What would you like to see in the next FAQ ?

[Brother Sutek]

Have to agree a reworking of the Dark Angels would make me happy. So much potential.

[ProsperoStands]

Thanks for the input. With Covid still around I just managed to finish my letter asking for a new FAQ/Errata for the HH 

In regards to the FAQ/Errata : I asked for

Cementing the playtest rules the released in the previous 02/2019 errata

Having a look at these old units that need a buff or point reduction :

Phoenix terminators, Reavers, Rampagers (and more specifically their cadere weapons), Headhunters, Iron Circle and Templar Bretheren.

Buff Breachers and Sicaran Omega

Considering toning down the Sekhmet and Angel’s Tears squads

A rework of the Spicula so that its firing mechanic doesn’t feel so odd and counterintuitive (instead of playing with blasts markers, just designate a squad and roll to know how many shots were fired for example)

Giving Dawnbreakers and Firewing Enigmatus frag grenades

Finally my biggest request is to have a proper rework of the Dark Angels set of rules. Namely the Legion specific RoW, Scion rules, Lion’s rules and legion specific Wargear.  The legion is a mess right now and I feel is one that needs attention rulewise.

 

Hopefully FW will do something about these requests if enough people did send a letter asking for updated rules/Fix/FAQ

 

Soooooo a complete redo of book 9? You know that wont happen right? As a 1st legion player they are not that bad.

[Allart01]

You are right, a complete book 9 redo isn't happening.

Still, the Hexagrammaton rules definitely need a revision, because some are clearly useless or redundant. The main offenders, to me, are Deathwing being a flat-out inferior version of Firewing, and Ravenwing doing nothing for Bikes outside of their RoW.

The Lion interacting with them in some ways would also be nice.

It's probably not gonna happen, but I would *like* to see his Sire of the Dark Angels rule changed to "can choose one of the Hexagrammaton/Hekatonistika special rules at the start of the battle" or something like that. It would reinforce the Lion's position as the apex of every Wing and Order, would make him interact with the Rows, and it would provide him a pinch of his bespoke tactical flexibility.

He can do without the uninspired Word Bearers discipline bonus, reinforcing his aloofness - after all, Luther was the inspiring one.

Edited January 2, 2021 by The_Bloody

[Gorgoff]

 

 

Thanks for the input. With Covid still around I just managed to finish my letter asking for a new FAQ/Errata for the HH

In regards to the FAQ/Errata : I asked for

Cementing the playtest rules the released in the previous 02/2019 errata

Having a look at these old units that need a buff or point reduction :

Phoenix terminators, Reavers, Rampagers (and more specifically their cadere weapons), Headhunters, Iron Circle and Templar Bretheren.

Buff Breachers and Sicaran Omega

Considering toning down the Sekhmet and Angel’s Tears squads

A rework of the Spicula so that its firing mechanic doesn’t feel so odd and counterintuitive (instead of playing with blasts markers, just designate a squad and roll to know how many shots were fired for example)

Giving Dawnbreakers and Firewing Enigmatus frag grenades

Finally my biggest request is to have a proper rework of the Dark Angels set of rules. Namely the Legion specific RoW, Scion rules, Lion’s rules and legion specific Wargear. The legion is a mess right now and I feel is one that needs attention rulewise.

 

Hopefully FW will do something about these requests if enough people did send a letter asking for updated rules/Fix/FAQ

 

Soooooo a complete redo of book 9? You know that wont happen right? As a 1st legion player they are not that bad.

None of the wishlisting in this thread will happen.

Maybe, just maybe, we'll get a FAQ which clears some minor issues like "Do scoring units in a transport still score?"

Stuff like that.

Hoping for more is delusional and the easiest way to disappointment.

 

What you guys want, what EVERY HH player I know wants, is Legiones Astartes Age of Darkness 2.0, Legiones Astartes Age of Darkness Army List 2.0 and Age of Darkness Rulebook 2.0.

