BA & The Big FAQ 2!

[keeblerartillery]

Morticon - he is all over the forum (including this thread!)

[Charlo]

Morticon - he is all over the forum (including this thread!)

 

He's Jolemai's boss ;)

[BluejayJunior]

FLY as a rule has been treated so heavily handed, it doesn't make sense narratively, let alone crunch-ily.

 

My only thought is that GW saw the whole Tri-locking thing and figured it was an unintended trick that was maybe a bit too complex? A "gotcha" moment that the opponent can't do anything about?

 

I don't agree but it's the kind of thinking they sometimes have on these matters.

 

 

Wanted to raise two points.

 

1. On its face FAQ2 nerfed BA pretty hard. However on reflection deep strike and infiltrate have been nerfed so hard that BA now reign supreme in turn one assault power. UWOF and Forlorn Fury can deliver two reliable hard hitting punches turn 1. Not that many other armies can do that. Plus opponents are less likely to run scouts or other deep strike denial now that deep strike is confined to turn 2 and later. So there will be less zoning defence against a BA turn 1 assault.

 

2. In the tournament meta a lot of players were running a BA battalion along with Guard. Usually two slam caps and 15 scouts. Pre FAQ2 it was mandatory to take the CP miner guard warlord. Now that CP farm has been nerfed so hard, I have had success running one of the BA smash captains as warlord. This means I can choose between artisan of war and gift of foresight game by game, and for a total of 3 CP i get two death visions. Angels wing and hammer of baal. It used to be 5CP for two death visions and angels wing + Veritas Vitae. The 4D hammer is so brutal against so many things and now that the Grand Strategist warlord is obsolete the BA warlords may see much more play.

 

From what I have heard on podcasts, it likely came from the idea of dropping a unit 10" above an enemy in terrain and then charging for a 1" charge because you didn't count vertical distance when charging. The lead rules designer was at NOVA and saw it happen during one of the streamed games on the first day of the Invitational. I think the TOs even added a rule after the first day so that you couldn't put models on the top levels of their ruins to stop it from happening. But I gather that insignificant charge distance wasn't intended by GW.

They are still probably better ways that the issue could have been fixed, though. Like still having to measure the distance base-to-base for charges with FLY. 

[lash144]

Regarding post FAQ tactics: Has anyone tried to stagger their DC? I.e. first a wave with B&C to clear the chaff, followed by a small squad with hammers?

[Spagunk]

Regarding post FAQ tactics: Has anyone tried to stagger their DC? I.e. first a wave with B&C to clear the chaff, followed by a small squad with hammers?

 

Haven't done this post FAQ 2 but pre-FAQ 2 it doesn't work since they can just target the unit behind the chaff clearer. I don't imagine that being different after the FAQ but we'll have to wait till more people get some table time.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

What do people think about UWoFing Inceptors and unleashing hell with them to clear screens. I'd have to check my codex to see how viable they are points wise, but six Inceptors can deal a lot of dakka.

[Charlo]

What do people think about UWoFing Inceptors and unleashing hell with them to clear screens. I'd have to check my codex to see how viable they are points wise, but six Inceptors can deal a lot of dakka.

 

With a 12" move and 18" range they probably don't need to UWOF to get in range!

 

Otherwise, it's probably a bit too pricey in terms of CP to kill some chaff.

[Panzer]

 

What do people think about UWoFing Inceptors and unleashing hell with them to clear screens. I'd have to check my codex to see how viable they are points wise, but six Inceptors can deal a lot of dakka.

 

With a 12" move and 18" range they probably don't need to UWOF to get in range!

 

Otherwise, it's probably a bit too pricey in terms of CP to kill some chaff.

 

 

10" move, but yeah they should easily get in range of screens on their own. ^^

[Morticon]

 

Morticon - he is all over the forum (including this thread!)

 

He's Jolemai's boss

 

Colleague***** 

 

I did yes - I had two games last weekend and won both. Granted, they weren't against the most competitive lists (death guard and tau/SM combo) but I didn't find anything to be game breaking. Frankly, I used some old advice of Morts and didn't try and T1 charge but rather held back (except for a cpt slam charge on Mortarian). I used multi-charges to my advantage, a solid firebase to backup my sang guard and vanvets, and scout bikes and inceptors to clear chaff.

Glad to here this!

Who is this Morts you are talking about and where can I find his advice? (Still quite new to BA)

 

i'm not posting the battle reports as regularly as I have in the past, but keep an eye on the "Games in China" threads that will pop up.  

 

I've only had one game since the FAQ drop, and it was a casual one. Got a rematch vs a Chaos player this weekend, will let you know how it goes.  

