Book 9 appears to be on U.S. soil

[ShadowCore67]

Wow, realizing that you can only take two extra centurions is really shattering. I was pretty excited to bring 6 20 man blobs being led by centurions

[Sparika]

Wow, realizing that you can only take two extra centurions is really shattering. I was pretty excited to bring 6 20 man blobs being led by centurions

You can still take the two "free" centurions, then two additional centurions/consuls and a praetors which gives you 5 officers able to give orders. However, by then you have already used 3 non-tactical choices so you must complement it with 3 tactical squads and must take one additional tactical squad without dedicated transport for every other unit you will take.

 

I'm not even sure you can get up to something like 3000pts with such restrictions. Yep, just done a quick mockup with Battlescribe and 1x Praetor, 4x Centurion, 6x 20 tactical squad, 3x apothecary, 1x Sicaran, 2x Javelin with no upgrade is just above 2000pts. Tactical support squad not counting within the limit is a shame also because it really forces you to take only assault/tactical squads only as troops.

 

It is really strange because the rite looks like its made for a massive deployment. However it seems to me on lower point limit the rite looks more like a 10 man tactical tax for every units rather than a harsh limit on the overall list.

Edited September 16, 2020 by Sparika

[Ficinus]

Well, you can easily make 3,000 given that Assault squads can run well over 400 points for a 20 man squad.  Also, there are more expensive options than 1 sicaran and 2 Javelins (like a squad of Sicarans or a talon of contemptors).  That doesn't mean that the rite makes sense or is good, just, you can get there, even without gaming the system and just taking the most expensive things (like a squad of land raiders or a maxed out mortificator).

[SkimaskMohawk]

So Corswain's The Blade doesn't benefit from Mastery of the Blade...oh 162$ book that's missing 100 pages, why can't you have rules that work properly.

 

We're now at:

Spicula entire fiasco

Haywire with ordnance

Corswain not studying the blade

Ravenwing thrusting

Firewing enigmatic frag grenades

[Indefragable]

So Corswain's The Blade doesn't benefit from Mastery of the Blade...oh 162$ book that's missing 100 pages, why can't you have rules that work properly.

 

We're now at:

Spicula entire fiasco

Haywire with ordnance

Corswain not studying the blade

Ravenwing thrusting

Firewing enigmatic frag grenades

 

I was trying to wrap my head around whether Corswain would effectively be the Horus-level WS8 if Mastery of the blade applied to ​The Blade. 

 

On one hand it seems obvious it should....on the other, I can understand how a WS8 non-Primarch could be seen by some as being.....a bit much? 

 

This feels like a "for the balance" decision, but not finding a creative in-game/in-setting way of making work a bit more prettily. Like how the Khan's dormant psychic abilities are why he gets Outflank....... 

[Ficinus]

Why doesn't mastery of the blade apply to Corswain's sword?  It's described as a variant Terranic greatsword in the first four words of its description, and the rule Mastery of the Blade is vague enough to cover certain equipment when it's modeled a specific way.  If it applies to Terranic greatswords, why not this Terranic greatsword?

 

And the Aquiton's graviton-charge cannon has haywire and ordinance: what's the big deal?  The weapon has no strength value, how do you expect it to work?  Roll two dice, pick the highest and add graviton pulse?  Ordinance has rules other than impacting armour penetration rolls, so those rules impact the weapon.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Ficinus

[b1soul]

There isn't much fluffy logic to quite a few of FW's weapon skill stats

 

If the Khan and Corax can have WS as low as 7, might as well get silly and give the ultimate knightly marine WS 8.

[Elzender]

Well, maybe the FW team considered that Corswain's legendary ability for swordfighting (hence his WS7) already takes into consideration the DA predisposition for it? It's a bit like the LA rules not applying to Primarchs, their rules are already an embodiment of the Legion spirit.

 

Who else has WS7 other than some Primarchs? I would argue that at the level were WS7 fighters duel each other, one could expect the fight to be as even as possible (well, there's Sigismund, but I think we have discussed about him enough and it's a bit offtopic, and then again they should never be fighting each other because, you know, they are both loyalists :D ).

[Nomadic Thunder]

I think elzenders point is a very good one when looking at the big boy duellists.

Master of the blade would be very nice for corswain but at WS7 it’s not so much of an issue, especially with his re-rolls.

I think eternal warrior is essentially just plot armour on sigismund and it doesn’t matter if he beats corswain due to rules mechanics in my mind as they’d only ever duel as for sport.

 

I tried to write a couple of lists last night (not that I’m good at it) and the storm of war isn’t something that I can get my head around. I really love the idea of orders from centurions but I’m finding it frustratingly unwieldy. I think I might discuss with my playgroup about allowing breachers centurions (if equipped the same) and 15+ squads to allow for zone mortalis.