Everything else is would be only new paint on an old car.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Gorgoff

[SkimaskMohawk]

Eh, I'm fine with the current rule book*. Theres some mechanical interactions that need a tweak (like the transport issue or the praevian melta bomb immunity), but those are all just copy/paste issues from the 7th edition rules.

 

*the one dramatic change I'd like to see is the terrain rules go back to 6th style. It'd solve a ton of problems with barrage and blast weapons being dominant.

[Gorgoff]

Eh, I'm fine with the current rule book*. Theres some mechanical interactions that need a tweak (like the transport issue or the praevian melta bomb immunity), but those are all just copy/paste issues from the 7th edition rules.

 

*the one dramatic change I'd like to see is the terrain rules go back to 6th style. It'd solve a ton of problems with barrage and blast weapons being dominant.

Been too long since I've played 6th.

How did terrain work back then?

 

I've some points which I'd change.

How psykers work, building and terrain should have levels/ floors, how duels work, how look out sir work, clarification on transported models and little titbitz here and there.

Nothing too major really but the changes I've in my mind would improve the game without altering it too much.

A new AoD Army list and Legions book is way more important.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Gorgoff

[Billy the Squid]

While an FAQ would be good for some minor and technical issues, I think what the game needs more is a more extensive errata, the 1.1v play test rules were a step in the right direction improving certain units and rebalancing some points values, but now all the Legions are present a comprehensive review of what they wanted to achieve with the Legion unique units would be a welcome place to start followed by a review of unique Legion RoWs. 

 

I tend to be wary of just straight buffing units and loath power creep, but as with the playtest rules some units were sorely in need of a buff eg: the Ashen Circle's Axe rakes. Phalanx Warders, Destroyers, Veteran points reduction etc. 

 

For example consistency among unique Legion units leaps to mind, why are some unique Terminators w2 and others w1? It's not entirely clear to me why, or if the value has been taken into account in the points cost. Transport options aren't consistent (SoH Justaerin Terminators can't select Spartans as a dedicated transport according to the the rules. Is this an oversight or by design? If so why? Crimson Paladin rules desperately need a re write, the detail on the models are fantastic, but the rule are just bad. 

 

if that means a second edition red book for the Legions I'd rather have that than a mass of erretas and FAQs stitching things together. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

Eh, I'm fine with the current rule book*. Theres some mechanical interactions that need a tweak (like the transport issue or the praevian melta bomb immunity), but those are all just copy/paste issues from the 7th edition rules.

 

*the one dramatic change I'd like to see is the terrain rules go back to 6th style. It'd solve a ton of problems with barrage and blast weapons being dominant.

Been too long since I've played 6th.

How did terrain work back then?

You could put models in ruins and still shoot lol.

 

Barrage couldn't shoot if it was under a ruins floor. The barrage would also only hit the floor the center hole landed over instead of going through the entire thing. Blast weapons would have to choose a ruins level to target and could only kill the models on that floor; if it scattered off that level it'd miss completely.

 

Back in the days of betrayal, the ruins and far less blast weapons (especially the 0-1 artillery unit) made infantry a lot more survivable. 7th really skewed the power of barrage and blast weapons.

[Billy the Squid]

 

 

Eh, I'm fine with the current rule book*. Theres some mechanical interactions that need a tweak (like the transport issue or the praevian melta bomb immunity), but those are all just copy/paste issues from the 7th edition rules.

 

*the one dramatic change I'd like to see is the terrain rules go back to 6th style. It'd solve a ton of problems with barrage and blast weapons being dominant.

Been too long since I've played 6th.

How did terrain work back then?

You could put models in ruins and still shoot lol.

 

Barrage couldn't shoot if it was under a ruins floor. The barrage would also only hit the floor the center hole landed over instead of going through the entire thing. Blast weapons would have to choose a ruins level to target and could only kill the models on that floor; if it scattered off that level it'd miss completely.

 

Back in the days of betrayal, the ruins and far less blast weapons (especially the 0-1 artillery unit) made infantry a lot more survivable. 7th really skewed the power of barrage and blast weapons.

