Big FAQ has dropped.

[Slasher956]

 

 

 

How are sub faction specific Stratagems not sub faction rules?

I'm not saying most SM vehicles have or had access to chapter tactics. I'm just saying that the intention is unlikely to be not allowing sub faction rules for SM vehicles since there clearly are sub faction rules specifically designed for SM vehicles already.

 

 

Cross wires.... when I was saying sub-faction rules I was talking about chapter tactics & the equivalents in other factions.... and because of that vehicles getting bolter drills falls in to the 'unintended consequences' catergory 

[Panzer]

 

I agree that some factions still need more substantial alterations but those will come with a new codex. Neither the FAQ nor Chapter Approved has really changed the way armies play beyond toning down the most egregious combinations of rules or units. If this FAQ funnels more forces into the category of winning 45%-55% of games then it's succeeded. I don't think that the existing lists that win the overwhelming majority of games will continue to do so.

 

I have a prediction that Knights will be deminished significantly and that Castellans will remain popular as the model is widely in circulation but it won't be involved in any more major tournament winning lists. It's swung a bit to the point where destroying it is a likely outcome for the right list in the initial turn, and that's too much of a gamble. You can't base a winning strategy over having to go first in every game to neutralise key threats or be destroyed. Imo the 4++ cap to the Ion shield was all that it needed, but at least using one won't lead to accusations of power gaming anymore

 

I also think that my streak of losing to Dark Eldar and friends might come to an end now that the most OTT powerful things about Eldar soup have been eliminated. This was a great change it's so much more thematic.

 

Orks and Tau might actually be the biggest winners of this. Both armies are exceptional without relying on soup combinations, both are high performers, and both are now relatively better off.

I predict those Imperial armies that relied on the Castellan will likely shift to two Crusaders now. We'll see both the BA smash captain and the triple Shield Captain on Dawneagle back as plug and play options for soup.

 

They dealt a great change to Orks by removing that gimmicky Lootas mob up combo, which along with Doom was one of the main sources of instant high impact AT that scared everybody but 3++ Knights off tables.

 

It's unknown if a reduction in Castellans and two of their biggest counters will result in more traditional vehicles taking the field. The Castellan kind of invalidated a lot of those platforms with how easy a time it had removing those threats. Not to mention how that meant most armies could only commit to infantry based AT solutions, even if vehicle ones provided more options, simply because of the aforementioned Castellans penchant for vehicular slaughter. They also were laser focused on one target with difficulty handling multiple armoured threats efficiently.

 

Now that the Castellan is less efficient at its job, and the Crusader doesn't handle that job quite as well, perhaps we'll start to see more non-invuln protected vehicles in play. My first expectation is LR Tank Commanders becoming more popular. Maybe even Tau Hammerhead wings with Long Strike again.

 

Skilled Eldar players will be successful still, and soup isn't completely dead there, but its not always the best choice now and the synergies don't jump you through the roof. Ynnari became an option, not a must take, so that's good for everybody too.

 

Bolter Discipline helps certain marine bike and infantry units offensively, but I wonder when (or if) a defensive marine focused beta rule will be introduced. I personally feel like that is the biggest issue. Your lethality across a game increases the longer you survive, but marines aren't surviving long enough I feel.

 

 

Or maybe we'll see the other big Knight with his super flamer and the lance which re-rolls hit rolls against vehicles. It should be more than 100p cheaper than the Castellan now lol

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Overall I like this FAQ, between it and the Ynnari update there is going to be a shake up at the top of the meta. Bolter drill changes were a little frustrating but hopefully they realized base marines need more buffs to become good and we'll see some thing more soon. 

 

I think the biggest issues people have with 8th are how command points are generated and that mono fraction has no benefit compared to soup, and we weren't going to see that update here. Thats more of a new edition thing.

[Beams]

I'm 100% in agreement that Astartes need chapter tactics across all units.

 

The tactics need to be reworked so they can benefit vehicles correctly or to provide other buffs.

 

It's one thing that sets the Marine books behind other factions for no reason.

There's quite a few factions that don't get traits in everything. Why they chose to do that, I dunno, but it's a deliberate choice and will likely stay.

