Spring FAQ is out and it's bad news

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

Deepstrike has gone back to previous editions. A solid answer For the Deepstrike debacle is first player turn you can't Deepstrike. Therefore if you go second you should be able to counter Shooty lists if you are an assault based army.

Unfortunately not:

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere).

A player still gets a first turn even if he goes second. What you meant would have to be "the first player's first turn".

1. You wait until turn 2 to deploy to make it worth doing, Drop Pod Devs are still viable.

 

2. Example player 1 goes first must follow the aforementioned DS rules, Player 2 goes second, is not handicapped by the rules for deepsteiking.

 

This adds layers if tactics to the game, do you go first for hopes of first blood? or do you go second hoping you can weather the storm for a turn 2 counter offensive.

 

What gets me is not everyone went for the first turn charge if it wasn't advantageous for them to do so, where we might see later turns change the momentum.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

TL;DR

 

Lots of jumbled emotions.

 

First thoughts:

 

Deepstrike has gone back to previous editions. A solid answer For the Deepstrike debacle is first player turn you can't Deepstrike. Therefore if you go second you should be able to counter Shooty lists if you are an assault based army.

 

Biker Scouts are going to be meta if all beta rules stay in place.

 

Always played Fly as discounting vertical movement with charges so just reaffirmed that.

 

More base CPs is only beneficial. Dual wielding plasma pistols is back so yay.

 

Not a fan of terrain ruling, but will adjust accordingly.

 

Most other things aren't specifixally BA related so I'll leave that out.

What happened with dual weilding plasma?

Assault marine sergeants can replace both weapons for pistols or melee weapons. So you can equip them with double special pistols again.

[toaae]

 

 

Why are BA worse in other departments? What's stopping them from Running Hellblasters, Sicaran Venators, etc?

Because we do not get things like ignores cover (IF) or -1 to hit outside 12" (RG).

No, but those don't get a unit arriving from reserve on turn two and charging into the enemy as effectively as BA.

But why take those shooty units as Blood Angels when you could fit them into a detachment as Salamanders or whatever, and get some kind of bonus to shooting?

 

Either we gimp ourselves for theme so we can run pure BA or throw theme out the window and take what is objectively better. Alternatively, they could not institute an unnecessary rule change, and we can continue to play a mid tier, but fluffy and thematic army.

 

It's not like BA players are running 0 units on the table. The restriction for half units was already there. Personally, I run three units of intercessors, a unit of aggressors and one of my jump characters to go along with the three scout units. I think that should fulfill any sort of fluff concern about having boots on the ground

[dakkamasta]

 

 

Deepstrike has gone back to previous editions. A solid answer For the Deepstrike debacle is first player turn you can't Deepstrike. Therefore if you go second you should be able to counter Shooty lists if you are an assault based army.

Unfortunately not:

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere).

A player still gets a first turn even if he goes second. What you meant would have to be "the first player's first turn".

1. You wait until turn 2 to deploy to make it worth doing, Drop Pod Devs are still viable.

 

2. Example player 1 goes first must follow the aforementioned DS rules, Player 2 goes second, is not handicapped by the rules for deepsteiking.

 

This adds layers if tactics to the game, do you go first for hopes of first blood? or do you go second hoping you can weather the storm for a turn 2 counter offensive.

 

What gets me is not everyone went for the first turn charge if it wasn't advantageous for them to do so, where we might see later turns change the momentum.

 

 

I like this idea. First turn is so important in the current rules that giving the player an advantage for going second makes a lot of sense. Basically it's the opportunity to get the first strike vs the ability to react via placing reinforcements in the optimal locations.

 

I find it satisfying from a thematic point of view as well. It makes sense to have the player going 2nd to have freedom of landing zones as it represents them reacting to the enemy making the initial attack whereas the player going 1st has yet to accurately determine the tactics of their enemy and hence uses their reinforcements in a more defensive manner either by dropping them among friendly lines or holding them back to react to the enemy's move.

[neonmole]

BA is fine... granted some adjustment is probably necessary, but it’s fine.