 

 

That should probably be reverted, I'm currently rebuilding my armies for the HH so last time I played 40k was back towards the end of the 4th edition when Cities of Death first came out out, back in the misty days of the past.

 

I do think AP3 barrage weapons are a bit too ubiquitous at the moment for my taste,by the look of it 6th ed. rules ruins with multiple levels would go some way to reigning that in, maybe because I still remember 4th edition cities of death but a preponderance of one type of weapon which is the go to for every problem is detrimental to the game.

 

To dislodge entrenched infantry from an urban environment (which history has shown is always a bloody and gruelling affair) it should require template/ blast weapons ie: flamethrowers/ phosphex (forcing you to clear out buildings level by level as they could only target one floor at a time), specialist assault infantry/ Terminators, siege tanks like Vindicators etc. throwing out AP3 pie plates from artillery should not be as effective as specialist units. (unless artillery is firing over open sights, in which case it'd still be limited to targeting a single floor of the building)

 

It's something I think they'll need to address as we get into some of the later books where major city fights take place, especially the Siege of the Imperial Palace, I can't imagine that... "Haha my artillery killed your Fists' squad" "you mean the 5 foot thick, reinforced concrete ceiling didn't protect my men, because it's a ruin not a bunker?" "rules say no, so yes they're dead"

 

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem to keep with the spirit of the game to me, and yes, I am saying this as someone who's seriously considering building up a big Iron Warriors force, with the ungodly amount of barrage, blast and AP3 heavy weapons they can field, as fun as it can be to obliterate entire units off the board... eh, I've been on the receiving end of Imperial Guard players that have set up the board and terrain in their favour, it's not fun spending 6 turns getting hammered by AP3 artillery and ordinance with no cover and no chance in hell of doing anything about it. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Billy the Squid

[Gorgoff]

If your unit stands in the area terrain you do have cover @billy. ;)

Besides, minmaxing your army is the problem and not the possibility to so so.

@skimask: I have to ask: why couldn't units in ruins not shoot?

[SkimaskMohawk]

If your unit stands in the area terrain you do have cover @billy. ;)

Besides, minmaxing your army is the problem and not the possibility to so so.

@skimask: I have to ask: why couldn't units in ruins not shoot?

They can, but having them in a position where they can shoot means they can get shot in return. Being in a ruin in 5th-6th mean that at least a lot of blast damage was mitigated to like 3 models dying compared to 7ths every model being tagged by the blasts.

[Astartes Consul]

Got to agree that hopes for a wide ranging FAQ/Errata - although fun to speculate on - are pie in the sky. Still holding out that the lack of FAQ in 2020 is in part because there will be new Legions / Army List books in 2021.

 

One minor thing I hope does get done is that the rules for auxiliary super heavy detachments are put at the back of an army list somewhere - having to hunt out old, unspecified editions of Imperial Armour to get the right rules is not fun. 

[Gorgoff]

 

If your unit stands in the area terrain you do have cover @billy. ;)

Besides, minmaxing your army is the problem and not the possibility to so so.

@skimask: I have to ask: why couldn't units in ruins not shoot?

They can, but having them in a position where they can shoot means they can get shot in return. Being in a ruin in 5th-6th mean that at least a lot of blast damage was mitigated to like 3 models dying compared to 7ths every model being tagged by the blasts.

I like true line of sight and really don't like it when the miniatures stand in the open but because it is calles rubble they get a 4+ cover. I see the benefit though.

So agree to disagree here.

Or at least partial because I want levels back as well. Was fun and pretty immersive to hide troops from barrage.

I remember fondly a game on a table which was packed with buildings and ruins. I had some mortars (was a very small game) which forced him to run from cover to cover. Really good rule which they should bring back.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Oh it was still true line of sight based, and area terrain's abstraction still exists in 7th. The survivability came from only the top floor models dying to barrage and only models on a specific floor dying to direct blasts.