 

But, most of the advice in the "Road to..." threads as well as the "First game in china" thread may be useful to someone starting out. 

[lash144]

Thanks brother!

Coming from AdMech as my main force it's really challenging for me to play BA ;)

[Kallas]

From what I have heard on podcasts, it likely came from the idea of dropping a unit 10" above an enemy in terrain and then charging for a 1" charge because you didn't count vertical distance when charging. The lead rules designer was at NOVA and saw it happen during one of the streamed games on the first day of the Invitational.

This is a common misconception: there was an FAQ ruling in one of the PDFs (possibly the Rulebook FAQ) that made the 0" vertical charge possibly by allowing units with FLY to ignore the vertical distance, the same as how Reiver Grappling Hooks work.

 

The current Big FAQ 2 FLY nerf did not change this*: the 0" charge fix was done by removing the previous ruling.

 

To be clear: the Big FAQ 2 FLY nerf was on top of removing the 0" charge.

 

 

Edit:

* I mean, it does change it; but that wasn't what actually changed it properly. They could have, if they took even five seconds to think about it, instead just said that FLY units having to measure diagonally - that would mean that dropping on rooftops wouldn't necessarily make it a short charge; perhaps shorter than non-vertically, but not by much.

[Panzer]

 

From what I have heard on podcasts, it likely came from the idea of dropping a unit 10" above an enemy in terrain and then charging for a 1" charge because you didn't count vertical distance when charging. The lead rules designer was at NOVA and saw it happen during one of the streamed games on the first day of the Invitational.

 

This is a common misconception: there was an FAQ ruling in one of the PDFs (possibly the Rulebook FAQ) that made the 0" vertical charge possibly by allowing units with FLY to ignore the vertical distance, the same as how Reiver Grappling Hooks work.

 

The current Big FAQ 2 FLY nerf did not change this*: the 0" charge fix was done by removing the previous ruling.

 

To be clear: the Big FAQ 2 FLY nerf was on top of removing the 0" charge.

 

 

Edit:

* I mean, it does change it; but that wasn't what actually changed it properly. They could have, if they took even five seconds to think about it, instead just said that FLY units having to measure diagonally - that would mean that dropping on rooftops wouldn't necessarily make it a short charge; perhaps shorter than non-vertically, but not by much.

Not true. It was possible before even without the FAQ entry before. It was just a clarification. Hence why it was in the FAQ part and not the Errata part.

Removing just that FAQ entry wouldn't have changed how vertical charges worked at all, it would just have brought back confusion of how exactly things are meant to work.

The Errata entry that FLY only works in the movement phase now is the only real reason why those charges don't work anymore and the reason why that FAQ entry got removed as well is because it would contradict the new Errata entry.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I don’t think the change to keyword Fly really has much impact on Smash Captains... it’s really hard to totally screen one model on a 32 mm base. It hasn’t significantly affected any of my games as yet.

[Kallas]

Not true. It was possible before even without the FAQ entry before. It was just a clarification. Hence why it was in the FAQ part and not the Errata part.

Removing just that FAQ entry wouldn't have changed how vertical charges worked at all, it would just have brought back confusion of how exactly things are meant to work.

The Errata entry that FLY only works in the movement phase now is the only real reason why those charges don't work anymore and the reason why that FAQ entry got removed as well is because it would contradict the new Errata entry.

Well, the fact remains that they could have done a better job 

[Panzer]

 

Not true. It was possible before even without the FAQ entry before. It was just a clarification. Hence why it was in the FAQ part and not the Errata part.

Removing just that FAQ entry wouldn't have changed how vertical charges worked at all, it would just have brought back confusion of how exactly things are meant to work.

The Errata entry that FLY only works in the movement phase now is the only real reason why those charges don't work anymore and the reason why that FAQ entry got removed as well is because it would contradict the new Errata entry.

 

Well, the fact remains that they could have done a better job :teehee:

Yeah no doubt on that. :D

[Bonzi]

While the fly change hurt us, I find the army wide cover strategem for going second to be a huge boon for us. It's a big boost for assault armies that were almost crippled if you went second vs a shooty army. And the flip side is that if we go first our opponent gets far less value out of the strat because a lot of our damage is in close combat where cover doesn't matter.

[Panzer]

Yeah but going second is still worse than going first and paying 2CP for the new Stratagem doesn't exactly help us with our CP problem either since BA is one of the most CP hungry armies out there already.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

While the fly change hurt us, I find the army wide cover strategem for going second to be a huge boon for us. It's a big boost for assault armies that were almost crippled if you went second vs a shooty army. And the flip side is that if we go first our opponent gets far less value out of the strat because a lot of our damage is in close combat where cover doesn't matter.

