FAQ just hit....how is your SW army?

[ORKILL]

Did anyone else notice that the Lasplas Razorback got nerfed. I think they screwed up the wording. The way it reads the vehicle dies on any rolls of 1....even if you don't Overcharge.

[Kasper_Hawser]

this was noted a long time ago actually. Bols made a funny article about this some time ago, how plasma is the most effective vehicle killer.

 

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/06/40k-plasma-best-anti-tank-weapon.html

 

Thankfully for our venerable Bjorn the Fellhanded, plasma cannons only give him a mortal wound if he rolls a one, and he has a chance to ignore it. Too bad for our Long Fangs though with only one wound.

[Karhedron]

Thankfully for our venerable Bjorn the Fellhanded, plasma cannons only give him a mortal wound if he rolls a one, and he has a chance to ignore it. Too bad for our Long Fangs though with only one wound.

Fangs have their built-in rerolls of 1s.

[Gherrick]

GW needs to amend the overcharge rule to be Nat 1s only, regardless of to hit penalties. Moving or other penalties should not directly impact whether the gun overheats...and it should be fixed mortal wounds instead of instant death (1 for smaller guns, d3 for heavy weapons, d6 for the really big guns).

[TiguriusX]

GW needs to amend the overcharge rule to be Nat 1s only, regardless of to hit penalties. Moving or other penalties should not directly impact whether the gun overheats...and it should be fixed mortal wounds instead of instant death (1 for smaller guns, d3 for heavy weapons, d6 for the really big guns).

 

Your ideas make too much sense

 

Inquisitor!  I found another one!!

[Kasper_Hawser]

 

Thankfully for our venerable Bjorn the Fellhanded, plasma cannons only give him a mortal wound if he rolls a one, and he has a chance to ignore it. Too bad for our Long Fangs though with only one wound.

Fangs have their built-in rerolls of 1s.

 

 

I know the Long Fangs have a backup but it is still a risk and if they fail it, that's that. no more second chance. Also theirs is the Plasma cannon, not heavy plasma cannon. so it's still instant death for them. Meaning Deathwing Terminators who can take the plasma cannon will still die if they roll a 1 after rerolls.

GW needs to amend the overcharge rule to be Nat 1s only, regardless of to hit penalties. Moving or other penalties should not directly impact whether the gun overheats...and it should be fixed mortal wounds instead of instant death (1 for smaller guns, d3 for heavy weapons, d6 for the really big guns).

 

Actually I disagree with this. Because I enjoy cursing the Hellblasters with my rune priest and making them get hot on 1 and 2.

 

Conversely, Tau Ghostkeels benefit obscenely from this, making us get hot on 1,2 and potentially 3 if we move.

[Kasper_Hawser]

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/04/40k-faq-changes-you-totally-missed.html

 

On a separate matter, I haven't read the other Codex FAQs, but it looks like it's VERY HARD for anyone to get around the 9" restriction charge. Meaning Warp Time, Swarm Lord and other "double movement" shenanigans no longer work if you arrive from reserves.

 

Finally, no more cheating on CSM and Tyranid side. Or rather, they now have the same problem as we Space Wolves.

 

Any other hidden gems in other FAQs which we should take note off? 

[TiguriusX]

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/04/40k-faq-changes-you-totally-missed.html

 

On a separate matter, I haven't read the other Codex FAQs, but it looks like it's VERY HARD for anyone to get around the 9" restriction charge. Meaning Warp Time, Swarm Lord and other "double movement" shenanigans no longer work if you arrive from reserves.

 

Finally, no more cheating on CSM and Tyranid side. Or rather, they now have the same problem as we Space Wolves.

 

Any other hidden gems in other FAQs which we should take note off? 

 

The post FAQ environment is very friendly to some SW units that were already out there IMO

 

Shield dreads

No super combos come down on turn 1 in your face anymore.  You only have long range fire as a threat and the 3++ discourages that b/c it might be wasted.

 

After you get turn 1 you have smoke to help against whatever crazy stuff comes in on turn 2 via DS

 

If you live (shield dreads usually live) you are in assault range.  You can even pinball off whatever came down to DS you.

 

 

WG Bikers

All that speed and durability has gone up in value since nobody can drop down on turn 1

 

 

The mid-field game just became more important overall.  Space Wolves do well mid-field

[M.Redbeard]

Please help me brothers. I have read throught thr FAQ, the Errata to the rulebook, for Chapter approved and more and I can't find where do they mention the Wobbly Model Syndrome does not work anymore.

As for my army, it is still in the making so it can change. A lot.

[TiguriusX]

Olease helo me brothers. I have read throught thr FAQ, the Errata to the rulebook, for Chapter approved and more and I can't find where do they mention the Wobbly Model Syndrome does not work anymore.

 

As for my army, it is still in the making so it can change. A lot.

 

I think this is what you are referring to.  Wobbly syndrome was used to assault units filling up an elevated piece of terrain (wobbly syndrome let you say it was on the ledge etc.)

 

Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin, Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail? A: Yes

 

 

 

BRB FAQ page 4 (right above REINFORCEMENTS)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

[Kasper_Hawser]

 

Olease helo me brothers. I have read throught thr FAQ, the Errata to the rulebook, for Chapter approved and more and I can't find where do they mention the Wobbly Model Syndrome does not work anymore.

 

As for my army, it is still in the making so it can change. A lot.

 

I think this is what you are referring to.  Wobbly syndrome was used to assault units filling up an elevated piece of terrain (wobbly syndrome let you say it was on the ledge etc.)

