Proactive Space Marine changes following Big FAQ

[Dracos]

This topic is to discuss units or tactics that we may have set aside in the early era of 8th edition Alpha Strike.

 

Due to changes in Tactical Reserves, I'm considering using Scouts in the backfield now instead of in no man land.

 

I’m considering purchasing a couple sentry guns for my backfield due to the Big FAQ. I was hoping for some info on

how they are purchase via Battle Forged and deployed. I want to purchase them as an Auxiliary Detachment. When

selecting them as your 1 available FA choice ... Do they have to be deployed together or can they be deployed

separately on the battlefield?

 

The second way they do me no good. The first way they serve me as backfield deniers for Turn Two deep strike. I

can’t figure out another way to buy them that’s cost effective.

[Race Bannon]

Sentry guns are purchased as a unit, so must be deployed as a unit. Yet, I do not recall if they follow any cohency rules, so you can place them effectively wherever you want ... They just all have to be placed at the same time.

[Dracos]

If that's true I might be checking Kromlech for their Assault Cannon version, unless FW makes one (I can't find)

[Aegir_Einarsson]

Kromlechs are good. Well done And good looking.

 

And with tarantulas it is easier to make a brigade If you want. Cheap FA slot.

 

Probably i wolils go cheap with HB.

 

Also AM I Right that in some tournaments you can’t use FW products?

[Ishagu]

Sentry guns are a pretty good unit. A mix of Las Cannons and Assault Cannons is good, but you can use them to fill an offensive hole in your list.

[Aegir_Einarsson]

Ishagu. I don’t think that with lack of durability i want to put as many points to use LC or AC. I rather go cheap with heavy bolters And use them as backline fire support And screen unit.

[Dracos]

Are you saying I could use them in a Brigade detachment of Marines? I don't see how that works? Definitely haven't been able to get Battle Scribe to do it for me.

 

I toyed with the numbers and going with my base set up as Intercessors, Hellblasters, Aggressors, Interceptors and Reivers, (I also decided to make the Kheres Contemptor a basic foundation to the army list). I had enough points left for another model here and there if I went Heavy Bolter over Assault Cannon and decided the latter of the two was worth not having a 7th Intercessors in a unit or two.

[gitface]

Are you saying I could use them in a Brigade detachment of Marines? I don't see how that works? Definitely haven't been able to get Battle Scribe to do it for me.

 

.

 

When you add in the Marine detachment make sure this is highlighted and then click on add to select the FW Marines list, you will find that for the detachment there is only one option, the same as your main.

 

Everything you select will then go in the same detachment no matter if it was Marine or FW Marine.

 

Hope that make sense.

[SillyDreadnought]

Tank squadrons are a must.

[Dracos]

Thanks Gitface. I’ll give that a try yer today.

 

Tank squadrons are a must.

Why? and in what context?

 

So the rest of us can get a better view of how and why you see Tank squadrons a must. I tend to think squadrons are going to be spammed and end up being nerfed by time next Chapter Approved comes out. Purely supposition on my part though.

[MARK0SIAN]

I think squadrons will be important because the limit of three is a clumsy, catch-all solution to the fact that some units have been spammed because they’ve been given overpowered rules, haven’t been costed properly or are a result of the lax structure of 8th edition and the fact that some codexes have only been provided with a single good option in a particular slot.

 

Some units should be exempted from the limit and rather than writing a new exemption rule, they can use the existing squadron rule to allow more than three of a particular unit. They just need to make sure the squadron aspect is only available to units that are not game breaking if you take more than three of them.

 

You might be (probably are) right about them leading to some spamming of certain units but I don’t think any of the worst offenders in terms of spammed units are eligible for the squadron rule so it may not be that much of a problem.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think only three should apply to everything - IMO GW really it blew it one this one. It is like how they used to be not fully thinking out the impact because they did a half @rse job of it.

[Panzer]

Apply to everything? It does, except for Troops and dedicated transports. Having it to apply to vehicle squadrons so you can't have more than 3 models would be weird considering it's the same kind of datasheet as for any other unit except that it tells you to treat each model seperately after deployment. It would also make the vehicle squadron special rule completely useless. What's the point in having such a rule if you can't benefit from it anyway?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Because it breaks the new rule imo.

[Panzer]

Or is a legit exception as intended. Not really on us to decide about that. ^^

[The Unseen]

Asking for clarification in an FAQ would be a good idea though.

It could totally be an exception on purpose, but it could also be that GW totally forgot that the rule existed at all when they made the "rule of 3".

[Panzer]

I agree, a clarification would be helpful. However since it's just a suggestion for Tournaments I'm not sure if it'll ever get included in the actual FAQs.

[MARK0SIAN]

Their use of the word datasheet instead of unit in the wording of the rule suggests to me that some thought had gone into how the rule would work. They could’ve opted for the word unit instead but they said datasheet. That means in their minds there is a difference between the two and one of the major differences between unit and datasheet is the squadron rule.

 

It could also be to make it clear that it applies to every variation of a unit such as assault squads with and without jump packs. But I would be astonished if the squadron rule is not a deliberate exemption to the rule of 3.

[Dracos]

Keep in mind Beta rules are subject to fine tuning. They dialed in on the Psychic Focus rule so I imagine Rule of Three might be also. Pretty sure it’s going to be as is though. It’s the Battle Brothers and Tactics Reserves I’ll be most interested in how they end up after the Beta version test are over.

[Race Bannon]

"Subject to fine tuning" if we tell them to tune it someway other than it's current incarnation.  If we don't say anything, then we'll all take it on the chin when it becomes official. :cry:

[MARK0SIAN]

Remember though, rule of three isn’t a beta rule, it’s a tournament guideline and it is already official, the errata replaces its entry in the rulebook. It will be up to any event organisers as to whether they implement it or not, although I’m sure a lot of them will.

 

The point is though, the feedback for it does not necessarily work in the same way as the feedback for the beta rules. As it’s a guideline for organised events they may well only be interested in feedback from event organisers.

 

It still may be tweaked though, particularly if they find that some armies become unplayable because of it and they have to add exemptions.

[Panzer]

The rule of 3 is not a beta rule tho.

[MARK0SIAN]

That’s what I said :)

[Panzer]

Yeah I forgot to refresh the tab. :P

[Metzombie]

The rule of 3 is not a beta rule tho.

It is not even a rule. It is a guidline for tournaments.