[b1soul]

Yeah, EW is like Sig's special ability...like Sev's is Precognition.

 

Ferrus shouldn't get EW though haha

[Nomadic Thunder]

Ferris should have a fear of fulgrim special rule haha

 

It’s a shame corswain doesn’t have some sort of ability that can mitigate instant deaths like how sigi is EW and sev can reroll saves. Maybe he should always get a feel no pain roll? I think I’m just a bit biased most likely.

[Astartes Consul]

Don't see that much of an issue considering Corswain already has Primarch level WS? In Savage Weapons he's described as once having lasted again the Lion in a practice bout for a minute. And he lands a single blow on Curze. So arguably WS7 is generous.

[Nomadic Thunder]

Does that not suggest that he's something special though?

The watchpack champion in unremembered empire got the chance to swing first at the lion but was KO'd before he so much as twitched. lasting 60 times that long is surely impressive?

[Astartes Consul]

Special, for sure, but not to the point of having a higher WS?

[SkimaskMohawk]

Sure ws 7 is generous and good. But not having his LA rule is silly. Apply that argument to raldoran, sevatar or abbadon or sigismund. They get the benefits of theirs in addition to their enhanced statlines; that's what points are for.

 

@ficinus

where does it say The Blade is a Terranic Greatsword in the rules? Nowhere. Fluff isn't mechanical permission for a rules interaction. The viridian blade is described as war blade from caliban in its fluff, and still has the mechanical permission to count towards Mastery of the Blade.

 

And the haywire ordnance thing is a big deal because ordnance has a drawback...to balance out it's strength. If it's not benefiting from the strength of the special rule, it must be as a balancing lever of the rest of the rules right? Wrong; the grav-rapier is more effective for far less points. Barrage is undercut by Heavy vehicle status and poor range, making it so your opponent is guaranteed a move with their Spartan before you can even start damaging it, let alone kill.

Edited September 17, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk

[Ficinus]

where does it say The Blade is a Terranic Greatsword in the rules? Nowhere. Fluff isn't mechanical permission for a rules interaction. The viridian blade is described as war blade from caliban in its fluff, and still has the mechanical permission to count towards Mastery of the Blade.

 

That's just, like, your opinion, man.  The rule itself explicitly states that how you convert your model applies to the mechanic master of the blade, and what is conversion but storytelling in model form?  If you want me to get super nitpicky, a blade doesn't have to be a sword: axes have blades, for example, so just because something is a "blade" doesn't mean it is a sword, so where ambiguity in definitions is present (the vridian blade and death of worlds, which are only ever described as blades in their fluff), they point out it's a sword.  Since The Blade is a variant of the Terranic greatsword, no such ambiguity exists.  And, again, a player's personal fluff for their character, as expressed through conversions, does impact this rules interaction, so don't tell me fluff has no place in mechanics.

 

 

And the haywire ordnance thing is a big deal because ordnance has a drawback...to balance out it's strength. If it's not benefiting from the strength of the special rule, it must be as a balancing lever of the rest of the rules right? Wrong; the grav-rapier is more effective for far less points. Barrage is undercut by Heavy vehicle status and poor range, making it so your opponent is guaranteed a move with their Spartan before you can even start damaging it, let alone kill.

 

That isn't an editing error, it's just a rule you think isn't particularly effective.  So the list you made above is just a list of things you don't like, since you're arguing that with frag grenades on Enigmatus Cabals, Corswain's lack of mastery of his sword, and Scion of the Ravenwing impacting thrust that it's some sort of oversight or editing failure, while Spicula rockets and the graviton pulse cannon are just things you don't like.  It's not a mistake, it's just something you feel, rightly or wrongly, is overly penalizing for what it does.  Which, cool, alright, but it's not a typographical mistake or anything.  Rotor cannons are bad too, but they weren't an editing error.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Its my opinion that fluff descriptions give no mechanics to wargear if they don't have a special rule? So following your logic if a weapon is described as "master crafted" in its fluff but doesn't have the rule, it still gets it? Or "Oh the deathwing rite says legion terminators and veterans as troops, well in the fluff cenobium are terminator armoured units from the legion, and deathwing companions are veterans so I get to have those as troops too". Thats not at all how the rules work.

 

 

The rule gives a set of weapons that benefit from it; paragon blades explicitly have to be a sword which is the only point where "conversion" comes up. That's also what's called a caveat, not the defining mechanic. The other special weapons have mechanical permission to benefit establishing a precedent that it's needed if the weapon isn't on the list. You follow the listed weapons, not "it says bladed weapons so really any weapon but my powerfist benefits from it because there's a form of blade on it". Fluff has no place in how rules interactions work.