 

Sisters, one of the newest as of achaoter approved 2018, have the exact same chapter tactic restrictions as Marines, but with the addition that ministorum units make up about half of their options, so only about a third or less of their units are elligible.

 

Orks don't get grots with tactics, meaning Grot tanks, megatanks, killakans, artillery etc don't get it.

 

Heck, even Guard has a huge list of options that don't get chapter tactics, and then a few that only get it in very specific circumstances.

 

So this isn't a space Marines don't get what everyone else gets, it's a almost no one gets full chapter tactics, they just different in where they aren't applied.

[Ishagu]

Some units shouldn't get it, but Astartes vehicles are not those units.

 

It makes sense with Grots or elements of the army that don't go through the same training or organisation.

 

What's the difference between a Stormtalon and a Razorwing Jetfighter? Aside from the obvious fact that the Razorwing is far superior in terms of rules and cost lol

Edited April 30, 2019 by Ishagu

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Lexington hit the nail on the head. But the funny part is actually that 'The gaming community that is not the internet' is also somehow giving feedback via E-mail. That's warp level magic.

 

What I meant to say is, a lot of these changes are extremely obvious. You can look at the cost of a bolter, the cost of a storm bolter, and the cost of a hurricane bolter. YOu can then crunch the numbers to get their average damage output against X unit in the game. Once you have those numbers, you compare them to what other weapons can do at similar prices. Once you have that, you see what sort of units can take each weapon. Then you gauge the relative survivability  of those units so that you understand how many rounds of shooting they will tend to get. By that poitn you've mathed out enough to have a rough statistical idea of how these units will perform in a vacuum, and you don't need any feedback at all to get to that point. The LRC isn't balanced to THAT point. Only once a unit reaches that point can you pull on player feedback and more relyable tournament data, some of which is readily available, to adjust up and down for reality. Sometimes you make something a little stronger than average to shake up the meta, sometimes you make it a little weaker.

 

GW does not seem to follow the above process. If they did, the math would make a little more sense. 

 

On the topic of the FAQ specifically, the reason Bolter Drill stands out to me so much is because it was an unnecessary nerf. It's a unit I am very familiar with, I've ran the numbers, and I have my anecdotal evidence. Months worth of it at this point. I can see why DW would get slapped on the wrist for storm bolters. I've seen that shake up my local meta, and the math is mean. But everyone I knew, even my opponents, were fine with hurricane bolters on LRCs, because LRCs still weren't a serious threat. And the only other units that can take hurricane bolters, and were nerfed, were flyers. Which can still sprint across the board and shoot you with them in rapid fire range regardless. So though it can be inconvenient for them, it isnt' actually hurting them as much. It isnt' like space marines get any buffs for being at range, and a huge portion of the anti tank fire in this game has a range of Yes. So unless they're worried about getting punched out of the sky by a smash captain or hit with a hundred meltas, I don't see the problem. As anyone but an Eldar player can tell you, playing in an edition where your army is bottom tier sucks. And when you see something that might make one of your units half way usable get tested, then removed because it...makes that unit too powerful? it's worrying. if GW honestly thinks that Bolter Drill made LRCs and Stormraven's too strong, I dont' have a lot of hope for marine changes this edition.

[Halandaar]

Well, they have all the feedback that’s given to them. The unfortunate nature of people and public feedback meaning that this is often going to be contextless, wildly biased, filled with utterly nonsense assumptions and, often as not, just a pack of wild lies.

 

A thousand tweenlets mashing their keyboards to explain how it’s totally not fair that their brother’s LRC shot up a Boyz squad that they left in an unprotected midfield is not worth a single analysis of the overall meta by a reasonably well-informed player. One is noise, one is signal, and being able to weed out one from the other is literally the most baseline skill required to begin to engage with mass public feedback.

 

I don't disagree with the core of what you're saying, but signal vs noise is plenty prevalent among the "informed" as well. Clearly GW got enough noise about Wobbly Model Syndrome that they had to clarify that it wasn't a mechanism for you to put things in places they physically cannot go. I don't imagine that those sort of extremely gamey questions come from your imagined horde of "tweenlets", but rather from the sort of people who know the rules so well that they can identify any weakness in them to exploit. How informed someone is doesn't necessarily make their feedback useful, any more so than volume is indicative of usefulness.

