9th edition codex supplement

[Vermintide]

Yeah pretty much, the other side of the argument relies on the phrasing "makes an attack" referring to one, specific, individual attack, but that isn't how things work for the rest of the rules.

 

Any time you "make an attack", you always use the full number of attacks as per that model's attacks characteristic, and if the Assault Doctrine is active for any part of that process, then that model's attack characteristic has been increased, meaning "makes an attack" includes that extra attack(s).

 

Hard to explain without sounding convoluted I guess but i think you've pretty convincingly argued it already.

[Rhavien]

I had sent them an email as soon as the pdf had dropped. Didn't got a reply, but I hope enough ppl have asked so they realise there is a need for clarification.

Anyway, I'm stoked to get more games in with the codex. Need to finally finish my eliminators, though.

[BluejayJunior]

It's a well thought out argument. But I am skeptical of any explanation that requires that level of detail to make your point. When you have to be that stingy on what every word means and whether or not "making an attack" is plural or singular, it makes it seem that you're just digging to prove the answer you want to be true. Either way it is absolutely something that should be clarified. 

[Spagunk]

It's a well thought out argument. But I am skeptical of any explanation that requires that level of detail to make your point. When you have to be that stingy on what every word means and whether or not "making an attack" is plural or singular, it makes it seem that you're just digging to prove the answer you want to be true. Either way it is absolutely something that should be clarified. 

I don't agree with this outlook just because I have witness countless times when it actually did matter how each word is phrased in GW products. I get the whole "KISS"/Occums Razor bit but I think it's more detrimental to wave off everything having to do with the sequence of events because it's easier to do it one way vs. the other.

[Diagramdude]

Both sides of the argument require a very granular level of detail. The no-extra-attack argument gets into the gritty procedural steps of number of attacks being calculated before making an attack, and the yes-extra-attack refers to the attacks characteristic being determined during, not before, the Make Close Combat Attacks procedure.

 

The distinction is so narrow that a high level of detail is required, but that's the kind of game 40k is. 

[Diagramdude]

I made a second pass at the rules and I have to retract my argument because of the Savage Echoes wording:

 

Savage Echoes: Whilst the Assault Doctrine is active, if a unit with this ability makes a charge move, is charged or performs a Heroic Intervention, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models in that unit until the end of the turn (note that this is cumulative with the bonus these models receive from the Shock Assault ability). ()

 

I don't think there can be any logical stretch made to argue Blood Chalice puts the unit into the Assault Doctrine during the charge phase. The Attacks Characteristic is increased at the moment the unit makes a charge, is charged or performs a heroic intervention. By the time Blood Chalice kicks in when you are making attacks, it's far past the point in the charge phase where the Attacks Characteristic would have been modified by Savage Echoes. You do check your attacks characteristic when making attacks, but find that you only have +1 for Shock Assault, not +2 from Shock Assault and Savage Echoes.

 

So in turns 1 and 2, you sip the blood and charge. You DON'T trigger Savage Echoes when charging because that only happens 'whilst the Assault Doctrine is active,' then when you go to make your attacks, your weapons have an extra AP, and that's it. 

 

Sad face.

 

EDIT: Nevermind!!! They updated Savage Echoes in the codex. It now reads

 

Savage Echoes: Whilst the Assault Doctrine is active, each time this unit fights, if it made a charge move, was charged or performed a Heroic Intervention this turn, then until that fight is resolved, add 1 to the Attacks Characteristic of models in this unit.

 

That new wording lines up PERFECTLY with Blood Chalice, so we definitely get the extra attack. Huzzah!

Edited December 12, 2020 by Diagramdude

[Hintzy]

While the change in wording of Savage Echoes addressed one issue, it did not address the primary issue at hand. We've gotten distracted from the original wording issue, which is that of the Blood Chalice ability itself.

 

Since this is the topic du jour, and we don't seem to have anything else to hold our attention until an FAQ:

Blood Chalice: "...each time a model in that unit makes an attack, the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that attack instead."

 

To me this clearly states that the Assault Doctrine is considered active only for each singular attack as they're rolled, and not one instant sooner, ie the point when you calculate how many attacks are to be made.

 

I eagerly await an FAQ explaining why I'm an idiot.

 

Additionally, I think this wording was intentionally copied/pasted from Adaptive Strategy by someone who didn't realize it wouldn't activate Savage Echoes because this wording would activate other super doctrines from other chapters, most if not all of which are effects applied to singular attacks like increased damage, re-rolling hit rolls, proccing extra attacks on 6's, etc.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Hintzy

[Diagramdude]

Hintzy I guess I would ask you where in the core rules you would place the calculate number of attacks step. When I read it, choose models and determine number of attacks are step 1a and 1b. When you make the attack, you check your attacks characteristic first, with the assault doctrine active for that attack characteristic lookup.

 

Making an attack is a singular procedure that might then break out into separate dice rolls of five thunder hammer swings or six chainsword swings

[Hintzy]

On page 229 of the Indomitus rulebook under Make Close Combat Attacks it says "When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with."

 

In that instance calculating the number of attacks is at least two steps removed from resolving those attacks.

 

A few paragraphs down you are directed to pg220 for instructions on how to make an attack, the first step of which is the hit roll. Based on that I think it's reasonable to assume that the "makes an attack" portion of the Blood Chalice ability is referring to the resolution of the singular attack itself.

[Diagramdude]

I definitely see where you are coming from. I think both sides can make a coherent argument, which sucks for playing the game and writing lists. It makes a huge difference to our faction since a Sanguinary Priest can put the chalice on two units.

 

I think we just need to hope for a day 1 FAQ. The clunky wording is an oversight considering other chapters’ assault doctrine benefit aren’t tied to the attacks characteristic.

[Rhavien]

It's a bit late for a day 1 FAQ, isn't it? By now everyone who wanted the codex should have it in hand. I really hope we get the +1 attack for savage echos. On the other side you wouldn't see a BA list without a priest anymore. At least it would explain the high price for his jump pack. Handing out such good buffs plus the high mobility is worth the points.

[Diagramdude]

Even if GW rules out +1 attack in the FAQ, I think the Sanguinary Priest Chief Apothecary is still a near auto-include for the 6+ FNP, 2 flat 3 heals and a 0CP revival. The 6+ FNP is much more important now that marines are 2W base because it really screws with damage 2 weapons.

 

The impact of bringing back an extra Plasma Inceptor or Sanguinary Guard or Outrider can be massive in the later turns of a scrappy game. You can also tactically position the revived guy anywhere in unit coherency, which can often place lead model of the unit 3.25" closer to the target. The Blood Chalice is gravy on top of that. 

[highwind]

Since this is the topic du jour, and we don't seem to have anything else to hold our attention until an FAQ:

Blood Chalice: "...each time a model in that unit makes an attack, the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that attack instead."

 

To me this clearly states that the Assault Doctrine is considered active only for each singular attack as they're rolled, and not one instant sooner, ie the point when you calculate how many attacks are to be made.

So, if we follow that argumentation, what would the Blood Chalice actually do for the unit it is used upon?

-1 AP for pistoles and melee weapons? Actually not, because:

 

pg 125 SM codex:

 

Combat Doctrines

"If every unit from your army has the ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword (excluding AGENT OF THE I MPERIUM and UNALIGNED units), this unit gains a bonus (see below) depending on which combat doctrine is active for your army, as follows:"

 

Assault Doctrine

While this combat doctrine is active, improve the Armour Penetration characteristic of every Pistol and Melee weapon that models in this unit are equipped with by 1.

 

 

So, the bonus seen below (-1AP for pistol and melee weapons) is, by the wording of the Combat Doctrines rule, (also) only gained if the doctrine is active for your army (and not for the attack).

 

 

 

 

The REAL question we should ask ourselves is:

Does "active for your army" equal "active for every model/unit of your army"?

Edited December 20, 2020 by highwind

[Vermintide]

Really they should have worded it "the Assault Doctrine is considered to be active for that combat phase" or similar instead. I'm 99% certain that was the intent of the rule, and I'm basing that on pure intuitive common sense, because interpreting it in any other way requires massive, massive pedantry.