 

What I said was "rules that work properly". Ordnance does not work properly on haywire. If they simply wanted to make its sponsons snap-shot when the main gun fired they could have made a bespoke special rule for its bespoke special weapon. You seemingly don't even understand what the issues are with the spicula. Unsurprisingly, really considering the above fallacies and assumptions you made about how rules interact.

 

Like you do you, give your corswain mastery for your reasons, but have fun cheating.

Edited September 17, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk

[Armillion]

The Arquitor is just a mess from a rules standpoint, even if the model is pretty cool in all of its various loadouts.  It is certainly fine for some options to be substandard, since it is difficult to perfectly balance such a complex game.  Even if a unit or weapon is substandard, if it can have a niche area where it excels over other options then that can be a good option from a game perspective.  If they specifically intended everything to have ordinance to represent it lumbering towards something and then dumping powerful, earth-shaking weapons onto its target, then sure, but at least make its primary weapon options represent that.

 

However, generally, each of the main gun options range from incredibly mediocre/borderline redundant (the Graviton-charge cannon), to ok if unexciting (the morbus bombard), to nonsensical in practice (the Spicula) due to the ability to generate far more hits by slightly clipping a bunch of units as opposed to just dumping all of its firepower onto one poor unit.  

 

The Graviton version was so underwhelming that I couldn't resist giving feedback to forgeworld about a possible adjustment/rework to it before final release, not that I ever expected a response, nor expected for anything to change, it was just simply that... blah.

 

Some tweaks to the rules of each option within the theme of both the unit and the spirit of what is already given would go a long way to helping the Arquitor.

[Marshal Rohr]

The lead time between Crusade and actually getting it in players hands means turn around time for an FAQ will be much faster, especially since the rules got released before the books in most cases. Edited September 17, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[Mogsam]

Hang on, do people actually play with the paragon blade having to be a blade?

 

I mean, paragon hammer, paragon maul, paragon teacosy etc. As long as it looks cool who cares?

[Aeternus]

Hang on, do people actually play with the paragon blade having to be a blade?

 

I mean, paragon hammer, paragon maul, paragon teacosy etc. As long as it looks cool who cares?

I mean a paragon blade can be whatever, sure have your hammer, but in the rules for it to benefit from the DA mastery of the blade, it states it should be modelled as a sword which is kinda understandable, I think that's what you're missing: specifically discussing the DA rule.

 

Honestly I'd expect them to faq mastery for corswain like they have for sedras, but until then it's still not RAW there. I agree with the sentiment earlier that each high tier duellist has their 'thing', so sev has precog, sigi has EW, I could fully support corswain having mastery as well for hitting on 3s (as well as his 3++ in combat I guess) since that'd just put him in the same sort of tier rather than above them I reckon (equally would like to see Khârn be the one with loads of attacks but that's branching off into the endless number of top tier fighter threads).

Edited September 17, 2020 by Aeternus

[SkimaskMohawk]

I've personally never heard any assertions about paragon blade = sword. But for the dark angels to claim mastery, it does need to be in sword form.

[Ficinus]

Its my opinion that fluff descriptions give no mechanics to wargear if they don't have a special rule? So following your logic if a weapon is described as "master crafted" in its fluff but doesn't have the rule, it still gets it? Or "Oh the deathwing rite says legion terminators and veterans as troops, well in the fluff cenobium are terminator armoured units from the legion, and deathwing companions are veterans so I get to have those as troops too". Thats not at all how the rules work.

 

 

The rule gives a set of weapons that benefit from it; paragon blades explicitly have to be a sword which is the only point where "conversion" comes up. That's also what's called a caveat, not the defining mechanic. The other special weapons have mechanical permission to benefit establishing a precedent that it's needed if the weapon isn't on the list. You follow the listed weapons, not "it says bladed weapons so really any weapon but my powerfist benefits from it because there's a form of blade on it". Fluff has no place in how rules interactions work.

 

What I said was "rules that work properly". Ordnance does not work properly on haywire. If they simply wanted to make its sponsons snap-shot when the main gun fired they could have made a bespoke special rule for its bespoke special weapon. You seemingly don't even understand what the issues are with the spicula. Unsurprisingly, really considering the above fallacies and assumptions you made about how rules interact.

 

Like you do you, give your corswain mastery for your reasons, but have fun cheating.

 

My argument is not that fluff always justifies rules, but that Mastery of the Blade explicitly uses fluff as part of the mechanic given how conversion/modeling plays a part in the explicit rules.  I mean, does any other rule in the game explicitly depend on the world building of player modeling?  Does any other rules depend on backstory?  If your argument is that fluff has no place in rules interaction, you should be complaining about the paragon blade modeled as swords rule within Mastery of the Blade.