[Brother Sutek]

Having levels was solid IMO. There should be a reason to split your unit onto different floors of a building. As was mentioned blasts now hit everything under, it feels like 8th edition with the random roll for how many hits and less tactical. Heck I'd like to see people actually using hvy bolters again but that is way off topic.

[Gorgoff]

I would like something to be done with NL Contekar Terminators, it's really weird that they have 3 weapons completely exclusive to them and all of hem are of debatable usefulness (unswappable rending swords on Termis are fairly underwhelming, so is heavy volkite weapon with range of a serpenta and overpriced shredding fist). This might be a minor issue overall but I feel frustrated by it.

 

Well, here you go. Are you happy now? ;)

[Lautrec the Embraced]

 

I would like something to be done with NL Contekar Terminators, it's really weird that they have 3 weapons completely exclusive to them and all of hem are of debatable usefulness (unswappable rending swords on Termis are fairly underwhelming, so is heavy volkite weapon with range of a serpenta and overpriced shredding fist). This might be a minor issue overall but I feel frustrated by it.

 

Well, here you go. Are you happy now?

 

Hardly, I didn't even notice any difference at all at first especially that I'd go for mix loadout of flamers and volkites so pointwise it's similar... Weird that they bother with such tiny changes to NL with so many glaring issues in DA and other anyway.  

 

I don't know, I get it's a buff though did they even need it? They still don't appeal to me with their weird loadout - call me old fashioned but I trust my regular/command squad termis with combi-plasmas and axes/chainfists more. Part of the problem is Lord of the Night rule - it turns them into eerie yet powerful HQ...but I don't really aim to use them that way, therefore my view is kinda skewed. Weird unit for sure, simultaneously underwhelming and maybe too strong even, depending on how you understand them.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

I would like something to be done with NL Contekar Terminators, it's really weird that they have 3 weapons completely exclusive to them and all of hem are of debatable usefulness (unswappable rending swords on Termis are fairly underwhelming, so is heavy volkite weapon with range of a serpenta and overpriced shredding fist). This might be a minor issue overall but I feel frustrated by it.

 

Well, here you go. Are you happy now? ;)

With the change to the volkite, a squad of 5 contekar actually does more against termies than most other legion special unit that does melee. Deathshroud, justaerin, Phoenix guard, ebon keshig, suzerains, gal vorbak; they're all lower damage. Only dawnbreakers and glaive raptors equal it and only Butchers really surpass it.

[Lautrec the Embraced]

But do they really? At least Gal Vorbak w/2 Axes will outperform them on the shooting+charge despite their pathetic guns against TEQ (maybe you triggered TfM, I didn't). Besides Justaerin or any Termi squad with access to plasma would also net us more damage in both shooting (I know, only once due to combis but still) or CC. In addition, many units mentioned above are either cheaper or more durable than Contekar so I am not certain this comparison is really so favourable to our bullies.

 

I agree that they can be quite a compelling choice for HQ choice and alright for Elite one but I wouldn't demonize/praise them as a particularly effective heavy infantry. They'll roast regular marines or lower alright and can hurt termis quite a bit but neither volkite nor fancy power swords are an effective tool against them. And maybe that's all good and balanced, it's just not what I look for in terminators. (Maybe discussion about Contekar should be carried on in a separate thread?)

Edited January 13, 2021 by Lautrec the Embraced

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea Gal vorbak with 2 axes will get .5 more unsaved wounds to total 4.8. And yea, you can upgun justaerin or legion terminators to deal more damage. But as you noted, the contekar are a compulsory hq, so the points are a little skewed so for most others it's "minimum 50 point centurion + unit".

 

As you said, it's what you look for in a unit. I just don't equate terminators with "must be the most obvious melee damage dealer" as its a pretty limiting approach. I also don't really know what more people want if it is just melee killing power, because we can see their damage is pretty high all things considered. Like straight up red butcher stuff where they don't score or shoot or do force org stuff but punch things in the face?