 

It's also because I've become quite invested in the idea of a squad of Bladeguard with a Chapter Master and Master Apothecary getting 5 attacks each, at AP-4, re-rolling hits, recovering all their lost wounds and getting back up for free... But shhh.

 

The whole "active for your army" bit is just the rulesy way of saying "No, you don't suddenly get this buff on your soup list."

Edited December 20, 2020 by Vermintide

[SanguiniusJr]

 

Chapter champion is also a cheap source of rerolls. He’s a reasonable beat stick in his own right and his included combat shield can be upgraded to the Shield Eternal. He is a good candidate for footslogging

Yes, the Chapter Champion seems to be appearing in Wolf Lists. The only downside from our POV is no deep strike so you may need to consider a pod to deliver him.

On the plus side, he can be slot-free if you take a captain and command squad. The Command squad also allow you to play some fun tricks by making your characters untargetable (not recommended for friendly games).

How do you take a command squad?

[Karhedron]

How do you take a command squad?

Sorry, Command Squad is the name for the rule, not unit.

 

What it involves is taking a Captain. This allows you to take a unit of Company Veterans without using up a slot on the chart. If you take this option, you are then allowed to take an Ancient, Apothecary and Company Champion without using up slots either.

 

If you look at the entries for those units, you will see the Command Squad rule listed. This is handy if you fund yourself running short on Elite slots although it only applies to the non-Primaris versions of those units.

[Diagramdude]

That is interesting because company veterans are great for cheap home objective holders. Too bad the Apothecary has to be firstborn, the Primaris Apothecary is such better value.

[Shaezus]

The firstborn apothecary is better in melee than the primaris. Boggling how the primaris can't take an astartes chainsword

[Karhedron]

That is interesting because company veterans are great for cheap home objective holders. Too bad the Apothecary has to be firstborn, the Primaris Apothecary is such better value.

 

I think it is to allow players who bought the older firstborn Command Squad sets to continue to run them in more or less the same fashion.

 

Company Veterans are handy as cheap Objective holders but also potentially fragile and don't have ObjSec. They are also handy for Actions like "Deploy Scramblers" where you do not want to tie up a more valuable squad.

[SnorriSnorrison]

With storm shields, they need some dedicated firepower to get rid of, especially when in cover. For the 48 points, it’s almost always overkill that’s needed in other places against your army. Win-win?

[Karhedron]

With storm shields, they need some dedicated firepower to get rid of, especially when in cover. For the 48 points, it’s almost always overkill that’s needed in other places against your army. Win-win?

 

48 points for 4 wounds behind a 2+/4++ save compared to a bare-bones tactical squad for 10 wounds behind a 3+ save. You make a good point.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think we'll see a primaris command squad eventually, just not now. Edited December 23, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[Vermintide]

I was genuinely expecting to see Bladeguard fill that role, with the changes to character targeting. In practice they're getting used exactly the same way anyway, just at the expense of an elite slot. I sense maybe it's something they toyed with and then decided to drop.

 

I still think it'd make sense to have characters joining units like older editions had. It feels like the only reason they can't is to require a separate charge roll, which feels pretty contrived when you intend to have your character lead a glorious charge, only to trip over his own shoe laces.

 

"Go right ahead guys, I'll catch up!"

[Silas7]

I was genuinely expecting to see Bladeguard fill that role, with the changes to character targeting. In practice they're getting used exactly the same way anyway, just at the expense of an elite slot. I sense maybe it's something they toyed with and then decided to drop.

 

I still think it'd make sense to have characters joining units like older editions had. It feels like the only reason they can't is to require a separate charge roll, which feels pretty contrived when you intend to have your character lead a glorious charge, only to trip over his own shoe laces.

 

"Go right ahead guys, I'll catch up!"

I wonder if:

Limit one HQ per unit

 

Would make the rule and the meta more fun and less broken

[WrathOfTheLion]

I had no illusions that BGV would act as a command squad once they showed them in Deathwing for Dark Angels. That gives a pretty good indication I think of how the GW rules team sees them.