 

As to the Ordinance/Haywire split and wanting snapshots when the main gun fire, why create a bespoke rule and a core rule performs the same function?  If they had done that, there would be people here complaining that they made up some dumb new rule when they could have just given it Ordinance.  Is it in any way unclear how that weapon works?  Is there any ambiguity?  No, there is not.  So the rules work fine here.

 

And I understand that the spicula rules are weird, hit lots of units in weird ways that make targeting empty space optimal, and that by always targeting points the sponsons cannot ever target units if the main weapon is used.  Okay, whatever.  Again, the rule is clear on how things work.  There is no ambiguity.  You can not like it and say that it's bad, but it's not an error.  The Aquitor rules are not good from a mechanical standpoint, I wouldn't ever use one, but it's not the same category of error as no frag grenades on Enigmatus Cabals.  Do you understand that?

 

Oh, and don't worry about me "cheating" with Corswain: I always rule in my opponent's favor with ambiguity and I hate fielding special characters.

[Monkeychunks]

Not taking any sides here, but AFAIK the ability for World Eaters to upgrade their chainswords to chainaxes is another case of rules explicitly requiring the model to be a certain way. Mastery of the Blade is a similar issue, albeit on a different scale: Would you be fine with a World Eaters player rolling S5/AP4 chainswords?

 

The Spicula rules issue was that it cannot draw line of sight to the ground. Sight is in an arc from the tip of the weapon, which happens to be pointing at the sky. Barrage lets you circumvent this but the Spicula has nothing to let you aim differently.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

Its my opinion that fluff descriptions give no mechanics to wargear if they don't have a special rule? So following your logic if a weapon is described as "master crafted" in its fluff but doesn't have the rule, it still gets it? Or "Oh the deathwing rite says legion terminators and veterans as troops, well in the fluff cenobium are terminator armoured units from the legion, and deathwing companions are veterans so I get to have those as troops too". Thats not at all how the rules work.

 

 

The rule gives a set of weapons that benefit from it; paragon blades explicitly have to be a sword which is the only point where "conversion" comes up. That's also what's called a caveat, not the defining mechanic. The other special weapons have mechanical permission to benefit establishing a precedent that it's needed if the weapon isn't on the list. You follow the listed weapons, not "it says bladed weapons so really any weapon but my powerfist benefits from it because there's a form of blade on it". Fluff has no place in how rules interactions work.

 

What I said was "rules that work properly". Ordnance does not work properly on haywire. If they simply wanted to make its sponsons snap-shot when the main gun fired they could have made a bespoke special rule for its bespoke special weapon. You seemingly don't even understand what the issues are with the spicula. Unsurprisingly, really considering the above fallacies and assumptions you made about how rules interact.

 

Like you do you, give your corswain mastery for your reasons, but have fun cheating.

My argument is not that fluff always justifies rules, but that Mastery of the Blade explicitly uses fluff as part of the mechanic given how conversion/modeling plays a part in the explicit rules. I mean, does any other rule in the game explicitly depend on the world building of player modeling? Does any other rules depend on backstory? If your argument is that fluff has no place in rules interaction, you should be complaining about the paragon blade modeled as swords rule within Mastery of the Blade.

 

As to the Ordinance/Haywire split and wanting snapshots when the main gun fire, why create a bespoke rule and a core rule performs the same function? If they had done that, there would be people here complaining that they made up some dumb new rule when they could have just given it Ordinance. Is it in any way unclear how that weapon works? Is there any ambiguity? No, there is not. So the rules work fine here.

 

And I understand that the spicula rules are weird, hit lots of units in weird ways that make targeting empty space optimal, and that by always targeting points the sponsons cannot ever target units if the main weapon is used. Okay, whatever. Again, the rule is clear on how things work. There is no ambiguity. You can not like it and say that it's bad, but it's not an error. The Aquitor rules are not good from a mechanical standpoint, I wouldn't ever use one, but it's not the same category of error as no frag grenades on Enigmatus Cabals. Do you understand that?

 

Oh, and don't worry about me "cheating" with Corswain: I always rule in my opponent's favor with ambiguity and I hate fielding special characters.

As monkeychunks pointed out, one of the very first legions released had an explicit "model X to receive Y" rule. As does any terminator unit that has choice of armour and says "must be modeled appropriately". As do the various Orders of the DA. So the answer is yes, other rules explicitly mandate modeling in their rules. That's how they work; you follow the restrictions and get the bonus, you don't and you don't.

 

I'm waiting for you to explain how 100% of ordnance works with haywire.

 

The spicula, in addition to not being able to see it's point as covered by monkey chunks, also lost their attempted fix from PDF to book of needing los to shoot.

Edited September 17, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk