the big fat errata(Released!)

[redmapa]

The problem with the current direction is everyone plays matched play and with this and future FAQs Matched Play will equal to tournament armies, so essentially there will be certain armies that are not able to compete in match play and are relegated to Open games only but those are even more imbalanced as there are no restrictions for any of the worse flaws of this edition. We gain very little compared to what we lose when playing narrative games.

 

Honestly this FAQ just exacerbates the issues we've always had this edition which is also the problem of using tournament meta and using the nerf hammer for all armies because the lower tier armies are punished MORE than the top tier armies since their inherent power allows them to remain viable whereas we are left with fewer options and the fact that this isnt part of the larger discussions kind of worries me because it leaves these armies out to hang and wallow in their own problems that wont be fixed in the foreseeable future because they are not part of the tournament circuit from which GW is gathering data.

[Ebon Hand]

Years ago these changes would have rolled off my back since I could just play amongst my circle of friends and house rule it all away. However they all quit due to things like this wearing they're patience down over time.

 

That leaves me playing matched play rules at the FLGS where our league uses all beta rules. I'm lucky enough that my collection is diverse enough to adapt, but not everyone has that.

 

They have to know that balancing the entire game off of tournaments requires a subtle approach.

 

They have done well with many of their changes like the smite change (which had exceptions for things like Grey Knights and Thousand Sons Brotherhood of Psyker units) and the character targeting rules, but these beta rules and some of the points changes do not bode well in my humble opinion.

 

It's extremely important that we make this known to the rules team so that when (IF) these rules are made official they are in a polished state.

 

Spread this email far and wide and use it to offer well thought out and tested feedback with examples and anecdotes. Don't just wishlist and don't make it so dense that it overwhelms them. They likely will get a lot of emails!

 

40kfaq@gwplc.com

[Firepower]

 

Of course we must be polite. It will be the politest crusade in the Chapter's history!

 

Another alternative is to stop playing matched play? Honda's been extolling the virtues of PL for a while now.

This, you've never been an uber competitive player anyway Firepower which is exactly what the other two game styles are for.

 

 

I'll be damned if along with all the other issues, this errata forces me to learn new mathematics, too!  I've been using points since before numbers were invented!  :teehee:

 

Anyway, I don't see how using PL instead changes any of the tactical issues... 

[Schlitzaf]

I’ll be honest I 100% agree with Firepower and would pay 20-30 dollars for a book with the erratas in it and a then as an aside buy a whole new Codex with the Index and FAQ in them already. Like I’ll be the first person to defend our army and footslogging. But the reality vs gun line and other armies we needed to be able to mass drop cheap Reivars and Deep Strikes to let our boys make it in.

 

I’ll be experiment with cheap Assault Marines and Inceptors I’m not hopeful. It feels like a quick kick to the groin

[redmapa]

I was already moving away from mass deep strikes when this hit so Im not that hurt all things considered though it is a huge kick in the groin and it does limit the potential of certain units and builds. Personally I think this FAQ will push fast units like jump infantry and bikes back into the fold of many armies, Im glad I didnt buy another squad of Reivers because I honestly cant see how they will function when I cant rely on them being able to deep strike in and their attacks where mediocre to begin with so anything but 2-3 small squads seems like a very bad choice, I'll probably buy more Inceptors since I like the models and they offer some decent firepower and no way in hell am I building a mother:cussing gun line with this army when I already have my Imperial Guard and SM are not that great at playing the gun-line game anyway.

 

Bunch of Inceptors, bunch of vanguard vets and assault squads, push forth shoot stuff and charge.

[Tokugawa]

If I calculated correctly, a DS unit need to roll 9+ on charge distance, for getting into combat the turn landing. Even with Templars' reroll, that is still...about 52% chance of failure? With or without the FAQ, DS cc units are already not nice choice for us.

[Medjugorje]

a better choise than any other fraction outside from Khorne Daemons and Blood Angels.

