FAQ and Adeptus Mechanicus

[synthaside]

Sorry,  clear up my bad explanation  I'm calling it  -1 because it doesn't generate one ... whereas 3 inquisitors plus a knight generated one for me in the past whilst also not forcing me  > 3 detachments , many events i play have a 2 detachment max.
 

[Charlo]

Max 3 Onagers would be a shame, but I completely understand why the limitation is there.

 

They should be squadrons like Russes though IMO. All battletanks and equivalents should be.

[Vel'Cona]

The extra CP will be awesome for Mars.  Won't do much for Stygies VIII, but at least they avoid the DS nerfs (assuming those changes go live).  The nerf to Psykers is nice for AdMech in general, though, since we don't have them anyway.

 

The DS nerf does hit Lucius harder, but I tend to prefer to DS shooty units anyway since assault is so wishy-washy.

[Feral_80]

Well we cannot complain too much really.

We did not get the pts discounts we reasonably expected (punchy-bots, Kataphrons, etc.), but the FAQ are indirectly beneficial to AdMech. A base (i.e., Mars 90% times) battalion is now a better investment, and our poor chaff is now less needed because of the deepstrike change. I can hardly see any AdMech unit being spammed more than 3x, so that's fine as well (and spamming is awful anyway). Overall, quite good news.

 

I won't probably change my base army list, but I'm coming out of this FAQ with a net +2 CP on my typical list. Cannot complain.

[Battybattybats]

I'm glad the 3x rule is for tourneys, I still plan on running 5 Dragoons in my narrative-focus games but that's just from loving the model and I've only ever played one local tournament the once.

[Heliomanes]

Dragoons can be played in squads, Batty. So you can still play with tons of them, they just have to be fielded in max 3 units.

[synthaside]

Yeah  the way dragoons are now you can take  3 teams of 6 :-P .... IS THAT NOT ENOUGH TASER .......  ZAPPPPPPPPPPPP

[Heliomanes]

Damn you GW for crushing my dreams of a 19 Dragoon list.

[synthaside]

yeah ... 19 solo dragoons ...  >.<  the least point to pound effective list in the game :-P ....

 

Suddenly I need an Enginseer or Dominus riding dragoon .....  more than anything ever.

 

[Battybattybats]

yeah ... 19 solo dragoons ... >.< the least point to pound effective list in the game :-P ....

 

Suddenly I need an Enginseer or Dominus riding dragoon ..... more than anything ever.

 

 

Dragoon Chariot?

[DanPesci]

Overall FAQ hasn't affected me too much.

 

Cons:

 

Cant take a 4th onager, but generally only ran 3 anyway under 2k points (2 laser, 1 icarus)

 

Really wish they'd let you squad them up though.

 

 

 

Pros:

 

I should now get an extra 2 CP from my batallion which means more units sneaky infiltrating or better shooting buffs another 2 times during the game.

 

Other armies hoping to frist turn deepstrike (ie my mates dark angels with DSing HQ characters that super buff his bikers), can no longer do so so effectively.

Less bubble wrap needed for my backfield is good.

[synthaside]

Bat's Make it so ....   This is how we get our transports right ????
 

 

yeah ... 19 solo dragoons ... >.< the least point to pound effective list in the game :-P ....

Suddenly I need an Enginseer or Dominus riding dragoon ..... more than anything ever.
 

Dragoon Chariot?

 

[brother_b]

Max 3 Onagers would be a shame, but I completely understand why the limitation is there.

 

They should be squadrons like Russes though IMO. All battletanks and equivalents should be.

 

It sucks for those of us that own 4. They should be squadrons, because Russes can field so many of them, they double shoot main guns, and get orders.

 

Where do we send feedback?

[PiñaColada]

It is a bit weird how some vehicles, like leman russes, are possible to take in squadrons on a single datasheet while stuff like onagers are not. I'm not personally affected but if you want to send feedback to GW here is the address: 40kfaq@gwplc.com

 

Wouldn't surprise me if we get an errata on the FAQ in a couple of weeks

[brother_b]

I'll just have to play that 2001 point list then I'll be golden!

 

Thanks for the link though.

[Feral_80]

Guys you are derailing here. 

Leman Russ can be fielded in squadrons because fluff-wise they are disposable and spammable due to mass-production, and generally the Guard is the *only* army that can field entire armoured companies. Onagers are none of these. Also the thing about LR double-firing makes no sense, that is the only thing that makes them good (well, 1/3 of them; the rest still suck badly). Onagers are already fairly priced for what they do.

 

3 Onagers are adequate for any AdMech list. If you own 4 that is unfortunate, but just keep one in reserve - the beta rule might be adjusted. Consider how many units most armies have kept/are keeping 'in reserve' because they suck. And remember that the the limit affects all armies. In exchange, you get not to face more than 3 Flyrants, or a super-heavy Chaos detachment with Mortarion, Magnus and a Knight. I'd trade an Onager *any* day just for these two boons.

[PiñaColada]

Guys you are derailing here. 

Leman Russ can be fielded in squadrons because fluff-wise they are disposable and spammable due to mass-production, and generally the Guard is the *only* army that can field entire armoured companies. Onagers are none of these. Also the thing about LR double-firing makes no sense, that is the only thing that makes them good (well, 1/3 of them; the rest still suck badly). Onagers are already fairly priced for what they do.

 

3 Onagers are adequate for any AdMech list. If you own 4 that is unfortunate, but just keep one in reserve - the beta rule might be adjusted. Consider how many units most armies have kept/are keeping 'in reserve' because they suck. And remember that the the limit affects all armies. In exchange, you get not to face more than 3 Flyrants, or a super-heavy Chaos detachment with Mortarion, Magnus and a Knight. I'd trade an Onager *any* day just for these two boons.

I basically agree with what you said. Leman russes need grinding advance, they're numerous so squadrons make sense and onagers are good enough (that 5++ reroll ones is huge). But my point is more the implementation of the rule of threes, what Heavy Weapon Teams aren't numerous? And 0-3 wouldn't strike a lot of armies as harshly as admech where there really aren't that many unique datasheets. Again, I'm not personally affected by it but I know some people who run 4 onagers and that hardly feels like spamming. 

This rule is punishing people (one can argue to what extent) who play smaller armies as mono-factions, then again I like the intent of it.

[elbianc]

ABILITIES WHICH IGNORE WOUNDS Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore damage suffered, and it is possible for some units to gain more than one such ability. These abilities have stacked in an unintended way, and as a result we have changed their interaction such that if a model has more than one such ability you will now only be able to use one of them against each lost wound. This change appears in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook errata, but is shown below for convenience.

 

Related Errata Warhammer 40,000 rulebook Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds Add the following as a boxout on this page: ‘Ignoring Wounds Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’

 

 

can someone explain this better? you cant take the feel no pain if you roll the Save? or this only aplies for 2 abilities like the feel no pain that stack?

[Redtoof]

It's only if you would get two different 'feel no pain' abilities, you have to pick which one to use.

[GarvielEisenhorn]

Does that affect Graia's "Refusal to Yield" roll? It triggers when a model is slain or flees, not when they lose a wound.

[brother_b]

Guys you are derailing here. 

Leman Russ can be fielded in squadrons because fluff-wise they are disposable and spammable due to mass-production, and generally the Guard is the *only* army that can field entire armoured companies. Onagers are none of these. Also the thing about LR double-firing makes no sense, that is the only thing that makes them good (well, 1/3 of them; the rest still suck badly). Onagers are already fairly priced for what they do.

 

3 Onagers are adequate for any AdMech list. If you own 4 that is unfortunate, but just keep one in reserve - the beta rule might be adjusted. Consider how many units most armies have kept/are keeping 'in reserve' because they suck. And remember that the the limit affects all armies. In exchange, you get not to face more than 3 Flyrants, or a super-heavy Chaos detachment with Mortarion, Magnus and a Knight. I'd trade an Onager *any* day just for these two boons.

 

I had a post and then accidently backspaced, so I'll cut it short. Basically quoted the big Lebowski you know, that's just your opinion man.

 

IG in our area are dominant because they bring lots of high T, high W, double firing spammable tanks. A total of 3 onagers may work for you, not me. I've only proxied because my 4 aren't done but I've stood a chance vs. IG while using those onagers.

 

Also, fluff doesn't mean much on the table. I'm glad the IG fluff works with their tanks. If fluff mattered, though, my tactical marines would need to be buffed a ton, you know, seeing as how they're the bread and butter of the finest fighting force in the Imperium.

 

Also, I know IG aren't making the top tables at tournaments. I don't care much about that, the vast majority of games played are not tournament, they're game store/garage/living room games. IG rock vs. that style of play, and our group really has no intention of playing tournament style.

 

Cheers, good post and I get where you're coming from.

[Feral_80]

I am happy you assume to know everything already, but I assure you that I do play AdMech more than AM (especially recently, I find AdMech more engaging), and that I also have Marines.

 

I certainly understand the difference between lore and tabletop, but you also must understand that expecting to get the same bonuses that other armies have is not the way to go. Armies are unique and it is good to characterize them in different ways. Just do not ask for vehicle squadrons or double-tapping Onagers, that is not the way AdMech is designed. Nor AdMech should play the way AM typically plays, so it's pointless to debate about who has the best gunline.

 

AdMech is certainly a rather weak (or, I'd say rigid and limited) codex which would deserve much more love, but at the same time, AM is certainly not overpowered either, while being much more flexible and indulgent to player choices. If your *only* way of winning with AdMech goes through fielding 4x Onagers, than I suggest your approach should be revised. You can win with 3x too. Even against AM, sometimes. And some AM players are complaining as well - just like any other army - about the 3x limit, so there's something for everybody there...no point in whining. 

[synthaside]

I think both of you have valid points, yes the IG has been hurt a lot less by this change in terms of tanks, but they also taken a hit in terms of their heavy/special weapons teams, 
granted guard can just bring more detachments but in most competitive play its 2k  its 2-3 detachments max. 

I assume if you're facing such Cheese its in places with some ground rules not " that guy at the store "  Where you just have to shake your head and smile. Our local meta has evolved onto the next stage, "Counter tank spam", the rational being  if your opponent fires a lascannon or multimelta and its only valid target is a trooper then you have essentially counterd a lot of their viability  I see lots of devastators / long fangs,  or AM lists with lots of heavy weapons teams  a minimum of 2 mortar,  2 h-bolter and 2 las teams in ever guard list , Other such fan favourites as dark reapers or hive guard .

Fortunaetly this is one we can win ... we have exceptional Anti-personnel guns in the form or robots , vanguard and and Taser .

2 Battalions  can comfortably field  4 Onagers  and 2 units of Robots for  in either 2 battalions  or 1 and a spearhead ( I'd be taking 2 Dominus's for the aura range with that much gunline) 

there was always a limit of 3 heavy support slots in the battalion anyway .... So you'd have to have been fielding separate's or perhaps multiple spearheads

[Subtle Discord]

*Subtle kicks at the dirt*

 

Personally, I wanted to do six Onagers at some point; three groups of two or two groups of three. Vehicle squadrons has been one of those rules that's floated around a bit over the years so it's not like it's impossible. Even from a fiction perspective, to me Onagers seems to be a mass produced and a rather expendable unit. Not that I planned to field six all the time, but it was something I wanted to be able to do. Naturally, that's not to say it can't simply be house ruled. It's not the kind of list I'd introduce myself to a new opponent with.

 

I also have a planned theme of a swarm of 'baby spiders' swarming from a large 'mama spider' Titan, and because I'm compelled to make that image in my mind real, this change is a little sour tasting. Not the end of the world by any means, but I digress...

[Feral_80]

That seems to me perfectly suited to a narrative match. I would counter it with an AM all-Sentinel list with a knight. Chicken charge vs spider attack.