POTMS will do something different! -GW

[SkimaskMohawk]

Go look at the marine and supplements faq for changes. It's not reserved; there's substantial changes to mechanics across the board (never forget the "bonus hits carry all rules of the roll that made them" debacle). A faq is absolutely the place to make a change past "delete" , as it has been for countless years.

[Spinsanity]

(never forget the "bonus hits carry all rules of the roll that made them" debacle)

Don’t mix up FAQ with Errata. That change might have had a huge inpact in some cases, but didn’t require changing any rule’s wording in the slightest...

[chapter master 454]

Ok so I got my foot in my mouth for that. However I am trying to convey some sense of reasoning behind what they have done. GW has never been consistent with ruling and understanding what the implications are.

 

For example: Long-Rang Marksmen doesn't affect the Meltagun, Gravgun or Flamer PROFILE of combi-weapons as those profiles aren't the maximum range of the weapon. A precedent set by the PA: The Greater Good FAQ where Hybridised Weaponry is allegedly only affecting the "Long" Profile on Pulse Blasters. Tried e-mailing their rules team, no response yet nor any changes in the respectiev FAQ on the site when updated so don't you go thinking you can get them cheeky Combi-Meltas up to 15" range, no. Bad. GW aren't very clever nor considerate of phrasing, wording and thinking about the implications of answering a question.

 

However it stands that possibly the new version isn't something for 8th edition. Possibly gives the vehicle a number of benefits such as possibly ignoring the penalty for shooting units within its engagement range, possibly able to shoot regardless of being engaged (like some super heavies) or even possibly its own built in "has double wounds when checking the damage table".

[Kallas]

 

(never forget the "bonus hits carry all rules of the roll that made them" debacle)

Don’t mix up FAQ with Errata. That change might have had a huge inpact in some cases, but didn’t require changing any rule’s wording in the slightest...

 

If you're talking about specifically the FAQ section of the FAQ documents, then yeah. But considering that GW's blurb for that section of the Warhammer Community site reads:

"Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team."

 

"Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata"

 

These 'FAQ' documents are, in fact, FAQs, Updates and Erratas, all in one. There is no separate Errata document (and good, that'd be stupid).

 

I kind of think it does. They're usually pretty reserved with their changes in FAQs. This is a pretty reserved approach as well.

But as usual the insane backslash is ridiculous and silly.

 

Really?

 

"UPDATES & ERRATA

Page 109 – Combat Doctrines Replace the Combat Doctrines ability with the following (note that the Devastator Doctrine, Tactical Doctrine and Assault Doctrine remain unchanged): ‘If your army is Battle-forged and if every unit from your army has this ability (excluding Servitor and Unaligned units), this unit gains a bonus (see below) depending on which combat doctrine is active for your army, as follows:

• During the first battle round, the Devastator Doctrine is active for your army.

• During the second battle round, the Tactical Doctrine is active for your army.

• At the start of the third battle round, select either the Tactical Doctrine or Assault Doctrine: until the end of that battle round, the doctrine you selected is active for your army.

• During the fourth and subsequent battle rounds, the Assault Doctrine is active for your army. Unless specified otherwise, this bonus is not cumulative with any other rules that improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of a weapon (e.g. the Storm of Fire Warlord Trait).’ "

 

That's such a reserved rule change, right? Not a substantial change to how a very impactful rule (especially when factoring in the related 'Super Doctrines' intertwine with it) works, right?

 

PotMS would have been less impactful than the changes to Tau's For The Greater Good, but no, of course, PotMS would have been too huge a change! :rolleyes:

 

Give me a break, this defence holds no water; including PotMS would have been an extremely simple addition.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

(never forget the "bonus hits carry all rules of the roll that made them" debacle)

Don’t mix up FAQ with Errata. That change might have had a huge inpact in some cases, but didn’t require changing any rule’s wording in the slightest...

My point was more that they change game mechanics in the same file all the time; the line between faq and errata has always been blurry at best. White scars just got a big buff in the latest round, in the errata section, where they changed a mechanic. See combat doctrines and supplement changes where similar things happened.

 

Deleting potms instead of just changing it to do something else is the outlier, not the standard.

 

Edit: looks like I got ninjad lol

Edited July 18, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk

[Lemondish]

I think deleting it was the right move instead of adding on another bonus rule to already expensive models.

 

Good riddance.

[Bat33.1]

40k lead developer Stu Black did say 'PotMS would do something different in 9th' on the live stream when asked about the interaction of it with vehicle heavy weapons shooting penalty being removed. It does seem kind of late in the day for it to be just FAQ'd to delete if it was to be changed as you would expect any change to PotMS to be play tested as part of the change to 9th? At the end of the day it's a rule from a previous edition that has now gone just like when we had stat lines that included initiative and nothing stops GW from re-writing or bringing back either one.

 

They have also removed all other rules that had the same effect - Tri Tracked for DG as an example but they missed the interaction of the Custodes strat with PotMS clearly. There are a fair few other things in the rules that still need clearing up but hopefully many of them are dealt with in the 2 week FAQ after the book releases.