[Medjugorje]

Years ago these changes would have rolled off my back since I could just play amongst my circle of friends and house rule it all away. However they all quit due to things like this wearing they're patience down over time.

 

That leaves me playing matched play rules at the FLGS where our league uses all beta rules. I'm lucky enough that my collection is diverse enough to adapt, but not everyone has that.

 

They have to know that balancing the entire game off of tournaments requires a subtle approach.

 

They have done well with many of their changes like the smite change (which had exceptions for things like Grey Knights and Thousand Sons Brotherhood of Psyker units) and the character targeting rules, but these beta rules and some of the points changes do not bode well in my humble opinion.

 

It's extremely important that we make this known to the rules team so that when (IF) these rules are made official they are in a polished state.

 

Spread this email far and wide and use it to offer well thought out and tested feedback with examples and anecdotes. Don't just wishlist and don't make it so dense that it overwhelms them. They likely will get a lot of emails!

 

40kfaq@gwplc.com

yeah... do it

 

no pity no remorse no fear - for the emperor^^

[Schlitzaf]

@Tokegawa, it’s a 48% chance of success. Not a 52% chance to fail. Pedantic I know. But the point is that if you Deep Strike Two Units, you should get atleast one in. As getting one is 48%, if you then do third reroll (I.E have a 2nd Deep Striker) you have 64.5 percent of atleast one sucess. Then if you have a 4th roll you have 75% chance of success. Then a 3rd Unit you have 87.5% and then so on and so forth.

 

Make a long story short, mass deep striking is Templars and in particular the sweet spot is around 2-3 Units. Because with only two units every 3 out of 4 games you’ll succeed. With 3 Units you’ll succeed 9 out of 10 games. While for comparison non-Templars, with two units you will only successfully connect with one unit 50% of the time. While with 3 Units you’ll only successful connect every 3 out of 5 games.

 

It’s why cheap Reivars were exceptionally good for this

[Firepower]

Even when Deep Strike charges failed, the opponent still had to address the two Ironclads sitting right up in his face before he could devote much attention to the squads rushing towards him.  And those Turn 1 Hunter Killer Missiles were the best anti armor tool in my whole army :P

[Marshal Arthur]

Since the problem they're trying to address with the new deep strike beta rule is mass shooting deepstrikers a possible solution could be a rule limiting shooting right out of deepstrike. Maybe some sort of situational awareness rule where a unit cannot shoot the same turn it deepstrikes, or perhaps they get a -1 to hit penalty. Since it's difficult to assault out of deepstrike it only makes sense to handicap shooting in the same way and will prevent things like scion plasma spam.

[redmapa]

The solution to this issue quite simply is for it to be more granular, GW created these big limitations that while completely erases certain Alpha strikes it hurts a bunch of units and armies and to be honest they are not that interactive. If shooting out of Deep Strike was too much then yeah another penatly to that would work and if assaulting out of deep strike was also an issue then they could increase the charge distance required for first turn strikes and the decrease it by each turn until the third turn, those are simple ways to cripple certain combos while not completely erasing other units and options, I would simply do it like this:

 

"Reinforcements that have arrived on Turn 1 must pass a Leadership test before shooting any weapons, they cannot shoot if they failed. Reinforcements must also be set within 12" from enemy units in Turn 1, 9" from enemy units by Turn 2 and 6" by Turn 3."

 

Done, its simple, granular, hurts alpha strikes but the option is still there and both Shooting and Assault are equally affected by a 2d6 roll.

[Schlitzaf]

Honestly i’d simply change it so you cannot deploy on in your opponent’s deployment zone. Allowing aggressive deep strikes but limiting the initial attack to one direction

[Panzer]

 

 

Of course we must be polite. It will be the politest crusade in the Chapter's history!

Another alternative is to stop playing matched play? Honda's been extolling the virtues of PL for a while now.

 

This, you've never been an uber competitive player anyway Firepower which is exactly what the other two game styles are for. ;)

 

I'll be damned if along with all the other issues, this errata forces me to learn new mathematics, too!  I've been using points since before numbers were invented!  :teehee:

 

Anyway, I don't see how using PL instead changes any of the tactical issues... :huh:

There's nothing stopping you from using points in Narrative Play. The point is that many of the overly restrictive rulings apply only for Matched Play. However Narrative Play has its own issues like psi spam and summoning/etc new units for free. ^^

 

Also I read a few times now that you relied on Ironclad drops ... do you have that many FW Drop Pods? Keep in mind that regular Drop Pods can't carry dreads in 8th anymore.

[Aegir_Einarsson]

I think that the biggest issue is, that CC DS was thrown to the same bin as shooty one. If we want to write something to GW, Maby it is good point to show them, that we want Also stop scions/obliterators spam to be dropped, but as CC is weaker then shooting, it don’t need another nerf, And should be excluded from DS rules?

[Marshal_Roujakis]

It would be unfair to let melee armies in turn be capable of Deep Striking while shooting armies are out right relegated to not being able to deep strike... if the issue is that you now don't have screening units to cover your Footsloggers, to get into melee, then the easiest answer is to not Footslog them, get them into a transport so that they can roll up the table and smash the enemy Turn 2 when your Deep Strikers arrive...

 

This actually makes Transports viable again instead of massed Troops, there's nothing that can instantly get to your deployment zone, lock your tank in a melee and make it useless for the entire game... you just now need to watch out for Lascannon spam or similar... it makes Templars better, as it enables the use of both Mechanized Assault and Orbital Assault which can hit at the same time.

 

Think of it this way as well, it applies to both armies that you both can't Deep Strike turn 1, so you can fire away at their units with your heavy weapons instead of getting asault locked on Turn 1... and even if you had the ability to Deep Strike turn one, it just makes you lose those Deep Striking units, even if they did make it into Assault, the enemy would fall back Turn 2, and shoot the geneseed out of those Rievers... sure adding tanks would mean losing attacks in melee and boots on the ground, but with the nerf of Deep Striking, it makes if possible to get the maximum amount of attack out of a 10-man squad with the protection provided by transports.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

But GW already made it unfair in the way you suggest by excepting Genestealers from the no turn one DS rule, and Genestealers are one of the scariest deepstriking units about!

[Aegir_Einarsson]

Yes And No.

Gunline armies don’t use DS at all. But They gain two rounds of free shoooting If They go first. That isn’t fair at all.

And Yes you can use rhino rush. Pop swoje on turn one And wait praying to the Emperor that you won’t be shoot out from the table.

 

 

O thought about 3-4 razorbacks with TLLC or TLAC, supported by bike captain with crusader helmet.

Advance First turn, pop smoke or shoot, hide captain behind razors. Or use LRC... Maby Again it will be worth something?

[Tokugawa]

If, even if, GW like to add more "deep strike" element to spacemarines, someday in future.

 

 

Will that buff come to our chapter first?

 

 

Obviously no way! BA, Raven guard, DA Deathwing...all would receive that at higher priority. They are "deeper striker" than us, in GW's setting.

 

 

GW didn't force us to rush forward and charge. GW also did't prohibit us to shoot. And I doubt GW set Templars as a melee army.

 

 

If GW think "this marine will combat, and should combat", they can give it 4 attack per boy, or fight 2 times per turn. What it gave to us?

[Panzer]

If, even if, GW like to add more "deep strike" element to spacemarines, someday in future.

Will that buff come to our chapter first?

Obviously no way! BA, Raven guard, DA Deathwing...all would receive that at higher priority. They are "deeper striker" than us, in GW's setting.

 

You know ... I'd believe that if it weren't Vanilla Marines who had the smaller Flyers for a long time while BA who are one of the chapters who use Flyer a LOT didn't have access to them until this edition.