 

- it was incredibly rare to have an opportunity (or have it be a good idea) to turn 1 charge out of deepstrike against a competant player / decent list anyway

 

- forlorn fury is now UNIQUELY powerful in that it almost guarantees an alpha unit a turn one charge in an environment where very few things can

 

- red thirst is still an incredibly powerful global buff

 

- we get more command points now. We are a very command point hungry army, with very powerful stratagems/units to use them on, but struggled to get many. Now we get more. Dual batt for 13 pts? Yes please.

 

I could go on, but to say that BA can’t hang now... it’s just nonsense. The game changes, and so will our lists, but BA is gonna be fine.

[Panzer]

Yeah Forlorn Fury is really good. However I'm thinking about contacting GW to maybe reduce it to 1CP. I mean for a JP Death Company unit it's basically still a bit worse than Strike from the Shadows (which costs only 1CP and can get used for multiple units).

[Ishagu]

 

 

 

Why are BA worse in other departments? What's stopping them from Running Hellblasters, Sicaran Venators, etc?

Because we do not get things like ignores cover (IF) or -1 to hit outside 12" (RG).

No, but those don't get a unit arriving from reserve on turn two and charging into the enemy as effectively as BA.

But why take those shooty units as Blood Angels when you could fit them into a detachment as Salamanders or whatever, and get some kind of bonus to shooting?

 

Either we gimp ourselves for theme so we can run pure BA or throw theme out the window and take what is objectively better. Alternatively, they could not institute an unnecessary rule change, and we can continue to play a mid tier, but fluffy and thematic army.

 

It's not like BA players are running 0 units on the table. The restriction for half units was already there. Personally, I run three units of intercessors, a unit of aggressors and one of my jump characters to go along with the three scout units. I think that should fulfill any sort of fluff concern about having boots on the ground

 

Why play Blood Angels at all? Why not just buy a HQ and some Sanguinary Guard and run them as allies to another Imperium army?

 

If you chose to ignore the codex and FW index because another chapter might have advantages in other areas that's your call.

Go buy some Guard. Your comment indicates no love of lore or thematic play.

[Pendent]

 

 

 

 

Why are BA worse in other departments? What's stopping them from Running Hellblasters, Sicaran Venators, etc?

Because we do not get things like ignores cover (IF) or -1 to hit outside 12" (RG).

No, but those don't get a unit arriving from reserve on turn two and charging into the enemy as effectively as BA.

But why take those shooty units as Blood Angels when you could fit them into a detachment as Salamanders or whatever, and get some kind of bonus to shooting?

 

Either we gimp ourselves for theme so we can run pure BA or throw theme out the window and take what is objectively better. Alternatively, they could not institute an unnecessary rule change, and we can continue to play a mid tier, but fluffy and thematic army.

 

It's not like BA players are running 0 units on the table. The restriction for half units was already there. Personally, I run three units of intercessors, a unit of aggressors and one of my jump characters to go along with the three scout units. I think that should fulfill any sort of fluff concern about having boots on the ground

 

Why play Blood Angels at all? Why not just buy a HQ and some Sanguinary Guard and run them as allies to another Imperium army?

 

If you chose to ignore the codex and FW index because another chapter might have advantages in other areas that's your call.

Go buy some Guard. Your comment indicates no love of lore or thematic play.

 

 

While I tend to prefer more thematic armies myself there are people that are much more into competitive gaming than you or I and it's hardly fair to tell them they're enjoying the game wrong. It's also pretty silly to claim that a mixed Guard/Blood Angels army isn't fluffy or thematic. I'm working on building out Guard and Admech forces to complement my Blood Angels in what I'm referring to as my "Crusade" list, which represents some of the forces Dante has sent out into the Imperium Nihilus. There are absolutely people mix armies for competitive advantage but there's are very strong thematic reasons to do so as well.

[toaae]

Go buy some Guard. Your comment indicates no love of lore or thematic play.

Jesus, you're toxic. Do you get off going around telling people they're having fun wrong? My issue stems entirely because of the negative impact on theme. I mentioned I run intercessors and aggressors, can you guess why? Because they provide close range support to the deep striking units.

 

The problem with your solution to just run a more codex marine style list is it's both inferior to actual codex marines AND less thematic. I don't want to red marines, I want to play an aggressive, jump pack heavy Blood Angels list. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream, because it's what I was and am doing prior to this beta rule.

 

Please, check yourself. You're making some massive assumptions that are just wrong.

[Panzer]

 

The problem with your solution to just run a more codex marine style list is it's both inferior to actual codex marines AND less thematic. I don't want to red marines, I want to play an aggressive, jump pack heavy Blood Angels list. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream, because it's what I was and am doing prior to this beta rule.

 

Please, check yourself. You're making some massive assumptions that are just wrong.

 

 

I disagree about both. BA can play very well as a more codex style list with some melee support and it's actualy extremely thematic. BA have always relied on lots of classic Marine style ranged warfare TOGETHER with their unique melee units in the fluff.

 

Also if you want to play such a heavy Jump Pack themed army (nothing wrong with that) you can still do it. Just without first turn deep strike alpha strikes. Jump Pack infantry is still extremely mobile and with proper terrain won't get wiped out that fast either.

 

Is it a nerf to us? Yes. And to many others as well. Just ask Daemons who don't even have any proper ranged support to clear the board for their deep strike units they paid CP for. Does it make Blood Angels unplayable? Only if you insist on playing BA in a specific way but that's like playing a bike heavy army and complaining you don't have a chance against opponents who place their units on the upper levels of ruins.

[toaae]

 

I disagree about both. BA can play very well as a more codex style list with some melee support and it's actualy extremely thematic. BA have always relied on lots of classic Marine style ranged warfare TOGETHER with their unique melee units in the fluff.

Also if you want to play such a heavy Jump Pack themed army (nothing wrong with that) you can still do it. Just without first turn deep strike alpha strikes. Jump Pack infantry is still extremely mobile and with proper terrain won't get wiped out that fast either.

 

 

The fluff supports multiple theme. In 3rd and 4th edition, I played a very codex marines style Blood Angel, with tactical squads and devastators, using Death Company and Assault Squads (regular in 3rd, veteran in 4th) as counter-charges or hammer blows, depending on the opponent. In 5th, I played with Tactical squads in razorbacks, supporting Sanguinary guard charges and terminators from a storm raven. In 8th (so far), I've played with Jump Pack units applying pressure, supported by objective grabbing and close fire support intercessors, aggressors and scouts. All three are thematic, all three are supported by the fluff.

 

Jump pack units don't walk across the table against a shooting army, no matter the terrain. A bad opponent may not know how to set up and prepare for when the assault unit shows itself, but a competant one will use screening units for roadblock, stay away from the large, mid-field LoS blockers, and focus fire when one of those units shows up. This wasn't a problem in 3rd and 4th, because a 3+ save was enough to whither how much weaker shooting was back then, but in 8th, it doesn't take a whole lot to kill 15 Death Company in a turn. I've had more success with Sanguinary Guard surviving rounds of shooting, but they feel each body lost keenly.

 

I, like many, play matched play but not competitively. My opponents and I don't optimize our lists, but we also don't handicap ourselves. If I could take a shooty detachment as Raven Guard, Salamanders, or Imperial fists instead of Blood Angels, and I don't, I'm going to feel that handicap when my devastator's never get to use the +1 to wound on the charge. So I choose not to build a list that has those opportunity costs. Instead, I go for something that plays to BA strengths, while being fluffy and thematic.

 

If there are units that are breaking the game with first turn deep strikes, they should fix them. Blood Angels weren't a problem.

[Kyrne]

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads :( (leviathon / deredeo )

[Indefragable]

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

 

:cuss ? Did not see that in there.

 

I can't believe just how toxic these FAQs (designed to make things better) have made the community. My local meta is extremely polite and friendly yet there are some serious forum throwdowns going on right now.

[Panzer]

 

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

 

? Did not see that in there.

 

I can't believe just how toxic these FAQs (designed to make things better) have made the community. My local meta is extremely polite and friendly yet there are some serious forum throwdowns going on right now.

 

 

Yeah, for some reason GW keeps throwing wrenches at Forgeworld units. There's no real reason why relic dreads shouldn't be able to get carried like regular dreads.

 

Give them time. It'll calm down over the next week(s) and then people will still be annoyed but much less upset. The main problem are the deep strike beta rules right now however those are beta rules and most people who don't go on bigger tournaments won't even see them in action anyway.

[Paladin777]

That is, until they get adopted as genuine errata in some form or fashion.

[Panzer]

Which we know absolutely nothing about at this point. Even the Smite beta rule got adopted with an exception for TSons and GK which makes it MUCH less of an issue than people innitially feared. ^^

[Arkhanist]

The FW index:astartes FAQ. Any dread with the same or more wounds as a redemptor (13) can't ride, so that nobbles the leviathan and deredeo. Cos, you know, if you wanted an alternative to drop pods that just got nerfed,  you apparently.

[Quixus]

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

Please provide evidence for that claim.

[Arkhanist]

 

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

Please provide evidence for that claim.

 

 

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/imperial_armour_index_forces_of_the_adeptus_astartes-1.pdf

 

Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship transport a Relic Deredeo Dreadnought or a Relic Leviathan Dreadnought?

A: No. For the purposes of determining what Dreadnoughts a Stormraven Gunship can transport, compare the Wounds characteristic of the model to that of a Redemptor Dreadnought (13): a Stormraven Gunship cannot transport a Dreadnought that has a Wounds characteristic equal to or higher than this.

 

On the plus side, leviathan's can now take up to 3 HK missiles. Totally  makes up for it. 

[Panzer]

 

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

Please provide evidence for that claim.

 

 

Just read the FW FAQ? That should be an obvious thing to do. 

 

But here you have it so you can't say you can't find it. ^^

Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship transport a Relic Deredeo Dreadnought or a Relic Leviathan Dreadnought?

A: No. For the purposes of determining what Dreadnoughts a Stormraven Gunship can transport, compare the Wounds characteristic of the model to that of a Redemptor Dreadnought (13): a Stormraven Gunship cannot transport a Dreadnought that has a Wounds characteristic equal to or higher than this.

EDIT: damn ninjas!

[Karhedron]

I can't believe just how toxic these FAQs (designed to make things better) have made the community. My local meta is extremely polite and friendly yet there are some serious forum throwdowns going on right now.

[Panzer]

That really has nothing to do with power gamer tho. I'm far from being a power gamer but I can see the problems as well.

[The4thHorseman]

 

 

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

Please provide evidence for that claim.

 

 

Just read the FW FAQ? That should be an obvious thing to do. 

 

But here you have it so you can't say you can't find it. ^^

Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship transport a Relic Deredeo Dreadnought or a Relic Leviathan Dreadnought?

A: No. For the purposes of determining what Dreadnoughts a Stormraven Gunship can transport, compare the Wounds characteristic of the model to that of a Redemptor Dreadnought (13): a Stormraven Gunship cannot transport a Dreadnought that has a Wounds characteristic equal to or higher than this.

EDIT: damn ninjas!

 

 

Who was putting Levi and Dredos in a Stormraven. Jesus. Anyway you can still load a FW Contemptor though, its 12 W.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

Stormraven can no longer carry FW dreads (leviathon / deredeo )

Please provide evidence for that claim.

 

 

Just read the FW FAQ? That should be an obvious thing to do. 

 

But here you have it so you can't say you can't find it. ^^

Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship transport a Relic Deredeo Dreadnought or a Relic Leviathan Dreadnought?

A: No. For the purposes of determining what Dreadnoughts a Stormraven Gunship can transport, compare the Wounds characteristic of the model to that of a Redemptor Dreadnought (13): a Stormraven Gunship cannot transport a Dreadnought that has a Wounds characteristic equal to or higher than this.

EDIT: damn ninjas!

 

 

Who was putting Levi and Dredos in a Stormraven. Jesus. Anyway you can still load a FW Contemptor though, its 12 W.

 

 

No idea, really. Sometimes it seems like GW is just throwing random nerfs at FW units for no reason.

[toaae]

Which we know absolutely nothing about at this point. Even the Smite beta rule got adopted with an exception for TSons and GK which makes it MUCH less of an issue than people innitially feared. ^^

 

I'm not one for complaining about the rules, but this is beta, which means feedback can change it. There was a major change to the Smite one, other than protection against baby smite: switching from -1 on the roll to +1 on the difficulty means it doesn't also get easier to deny while getting harder to cast.

 

I've already submitted a letter to GW with my initial concerns, and despite my group not playing with beta rules, I'm going to be self-implementing it so that I can provide further feedback. Because I'd rather the current rule not exist after the next 4 months then get to ignore it before it becomes set in stone for the rest of the edition.