How many games have you played where the +1 save for 2CP matters?

 

I can tell you now that it is too expensive. My tau army wants you to waste those two precious CP, because I'm going to get my marker lights off, and I have enough negative modifiers to not worry about it.

 

The same goes for my tyranids, I have no desire to go from an army wide 6+ to an army wide 5+ when most of my targets are otherwise already at a -1 to hit modifier and are T6-8.

 

It should have been an army wide -1 to hit with not being able to stack. You can still pop bubbles with a +1 army wide cover save. Because chafe already has a weak save. And you're effectively giving tanks a 5+ save instead of a 6+ against AP -3 for MEQ armies. Which gives you a 33% chance to save a lascannon wound. So statistically you'll save 1 in 3 D6 damage shots which still have a chance to nuke a tank. And we know that in game some stats are just thrown out the window.

 

The 3 games I've played since the BIG FAQ 2.0 drop has netted negative results for everyone who's spent the 2 CP against me or myself using it. Like it isn't worth those precious CP, unless you want to bubble wrap in no-man's land. And then I'm going to do enough damage to pop your bubble through smite or weight of fire and still leave you in the negative.

[Panzer]

 

While the fly change hurt us, I find the army wide cover strategem for going second to be a huge boon for us. It's a big boost for assault armies that were almost crippled if you went second vs a shooty army. And the flip side is that if we go first our opponent gets far less value out of the strat because a lot of our damage is in close combat where cover doesn't matter.

How many games have you played where the +1 save for 2CP matters?

 

I can tell you now that it is too expensive. My tau army wants you to waste those two precious CP, because I'm going to get my marker lights off, and I have enough negative modifiers to not worry about it.

 

The same goes for my tyranids, I have no desire to go from an army wide 6+ to an army wide 5+ when most of my targets are otherwise already at a -1 to hit modifier and are T6-8.

 

It should have been an army wide -1 to hit with not being able to stack. You can still pop bubbles with a +1 army wide cover save. Because chafe already has a weak save. And you're effectively giving tanks a 5+ save instead of a 6+ against AP -3 for MEQ armies. Which gives you a 33% chance to save a lascannon wound. So statistically you'll save 1 in 3 D6 damage shots which still have a chance to nuke a tank. And we know that in game some stats are just thrown out the window.

 

The 3 games I've played since the BIG FAQ 2.0 drop has netted negative results for everyone who's spent the 2 CP against me or myself using it. Like it isn't worth those precious CP, unless you want to bubble wrap in no-man's land. And then I'm going to do enough damage to pop your bubble through smite or weight of fire and still leave you in the negative.

 

 

I have to jump in there. Free cover IS awesome. It makes units with a 3+ save a LOT more durable. I'm playing my T'au with the Dal'yth Sept tenet which gives free cover to units that don't move and I soak up alpha strikes like nothing. The better your armour, the better the +1 to saves works.

Also to your Lascannon example ... translated that means your opponent needs about one Lascannon shot more to get rid of your ~11 wound tank. If you have multiple tanks in your list (which you should) that adds up to quite a bit.

The real problem really is that it costs 2CP and we already are super CP hungry as BA.

Any army that has CP for days (so AM, T'au if they want to, CSM with Cultist spam, and so on) can and should spend those 2CP every time unless they're facing a melee heavy opponent. Armies with low armour saves like Daemons and Orks shouldn't use that Stratagem unless they don't have anything better to use their CP on. And armies who could make great use of it but struggle to have enough CP as is, like Marines and especially BA, have to think it through really well because they sacrifice a lot for it in return.

 

A to-hit penalty instead of a bonus to save rolls is still possible. If GW decides to change cover to -1 to-hit (as it should've been from the beginning imo) and change those army-wide rules to grants cover at >12" so it doesn't stack then it would make much more sense for a lot more armies (tho I'm sure people would start to hate my Stealth Suits at -2 to-hit and Sv3+ instead of -1 to-hit and Sv2+ lol)

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

 

 

While the fly change hurt us, I find the army wide cover strategem for going second to be a huge boon for us. It's a big boost for assault armies that were almost crippled if you went second vs a shooty army. And the flip side is that if we go first our opponent gets far less value out of the strat because a lot of our damage is in close combat where cover doesn't matter.

How many games have you played where the +1 save for 2CP matters?

 

I can tell you now that it is too expensive. My tau army wants you to waste those two precious CP, because I'm going to get my marker lights off, and I have enough negative modifiers to not worry about it.

 

The same goes for my tyranids, I have no desire to go from an army wide 6+ to an army wide 5+ when most of my targets are otherwise already at a -1 to hit modifier and are T6-8.

 

It should have been an army wide -1 to hit with not being able to stack. You can still pop bubbles with a +1 army wide cover save. Because chafe already has a weak save. And you're effectively giving tanks a 5+ save instead of a 6+ against AP -3 for MEQ armies. Which gives you a 33% chance to save a lascannon wound. So statistically you'll save 1 in 3 D6 damage shots which still have a chance to nuke a tank. And we know that in game some stats are just thrown out the window.

 

The 3 games I've played since the BIG FAQ 2.0 drop has netted negative results for everyone who's spent the 2 CP against me or myself using it. Like it isn't worth those precious CP, unless you want to bubble wrap in no-man's land. And then I'm going to do enough damage to pop your bubble through smite or weight of fire and still leave you in the negative.

I have to jump in there. Free cover IS awesome. It makes units with a 3+ save a LOT more durable. I'm playing my T'au with the Dal'yth Sept tenet which gives free cover to units that don't move and I soak up alpha strikes like nothing. The better your armour, the better the +1 to saves works.

Also to your Lascannon example ... translated that means your opponent needs about one Lascannon shot more to get rid of your ~11 wound tank. If you have multiple tanks in your list (which you should) that adds up to quite a bit.

The real problem really is that it costs 2CP and we already are super CP hungry as BA.

Any army that has CP for days (so AM, T'au if they want to, CSM with Cultist spam, and so on) can and should spend those 2CP every time unless they're facing a melee heavy opponent. Armies with low armour saves like Daemons and Orks shouldn't use that Stratagem unless they don't have anything better to use their CP on. And armies who could make great use of it but struggle to have enough CP as is, like Marines and especially BA, have to think it through really well because they sacrifice a lot for it in return.

 

A to-hit penalty instead of a bonus to save rolls is still possible. If GW decides to change cover to -1 to-hit (as it should've been from the beginning imo) and change those army-wide rules to grants cover at >12" so it doesn't stack then it would make much more sense for a lot more armies (tho I'm sure people would start to hate my Stealth Suits at -2 to-hit and Sv3+ instead of -1 to-hit and Sv2+ lol)

I disagree. Of every game I've gone first the opponent has wasted 2CP because they think they can tank my shots. I cherry pick the units I need to kill and then decimate them.

 

MEQ army wide 2+ is neat, until you realize almost no one brings tacticals and it becomes scouts. And with primaris they dont have enough damage output to worry about. Or you nuke the hell blasters because your weight of fire is just too strong and you -3/4/5 AP on your good units.

 

 

Or you just devourer chafe in the open with 36+ strength 6 shots followed by 5-6+ smites and psychic scream not to mention the swarmlord has a 40+" threat range that can also charge turn 1.

 

And the 1 game I played with my BA they were still obliterated by the massive amount of weighted fire that also ig pred cover.

 

TL;DR 2CP is too expensive and not worth it.

[Panzer]

I feel that's more a problem of false expectations. Of course your army won't be able to tank everything and that's not what the Stratagem is supposed to do. All it does is ensuring that you have more left once it's your turn than you would have otherwise. Of course going first is still way better tho. I've said since the BIG FAQ release that it's not enough and the free cover for the one who goes second should be free but I do think that it's worth using over not using for most armies still.

[Indefragable]

I think the player who goes 2nd should get "free cover" no matter what, no ifs ands or buts and no CP spent, while the 2CP Strategem is -1 To Hit.

 

I think that would suddenly make going 2nd almost as viable--and maybe even preferred--in some cases to going 1st.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I think the player who goes 2nd should get "free cover" no matter what, no ifs ands or buts and no CP spent, while the 2CP Strategem is -1 To Hit.

 

I think that would suddenly make going 2nd almost as viable--and maybe even preferred--in some cases to going 1st.

I wish they would just incorporate Night Fighting back into the game.

[brother_b]

I would have liked them to add a first turn -1 to shooting for all non-los firing models. This could represent them getting into cover or something but would have helped us against those units we have absolutely no chance of reaching first turn.

[Panzer]

I would have liked them to add a first turn -1 to shooting for all non-los firing models. This could represent them getting into cover or something but would have helped us against those units we have absolutely no chance of reaching first turn.

 

Those units are rather rare and not exactly THE problem tho. Could be something to errata in for specifically those units on their datasheets but that's not something to add as general rule imo.