Paladin777 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Sooooooo, when are they going to tell that to world eaters and can I watch with popcorn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathwalker Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 If I wanted to play a shooty marine army, I’d play dark angels, or smurfs or something. But the GW team got smashed with flyrants, so we need to do something................... We've got to protect our phony balony jobs gentleman, we must do something about this immediately. / sarcasm Seriously though, I have no issue with BA using shooting, it's the anvil to the assault hammer and you ignore it at your own risk. At least these days your devastator squad does not want to move forward and beat your opponent up with the butt of their lascannon because of black rage anymore :P Or, just take multiple detachments from multiple SM forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin777 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I don’t have a problem with shooting either, half my jump squads are inceptors! But I don’t really want to play an army that just shoots, that’s what I play rubricae heavy thousand Sons for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathwalker Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I don’t have a problem with shooting either, half my jump squads are inceptors! But I don’t really want to play an army that just shoots, that’s what I play rubricae heavy thousand Sons for. I mean stand back and shoot brother Paladin, not manuverable firepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spagunk Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 BA definitely do not have an incentive to go straight shooting without going soup. If they were to make it so Baal preds had their own killshot stratagem or they dropped us a strat for using land raiders and ravens to help, that would give us a clue. But as it stands, we don't really have too much to help us in shooting that other armies don't already have or have better of. Especially since other marines armies have more shooting bonuses or more ways to mitigate taking damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Gunzhard Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 BA definitely do not have an incentive to go straight shooting without going soup. If they were to make it so Baal preds had their own killshot stratagem or they dropped us a strat for using land raiders and ravens to help, that would give us a clue. But as it stands, we don't really have too much to help us in shooting that other armies don't already have or have better of. Especially since other marines armies have more shooting bonuses or more ways to mitigate taking damage. That's it right there... if you want to go shooty, it's just a million times more efficient to ally in IG or other more shooty Codex:SM. Mono-Faction BA takes a huge hit with this FAQ. I hope everyone is writing in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathwalker Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 BA definitely do not have an incentive to go straight shooting without going soup. If they were to make it so Baal preds had their own killshot stratagem or they dropped us a strat for using land raiders and ravens to help, that would give us a clue. But as it stands, we don't really have too much to help us in shooting that other armies don't already have or have better of. Especially since other marines armies have more shooting bonuses or more ways to mitigate taking damage. BA don't have to be good at everything, they would really be busted if they were. Why use Melee with a DA army, they don't get the benefit BA do. I don't know why you feel the need for Baal preds to get their own killshot strat, the normal one is fine. I do agree that with the rule of 3 it should be 3 -vehicles- rather than 3 predators though. My only real beef with the DS ruling is that it was specifically designed to hamper DS SHOOTING alpha strike's, but due to bad wording nefted DS MELEE strikes that were already on an uphill and potentially costly path already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unseen Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Baal Predators can't use the killshot strategem, first off. It's based off of unit name, not keyword. So their stuck being over priced razorbacks without the 1 upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathwalker Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Baal Predators can't use the killshot strategem, first off. It's based off of unit name, not keyword. So their stuck being over priced razorbacks without the 1 upside. That makes no sense, Predators have different names based on loadout............. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceril Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 The sky isn't falling: https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/17/faq-breakdown-part-1/ https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/19/faq-breakdown-part-2/ Nick Navanti discusses the changes, was a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Baal Predators can't use the killshot strategem, first off. It's based off of unit name, not keyword. So their stuck being over priced razorbacks without the 1 upside. That makes no sense, Predators have different names based on loadout............. Oh well. They may have different names based on the weapon choices in the fluff but in the rules there is only one predator datasheet and twin assault cannons, flamestorm cannons and heavy flamer sponsons are not weapon choices for the Predator. The Baal Predator is a different datasheet. Unless I miss something, Twin Las/HB and Autocannon/Las do not have names in the fluff. The sky isn't falling: https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/17/faq-breakdown-part-1/ https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/19/faq-breakdown-part-2/ Nick Navanti discusses the changes, was a good read. Are you sure you read the second article? Blood Angels- As far as I know the verdict isn’t out yet for how the Wings of Fire strat and the new reinforcement rules interact, but assuming they don’t work, BA armies are going to have to look for more fire support (potentially from guard) in order to make up for the pressure they lost turn 1.That is pretty much what we have been saying all along, with the exception that it is pretty clear that UWoF does not work on tuen 1 as written. But who knows what GW wanted to achieve and botched the writing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathwalker Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Predator Destroyers and predator Anihillators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calistarius Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I'm going to leave this here to. I hope this helps. Me - UWoF thread. Okay. I've been trying to put out fires in Facebook groups over this issue since Monday. Originally, I thought this was a horribly worded and executed knee jerk reaction that took away something special from a of different armies. I was disappointed and was resigned to us not being able to use UWoF effectively until turn 2. Then I started actually reading through EVERYTHING they posted, and comparing it to the opinions of the masses. I've come to my own decision on this, until they make an official change, which I don't think they actually need to do. I'll tell you why. First, we cannot apply the second paragraph of the Tactical Reserves entry without applying the first. If we apply the first paragraph, we see that units already deployed before the game begins are not impacted whatsoever by the confines of the deployment zone. This is aimed at reining in the countless units with rules like Jump Pack Assault and Teleport Strike. If they start on the table they are free to use any ability, stratagem or psychic power to move anywhere that ability allows. Second, this Tactical Reserve entry is meant to be used in conjunction with the Reinforcements entry on page 177 of the BRB. This already established rule is where the limitations for firing heavy weapons and advancing are applied to units that are placed on the battlefield at any point during the game. We need to look at these entries as if they are separate, because they are. Units are capable of being labelled as "reinforcements" without arriving from reserves. Therefore, if we use UWoF then yes they are counted as having moved and cannot advance etc. They're still not limited to being placed solely in the owning players deployment zone. Third, I've seen countless players referring to the section in the BRB FAQ where it states models once a model is removed from table they count as reinforcements. This FAQ answer CANNOT be applied to the Tactical Reserves entry. This separate FAQ answer is an answer from the previous FAQ that was referring to the Reinforcements section of the BRB, which is still in effect. Also, they would not reference a beta rule when answering any FAQ, because that beta rule isn't official. Final thoughts...it isn't as complicated as we are making it. Tactical Reserves are ALWAYS considered the Reinforcements mentioned on page 177 (they even use the appropriate terminology), but Reinforcements are NOT the always Tactical Reserves. I get what they're trying to do, and honestly I like it. This is a good way of instituting limitations while not completely stripping an army's niche from them. If your opponent gives you grief, read both paragraphs of the new beta rule with them, and then refer them to the BRB entry. Explain that they're used simultaneously when they apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea-People Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 The sky isn't falling: https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/17/faq-breakdown-part-1/ https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/19/faq-breakdown-part-2/ Nick Navanti discusses the changes, was a good read. Just read the articles and he seems to be right. We need to adapt, and we have the tools to do so. I'm more miffed that "steel rain" is now even less of a thing. GW took that out back and shot it with 8th. Now they're just pissing on its grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxus Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 What he is essentially saying is that Blood Angels can work as a Guard ally, not the other way around. Competitive BA armies were already bringing Guard allies, now he's saying bring more Guard post-FAQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Well competetive mono armies aren't a thing anyway so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about top tournament players saying something like that. If you want to keep playing a mono army then you have to expect to lose against min-maxed top tier armies. You're limiting yourself by doing so and that's fine but far from min-maxing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unseen Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Well competetive mono armies aren't a thing anyway so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about top tournament players saying something like that. If you want to keep playing a mono army then you have to expect to lose against min-maxed top tier armies. You're limiting yourself by doing so and that's fine but far from min-maxing. Eldar don't seem to be having any problems mate. And the fact that Imperium armies have to balanced around being allies to half the damn armies in the game is awful from a mechanics perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Eldar are Eldar. No point in using a broken Codex as arguent. Tho afaik they too use the Ynnari stuff fairly regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverson Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 I think the difference is if you take that review from nick to it’s logical conclusion this is what happens. (This is my opinion only) Pre faq.Play a blood angel army with (guard) allies and have a good blood angel army. To Initial post faq opinion.Play a guard army with blood angel allies and have a good Astra Militarum army. (At least your using blood angels right? :(.......) To Play guard and have a better army. I thought mono blood angels have been a thing? Getting top 10 at lvo and wasn’t the nova list that got banned for having Seth and the standard of sacrifice a mono build and doing well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 While I dont believe the sky is falling, (because adaptation is always around)...every uber guard build I played against in the last major tourney back home will remain unchanged in composition. Furthermore, they are now more powerful to an order of magnitudes on account of the inability of "anti-meta" lists that could cause them trouble. Furthermore, the nigh idiotic rule clarification of wobbly-model means that a unit on a ridge/building/etc can never be assaulted - making the screening and wrapping that these lists already used all the more powerful. I dont know what the playtester meta is. I dont know how they could come to these suggestions. Does anyone know what type of list the one guy was referring to when he said the majority of the army would "deploy in turn 1" only to shoot the army apart before they had a chance to respond? (And how prevalent it was?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unseen Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 While I dont believe the sky is falling, (because adaptation is always around)...every uber guard build I played against in the last major tourney back home will remain unchanged in composition. Furthermore, they are now more powerful to an order of magnitudes on account of the inability of "anti-meta" lists that could cause them trouble. Furthermore, the nigh idiotic rule clarification of wobbly-model means that a unit on a ridge/building/etc can never be assaulted - making the screening and wrapping that these lists already used all the more powerful. I dont know what the playtester meta is. I dont know how they could come to these suggestions. Does anyone know what type of list the one guy was referring to when he said the majority of the army would "deploy in turn 1" only to shoot the army apart before they had a chance to respond? (And how prevalent it was?) Probably was talking about the flyrant spam list, though I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Predator Destroyers and predator AnihillatorsActually Predator Destructor: Autcannon, heavy bolter sponsons. Predator Annihilator: Twin lascannon, lascannon sponsons The predators with mixed loadouts never had names, nor are the baal predator weapon combinations options for the regular predator. Long story short, because the killshot stratagem refers to a predator (and not to the PREDATOR keyword) baal predators cannot use the stratagem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Devil gaunt bombs, chaos with obliterator/plasma termi bombs and astra militarum with scion spam would be the only ones that come into my mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 By the sound of things, after reading what GW put up and listening to the FLG guys - these changes will be here to stay, with the exception of the charging into different levels and not being able to place models. This is being reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Does anyone know what type of list the one guy was referring to when he said the majority of the army would "deploy in turn 1" only to shoot the army apart before they had a chance to respond? (And how prevalent it was?) In general, flyrant spam among others. The only place I could find the lists was The Tyranid Hive After 4 rounds, 11 lists were undefeated, 5 of which were nids. Top 5 had 3 nid lists which were the above, featuring 7, 3 and 5 Flyrants respectively. 5 flyrants is 120 BS3+ S6 AP0 D1 shots per turn, which can drop anywhere onboard turn 1. With Kraken they can all fall back, shoot and charge in the same turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.