 

Anyway, let's look at this Bolter thing the other way; is an onslaught of complaints about how a Land Raider Crusader now has fewer shots in a small range window (that it doesn't really want to operate in anyway) compared to how many it had for only the previous three months really a statistically significant factor to the game? If it's irrelevant enough to be considered pointless to take it away, is it not also irrelevant enough to be pointless to keep? Noise, or signal?

 

 

Orks don't get grots with tactics, meaning Grot tanks, megatanks, killakans, artillery etc don't get it.

Heck, even Guard has a huge list of options that don't get chapter tactics, and then a few that only get it in very specific circumstances.

 

So this isn't a space Marines don't get what everyone else gets, it's a almost no one gets full chapter tactics, they just different in where they aren't applied.

 

I don't think anybody would dispute that Grots should get Clan Kulturs. Equally, I think it's pretty reasonable that things like Ogryns don't have Regimental Doctrines and Cultists now don't get Legion Traits. Those things make decent, narrative sense. 

 

The disparity really is in terms of vehicles with crew who are to all intents and purposes equivalent to ground troops who do benefit from the various traits; 

• A Rhino is a transport crewed by Space Marines. The Marines get a Chapter Tactic if they're on foot, the Rhino doesn't.
• A Raider is a transport crewed by Kabalite Warriors. The Warriors gets a Kabal Obsession if they're on foot, and so does the Raider.

Why is there a difference between these two examples?

 

But the funny part is actually that 'The gaming community that is not the internet' is also somehow giving feedback via E-mail. That's warp level magic.

 

As if people are incapable of having an email address and not being a member of some online group . My point, that you've tactically ignored, is that these relatively insular and echo-chamber-prone Facebook groups and faction forums are not representative of the entire community, as should be obvious.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Halandaar

[PeteySödes]

 

Anyway, let's look at this Bolter thing the other way; is an onslaught of complaints about how a Land Raider Crusader now has fewer shots in a small range window (that it doesn't really want to operate in anyway) compared to how many it had for only the previous three monthsreally a statistically significant factor to the game? If it's irrelevant enough to be considered pointless to take it away, is it not also irrelevant enough to be pointless to keep? Noise, or signal

 

 

I disgree here. First off, your disregarding the opinions of people who were excited to have gotten a small boost to a unit that has been pretty bad for a long time now. Being able to squeeze a bit more utility was pretty great.

 

Second, the whole operating range is pretty off. You need to get the payload close for a turn yea, but if you keep a land vehicle within 12" of the enemy to lock you in combat, let alone a 260 point one, thats not a great idea.

 

My second point isnt as on topic but my first stands. Its pretty frustrating having people tell you to "relax" because "everyone got worse" hur.

 

It's not the end of the world no but can we at least try to empathize with people?

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

My point, which you don't seem to understand, is that the people who aren't part of the facebook groups and forums probably arent' E-mailing their issues to GW. If you are involved enough to want to send an E-mail to an inpersonal company inbox due to a product you've dumped lots of time into, using the medium known as the internet. You are very very likely to be engaged in other online activities to do with that hobby. These are overlapping fields. it seems unlikely to me that there'd be a large population of people who exclusively interact with the hobby online by sending GW E-mails.

 

If you can't see the difference between an LRC that operates effectively from 13-24 as compared to 2-12, I dont' think you should be writing GW rules either. Especially after I already explained that it has everything to do with trying to squeeze out as much firepower as possible before it inevitably explodes, and the sad fact that most enemies don't start out within 22 inches. It doesn't effect flyers as much because they can leap most of the map in one move. LRCs were shafted because they can't. And more people wont' be annoyed by this because LRCs are such a crummy unit that they aren't used by anyone besides fluff players, which, kind of proves the point that they didn't need a nerf.

 

But eh. i guess I've said all I can say here. FAQ had a lot of necessary changes, and a few stinkers. Time to see what comes next.