 

Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin, Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail? A: Yes

 

 

 

BRB FAQ page 4 (right above REINFORCEMENTS)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

 

 

I haven't tried this yet, but looks to be the only "lame" rule in the FAQ. Because I just saw a Tau Player place two broadsides on a container and then subsequently nobody could charge it because his fat bases covered all of the container, and the container is 2" in height. The poor Sister ofBattle player was howling in rage as he coudn't charge Celestine and kill of the Broadsides.

[Gherrick]

Yeah, I feel that is one rule that just needs to die...history has countless "storming the castle" battles, but the assaulting army still was able to break through a solid wall of defenders in many cases. Sure, I'd be willing to let the defenders attack first in that case, for example, but don't just not allow a charge when there is no room to put your model(s) on the same level.

 

My friend and I added a house rule that larger models had "reach"; e.g.: dreadnaughts could attack models at 2" vertically above them, and dreadknights could reach 4". Models with fly could attack at any vertical level difference, regardless if they didn't have room to place their model. They just floated back down to a level that they could be placed at after the combat was over.

[Krakendoomcool]

All my Wolves are Blackmanes. Urgh!

[SW1]

Models on top of a container will be within 2" of models stood next to the container. Just measure from the head of the model to the base of the model. It's not from base to base. Otherwise units sat in ruins over several levels would be out of unit coherency.

[Gherrick]

Models on top of a container will be within 2" of models stood next to the container. Just measure from the head of the model to the base of the model. It's not from base to base. Otherwise units sat in ruins over several levels would be out of unit coherency.

The rules state you measure from base to base to determine distance between models (only vehicles without bases use the hull, and the primaris land raider explicitly states to use the hull instead of its base). Under the unit coherency rules the max horizontal distance is 2" but the vertical distance is 6". Model are considered "adjacent" when within 1" of their bases (rather than requiring actual base to base contact in 7e). I found no rule that breaks that 1" adjacency rule, so a 2" vertical difference will mean models are not adjacent, regardless of relative model size. One related rule has to do with models with the FLY keyword, but that is only related to measuring charge distance, not adjacency.

 

Rules as written, and now reinforced by the beta FAQ, assaulting armies will have a much more difficult time doing any kind of storming of defended areas. We will have to create a gap in the shooting phase for our assaulting models (and since casualties are controlled by the defender, good luck forcing that gap).

[Kasper_Hawser]

 

Models on top of a container will be within 2" of models stood next to the container. Just measure from the head of the model to the base of the model. It's not from base to base. Otherwise units sat in ruins over several levels would be out of unit coherency.

The rules state you measure from base to base to determine distance between models (only vehicles without bases use the hull, and the primaris land raider explicitly states to use the hull instead of its base). Under the unit coherency rules the max horizontal distance is 2" but the vertical distance is 6". Model are considered "adjacent" when within 1" of their bases (rather than requiring actual base to base contact in 7e). I found no rule that breaks that 1" adjacency rule, so a 2" vertical difference will mean models are not adjacent, regardless of relative model size. One related rule has to do with models with the FLY keyword, but that is only related to measuring charge distance, not adjacency.

 

Rules as written, and now reinforced by the beta FAQ, assaulting armies will have a much more difficult time doing any kind of storming of defended areas. We will have to create a gap in the shooting phase for our assaulting models (and since casualties are controlled by the defender, good luck forcing that gap).

 

 

Somehow it feels like someone in GW suddenly hates assault again, and as if the nine inch and deepstrike limitations aren't enough, they took the effort to neutralise the "wobbly model" syndrome and prevent most from balancing even their small 28mm base models.

 

Oh well, I still have a stormwolf that can definitely reach over the container. And I think the flyers still count from the hull or am I wrong? Normally when disembarking from Stormwolf, I count from the where the hull comes down to the ground in a perpendicular line.

[Bulwyf]

 

 

Models on top of a container will be within 2" of models stood next to the container. Just measure from the head of the model to the base of the model. It's not from base to base. Otherwise units sat in ruins over several levels would be out of unit coherency.

The rules state you measure from base to base to determine distance between models (only vehicles without bases use the hull, and the primaris land raider explicitly states to use the hull instead of its base). Under the unit coherency rules the max horizontal distance is 2" but the vertical distance is 6". Model are considered "adjacent" when within 1" of their bases (rather than requiring actual base to base contact in 7e). I found no rule that breaks that 1" adjacency rule, so a 2" vertical difference will mean models are not adjacent, regardless of relative model size. One related rule has to do with models with the FLY keyword, but that is only related to measuring charge distance, not adjacency.

 

Rules as written, and now reinforced by the beta FAQ, assaulting armies will have a much more difficult time doing any kind of storming of defended areas. We will have to create a gap in the shooting phase for our assaulting models (and since casualties are controlled by the defender, good luck forcing that gap).

 

 

Somehow it feels like someone in GW suddenly hates assault again, and as if the nine inch and deepstrike limitations aren't enough, they took the effort to neutralise the "wobbly model" syndrome and prevent most from balancing even their small 28mm base models.

 

Oh well, I still have a stormwolf that can definitely reach over the container. And I think the flyers still count from the hull or am I wrong? Normally when disembarking from Stormwolf, I count from the where the hull comes down to the ground in a perpendicular line.

 

 

I agree with this. 8th edition already heavily favors shooting over melee lists. Now it seems that GW is trying to snuff out any reason to run an assault list by making it so hard to actually get into CC range.

[Kasper_Hawser]

Well, not as bad as 7th edition, that will always bring bad memories. 8th is just "difficult" to assault, as opposed to impossible.