It's more likely that either Vanilla Marines gets access to them first or, now in 8th with an improved GW, every Marine Codex who're supposed to have them gets access to new units.

[Acebaur]

If, even if, GW like to add more "deep strike" element to spacemarines, someday in future.

 

 

Will that buff come to our chapter first?

 

 

Obviously no way! BA, Raven guard, DA Deathwing...all would receive that at higher priority. They are "deeper striker" than us, in GW's setting.

 

 

GW didn't force us to rush forward and charge. GW also did't prohibit us to shoot. And I doubt GW set Templars as a melee army.

 

 

If GW think "this marine will combat, and should combat", they can give it 4 attack per boy, or fight 2 times per turn. What it gave to us?

 

 

I would disagree, honestly we are codex Space marines and it has been proven that they always get updated first. Any buffs to SM DS'ing will come to us before any other chapter. 

[Marshal_Roujakis]

If, even if, GW like to add more "deep strike" element to spacemarines, someday in future.

 

 

Will that buff come to our chapter first?

 

 

Obviously no way! BA, Raven guard, DA Deathwing...all would receive that at higher priority. They are "deeper striker" than us, in GW's setting.

 

 

GW didn't force us to rush forward and charge. GW also did't prohibit us to shoot. And I doubt GW set Templars as a melee army.

 

 

If GW think "this marine will combat, and should combat", they can give it 4 attack per boy, or fight 2 times per turn. What it gave to us?

 

They sort of did... our Characters are all bound into melee, including Special Abilities like Helbrecht's +1 S, and Grimaldus +1Attack for every 6+ to Hit...

 

Our Crusader Squads, exclusively Templars, can be geared exclusively for melee.

 

Our Chapter Tactic in it of itself, is based on melee being a reroll to charge distance...

 

The only issue is that, despite all of this, the meta-creep relegated us to being a mid-low tier army in the competitive setting, since melee has a lot of negative elements to begin with (fall back rule, transport costs) and the Codex that we are found in has a lot of focus towards being shooty... and previous editions has mentioned as well that Templars' primary tactics involve Mechanized Assaults and Orbital Assaults, which involve one word... Assault... fluff-wise, Black Templars is an Assault Based Army with shooting elements... 

[Firepower]

Three out of four Vows (I'm counting Abhor the Witch because of the free movement), all our Special Characters, the only Marine Troop choice that could take melee weapons (barring Blood Angels depending on the edition), Righteous Zeal, a rule called Kill Them All which actually hindered our shooting, the deliberate removal of Devastators and Whirlwinds...yes, Templars were pitched as a melee centric army -both on the table and in the fluff- in the beginning.  Codex creep inadvertently and rather ironically made us shootier, and then we got stuck into a shooty dex.

[Schlitzaf]

I mean what everyone else said, Black Templars are basically Death Gaurd but replaces midrange shooty with midrange melee. Our unique units tended to focus on magic range range (Or puesdo unique ala LRC), or getting within Charge. BT Biker Crusader and Crusaders could take Special. Then either replace Special with Melee (Biker) or replace Heavy with Melee (Crusader) and not Special with Heavy. Our Units all pushed us to move forward faster but not alpha better persay (our Melee buffs unlike other Melee forced were not on the charge).

 

We have a shooty element, but’s like have Deathgaurd have a melee element. It’s mean to support our melee not be instead of. Getting vows back be awesome but if we want better melee rules lets try to think of something somewhat unique.

 

Having an AP -1 or higher Weapon be able to attack one more time when used by a Templar be a solid addition to our current tactic (we could if desired add a clause that makes it not work with Hammers/Fist if we wanted to focus on Ax/Swords). And Biker Crusaders. Vows would be nice but, those be instrintically harder to add, versus a simple modification.

 

But I’ll have a game this weekend and will get my feedback up.

[Firepower]

I don't even want new rules to buff Templars.  I'm at the point where all I can ask is that they stop taking away what I have left.