[Panzer]

 

Anyway, let's look at this Bolter thing the other way; is an onslaught of complaints about how a Land Raider Crusader now has fewer shots in a small range window (that it doesn't really want to operate in anyway) compared to how many it had for only the previous three months really a statistically significant factor to the game? If it's irrelevant enough to be considered pointless to take it away, is it not also irrelevant enough to be pointless to keep? Noise, or signal?

 

Which is not really true to be honest. Due the lack of FLY or a similar rule the Landraider wants to be this close only for very short time and then get the heck away from all the units that could charge it. Also being close means being in rapid fire range of stuff like Plasma which is far from ideal too.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Current life of an LRC:

 

Start battle as close to enemy as possible. Hope to goodness for first turn.

 

Battle Round 1:

 

If you do get first turn, move within 12", unleash the full dakka. If you don't get first turn, hope to goodness that you don't get charged first turn by something like Tsangoors or Jumpin Orks. (Which you probably will)

 

Battle Round 2:

 

If you go first, your LRC will get charged. Probably by something rubbish that can't hurt it. If not, it will happen in your enemy's turn/

 

Battle Round 3 onwards:

 

Reverse LRC out of combat, lose ability to shoot. Get shot at by enemy and then re-charged. Repeat until game either ends or LRC dies. (Probably around BR4, having achieved nothing.)

[Ishagu]

Trade that Landraider for a Repulsor

[MARK0SIAN]

Trade that Landraider for a Repulsor

And put my Terminators in it ... oh yeah, put my centurions in it then ... oh that’s right, well put a crusader Squad in it then ... hang on, well then put my chapter Master in it ... oh yeah :(

[Beams]

 

Well, they have all the feedback that’s given to them. The unfortunate nature of people and public feedback meaning that this is often going to be contextless, wildly biased, filled with utterly nonsense assumptions and, often as not, just a pack of wild lies.

 

A thousand tweenlets mashing their keyboards to explain how it’s totally not fair that their brother’s LRC shot up a Boyz squad that they left in an unprotected midfield is not worth a single analysis of the overall meta by a reasonably well-informed player. One is noise, one is signal, and being able to weed out one from the other is literally the most baseline skill required to begin to engage with mass public feedback.

I don't disagree with the core of what you're saying, but signal vs noise is plenty prevalent among the "informed" as well. Clearly GW got enough noise about Wobbly Model Syndrome that they had to clarify that it wasn't a mechanism for you to put things in places they physically cannot go. I don't imagine that those sort of extremely gamey questions come from your imagined horde of "tweenlets", but rather from the sort of people who know the rules so well that they can identify any weakness in them to exploit. How informed someone is doesn't necessarily make their feedback useful, any more so than volume is indicative of usefulness.

 

Anyway, let's look at this Bolter thing the other way; is an onslaught of complaints about how a Land Raider Crusader now has fewer shots in a small range window (that it doesn't really want to operate in anyway) compared to how many it had for only the previous three months really a statistically significant factor to the game? If it's irrelevant enough to be considered pointless to take it away, is it not also irrelevant enough to be pointless to keep? Noise, or signal?

 

Orks don't get grots with tactics, meaning Grot tanks, megatanks, killakans, artillery etc don't get it.

Heck, even Guard has a huge list of options that don't get chapter tactics, and then a few that only get it in very specific circumstances.

 

So this isn't a space Marines don't get what everyone else gets, it's a almost no one gets full chapter tactics, they just different in where they aren't applied.

I don't think anybody would dispute that Grots should get Clan Kulturs. Equally, I think it's pretty reasonable that things like Ogryns don't have Regimental Doctrines and Cultists now don't get Legion Traits. Those things make decent, narrative sense.

 

The disparity really is in terms of vehicles with crew who are to all intents and purposes equivalent to ground troops who do benefit from the various traits;

• A Rhino is a transport crewed by Space Marines. The Marines get a Chapter Tactic if they're on foot, the Rhino doesn't.
• A Raider is a transport crewed by Kabalite Warriors. The Warriors gets a Kabal Obsession if they're on foot, and so does the Raider.

