads a squad of Bullgryns in the wilderness is just quite silly. Should I add this to the clarifications, or am I just asking to punish our options?

[Mitchverr]

One last thing that came to my mind. It seems to me that the codex update very obviously tried to limit the use of the Dagger relic to <regiment> only infantry. They probably overlooked the fact that the Officer of the fleet still allows to use it with Auxilla stuff. I have the suspect that this is not intentional, and honestly the idea of this guy in white dress uniform and gloves that leads a squad of Bullgryns in the wilderness is just quite silly. Should I add this to the clarifications, or am I just asking to punish our options?

 

I totally forgot about this, it also isnt just "astra militarum", it allows any infantry to go with him, EG space marines, admech, so on and so forth, so I think it should be mentioned myself.

 

And I agree with the above about the vulture, it should NOT be compared to the valk or detta in my view, its a different craft with a different role and glad thats changed it seems.

 

 

Also again, CA gives the impression death korps and elysian command squads can take heavy weapons, but the index doesnt allow it, which is correct?

[Feral_80]

Right, added that about the Dagger.

 

I think the CA thing about heavy weapons is just ambiguously worded, but the index is very likely correct.

[Chris521]

• Regimental standard: here I'd be also inclined to discard the problem. The standard gives +1 to the Ld of a squad. A squad can use the Ld of a Commissar if in range. There is no before or after, with a Lord in range in all cases the squad Ld *is* to all effects 9, so you treat it as a squad that has that base stat. And then you apply the modifier for a +1 = 10. But if I am alone here in thinking so I'll add it to the requests for clarification.

 

 

This was discussed in several threads when we were looking for ways to work around the summary execution nerf.  I would say the most common conclusion was that the +1 does not count. 

[Feral_80]

Weird. Ok, added that to the requests for clarifications.

[Withershadow]

Dagger on non-regimental officers would have been unintentional if they didn’t specifically add a conditional clause about regiments. I guess they didn’t want them going to Priests, Psykers and Ogryn Bodyguards?

[NatBrannigan]

Looks good to me, good effort Feral!

 

Maybe add that Mordians should get fearless, and an extra Lasgun shot, and free tanks!

 

Biased? What do you mean Biased!?

[duz_]

Alright a bit late to the party he's my 2 cents.

 

Firstly can we add a part to say its an unofficial B&C generated response. ;)

 

Only other things I have to add are

 

1. If the change in conscript points results in the regular Infantry squad being increased it will put guard back to 7th where their regular troops were too expensive to run.

 

2. Kurovs Aquila, RAW there are no restrictions on when it can be used. Eg before game, model on / off board, in transport, dead? Clarification would be warranted

 

 

Thanks for compiling this Feral! I hope GW can see the effort gone into it.

 

Another thought as I suspect there's no real rush to get this to GW. As I doubt they'll be updating any time soon. Perhaps a Survey Monkey poll to try and numerical summarize these views? Anyone have an account? :)

[Withershadow]

1. I don't think that kind of assessment is beneficial at all to include in the document.  It's full of feels and conjecture, and references an obsolete ruleset (Guard being 5 points per model is NOT why they had issues in 7th).  Krieg are 5 points per model now and I find they do just fine.  I agree with the general sentiment that Conscripts are now too expensive for what they can do compared to infantry squads, I am just not confident the chips will fall in our favor if GW decides to address the issue.  They have been heavy-handed to say the least.

 

2. Similar stratagem recycling and generating abilities work all the time.  I mean, Ultra players roll to refund their relic CPs and whatnot all the time.

[Feral_80]

Err, in any case too late to make any amendments, I sent it a couple of days ago.

 

No reply whatsoever so far...worst-case scenario, it was a good exercise.