Why is there a difference between these two examples?

But the funny part is actually that 'The gaming community that is not the internet' is also somehow giving feedback via E-mail. That's warp level magic.

As if people are incapable of having an email address and not being a member of some online group . My point, that you've tactically ignored, is that these relatively insular and echo-chamber-prone Facebook groups and faction forums are not representative of the entire community, as should be obvious.

It's the same difference as a Sister of Battle crewing a rhino, exorcist or Immolator and not getting it

 

It's clear GW has a design goal and that includes, sometimes arbitrarily, determining who is and who isn't eligible for chapter tactics. If they haven't changed it by now, they aren't going to.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Beams

[Karhedron]

It's clear GW has a design goal and that includes, sometimes arbitrarily, determining who is and who isn't eligible for chapter tactics. If they haven't changed it by now, they aren't going to.

That may be true but it certain isn't clear to outside observers what the criteria are for that decision. It certainly isn't price as most SM vehicles seem overcosted (although there may be a few honourable exceptions).

[Closet Skeleton]

There's no real reason from a game design standpoint that marine vehicles shouldn't benefit from their chapter rules, when all of the elder ones do. Deathwatch is a different story if it came to siu applying to vehicle shots, but every other marine subfaction would only marginally benefit. Why does it make more sense for an alaitoc wave serpent to be harder to hit than a raven guard rhino?

 

I'm against Alaitoc vehicles getting the bonus (especially the double -1 on flyers) but Holo-fields on Eldar vehicles have kind of always been a thing.

 

 

I can only reason that this was they way they initially intended to do all factions (no Subfaction Tactics for vehicles) but changed their mind after the first few Codexes were done. It just happened that those first few were all Astartes books (Marines, Chaos, Grey Knights) and because of the overlap of vehicles across the varius Astartes armies, opted to release the newer books using the same format for the sake of consistency.

 

Why it hasn't been subsequently changed to be in line with the other races, I have no idea.

 

 

Except that isn't the case, Genestealer Cult creeds don't apply to half of their units, Daemonic loci only apply to HQs but can then affect units not even in the Daemon Codex etc.

 

Sub-faction traits are just an inconsistent mess between books in general.

 

 

I'm 100% in agreement that Astartes need chapter tactics across all units.

 

The tactics need to be reworked so they can benefit vehicles correctly or to provide other buffs.

 

It's one thing that sets the Marine books behind other factions for no reason.

 

I don't own a Storm Raven but if I did its lack of +1 to wound rolls when charging wouldn't be stopping me from bringing out my Angels Encarmine again any more than the Saim Hain and Bel Tan traits technically applying to vehicles makes those subfactions not completely invisible in the competitive meta.

 

 

The disparity really is in terms of vehicles with crew who are to all intents and purposes equivalent to ground troops who do benefit from the various traits; 

• A Rhino is a transport crewed by Space Marines. The Marines get a Chapter Tactic if they're on foot, the Rhino doesn't.
• A Raider is a transport crewed by Kabalite Warriors. The Warriors gets a Kabal Obsession if they're on foot, and so does the Raider.

Why is there a difference between these two examples?

 

Marines aren't meant to be a tank army, Dark Eldar are meant to be a mechanized army.

 

Infantry training and vehicle training are completely separate tactical fields.

 

If you actually look at the Cabal traits its kind of obvious.

 

Black Heart doesn't apply to vehicles and infantry, its the only one that has a completely different effect on infantry and its the most popular trait so your argument is actually kind of moot.

 

Poisoned Tongue is better poisons. It doesn't apply to half the dark eldar vehicles and those it does apply to its only because they mount infantry type guns.

 

Flayed Skull actually ONLY effects vehicles, so the idea that Dark Eldar traits effect the whole army is just plain wrong here, especially since this is the second most popular cabal trait.

 

Obsidian Rose effects everything sure but I've only ever seen it once.

 

If you actually look at the Cabal traits then they're MORE limited than most Space Marine Chapter Tactics. Its just that Dark Eldar are stronger over all so they don't need subfaction traits to be good. Wych Cults are also pretty irrelevant to vehicles outside of the Red Grief Aether Sail ram while the only Haemonculi Coven that sees the table has a over-powered trait that doesn't effect vehicles (I've never seen a Haemonculi raider or venom on the board in 8th).

Edited April 30, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[Ishagu]

 

Trade that Landraider for a Repulsor

And put my Terminators in it ... oh yeah, put my centurions in it then ... oh that’s right, well put a crusader Squad in it then ... hang on, well then put my chapter Master in it ... oh yeah :(

Yeah I really hate those restrictions too. It's really annoying.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Trade that Landraider for a Repulsor

And put my Terminators in it ... oh yeah, put my centurions in it then ... oh that’s right, well put a crusader Squad in it then ... hang on, well then put my chapter Master in it ... oh yeah :(

Yeah I really hate those restrictions too. It's really annoying.

I’d say they’re the most arbitrary, nonsensical and ridiculous rules in the entire game :)

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Emphasis entirely mine.

 

 

Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move,

shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power)

outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly

mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the

turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it

were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during

that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take

effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?

A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g.

abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would

apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking

place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem

specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then

it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a

Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting

phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were

the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ,

Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made

as if it were your Shooting phase.

So, Dark Reapers now Overwatch on 3+?

[Panzer]

Emphasis entirely mine.

 

 

Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move,

shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power)

outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly

mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the

turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it

were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during

that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take

effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?

A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g.

abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would

apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking

place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem

specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then

it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a

Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting

phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were

the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ,

Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made

as if it were your Shooting phase.

So, Dark Reapers now Overwatch on 3+?

 

No. The overwatch rule that states that modifiers don't apply didn't get changed at all.

[Exilyth]

This FAQ/update seems much more down to earth/meta than previous updates.

 

Sure, some long eared space elves got hit and knights got a points increase, but other than that, there's not really anything unexpected in it.

[Ishagu]

Lord Disco getting Legion traits and mob up limitations were unexpected.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

Emphasis entirely mine.

 

 

Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move,

shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power)

outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly

mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the

turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it

were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during

that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take

effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?

A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g.

abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would

apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking

place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem

specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then

it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a

Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting

phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were

the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ,

Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made

as if it were your Shooting phase.

So, Dark Reapers now Overwatch on 3+?

 

No. The overwatch rule that states that modifiers don't apply didn't get changed at all.

 

Inescapable Accuracy isn't a modifier.

[Panzer]

 

 

Emphasis entirely mine.

 

 

Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move,

shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power)

outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly

mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the

turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it

were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during

that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take

effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?

A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g.

abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would

apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking

place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem

specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then

it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a

Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting

phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were

the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ,

Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made

as if it were your Shooting phase.

So, Dark Reapers now Overwatch on 3+?

 

No. The overwatch rule that states that modifiers don't apply didn't get changed at all.

 

Inescapable Accuracy isn't a modifier.

 

 

True, but the Overwatch rule also says you hit always on 6 which isn't a modifier either so should still apply despite Inescapable Accuracy which specifically talks about modifier.

[Biscuittzz]

 

 

I don't own a Storm Raven but if I did its lack of +1 to wound rolls when charging wouldn't be stopping me from bringing out my Angels Encarmine again any more than the Saim Hain and Bel Tan traits technically applying to vehicles makes those subfactions not completely invisible in the competitive meta.

 

Marines aren't meant to be a tank army, Dark Eldar are meant to be a mechanized army.

 

Infantry training and vehicle training are completely separate tactical fields.

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, good job in taking the least viable chapter tactic for a Storm Raven and trying to prove your point with it. 

 

And since when are marines not a supposed to be a tank army and Dark Eldar a mechanised force? Dark Eldar and Raven Guard both possess battle tactics of attacking hard and fast in decapitating strikes so how come RG don't get chapter tactics on our vehicles but DE do?

 

If you want to get even further into the lore, astartes are planetary assault specialists usually attacking with overwhelming drop and airborne assault elements to crack hardened enemy fortresses or strongholds. You don't think these assault elements wouldn't entail the use of heavy armour?