Join us for the live show on our Twitch channel by following this link! The show starts at 11am, PST. The podcast and YouTube video-cast air at 9am, PST every Friday.
Scroll down to see the FAQ clarification GW posted this morning!
Show Notes
Date: 4-18-18
Intro
- Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, and YouTube! Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
- We sell tabletop games and supplies at a discount! Hit us up for your next gaming order at
- Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at store.FrontlineGaming.org.
News
- The Idoneth Deepkin are this week’s pre-order and holy cow do both the rules and models look amazing!
- We will be running a Friday RTT at KingdomCon/Broadside Bash for anyone interested in going. It is a bit of a late notice but we thought it would be fun to do! Space is limited but check it out if you’d like some good old ITC RTT style gaming! The rules are below, it’s super simple. We will also have a booth at KingdomCon with all kinds of goodies for sale including our new Display Trays and the Secondhand Shop inventory! Come by our booth for some great savings.
- Frontline Gaming RTT – 8am-8pmReecius here from Frontline Gaming to tell you about the KingdomCon FLG RTT!This will be a fun event held on Friday, April 20th, 2018 at the KingdomCon gaming convention.This will be an ITC format event using the ITC Champion’s Missions.Registration will begin at 8am. The First Round will start at 9am.Please email me with any questions. Thanks!
- We’ve had quite the lovely discussion about the new FAQ over at FLG which you can check out, here.
- Things are calming down a bit which is nice and people are seeing none of these spell the end of the world as we know it, lol.
- Predominantly, the changes have been very well received and will help balance the game quite a bit.
- Remember, as GW said in their recent article, beta rules can be tweaked before becoming finalized.
- And yes, the ITC will be using them. Each individual TO is as always the captain of their own ship, but official policy is adapt and move forward.
- Reecius accidentally states that Wyrdvane Psykers have the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, sorry, he was remembering 7th ed! That is not the case.
Upcoming ITC Events
Upcoming 40k ITC Events
- ADF Wargaming Association – ANZAC Cup 2018, Exhibition Park in Canberra, Canberra, Australia, April 21st, 2018
- Peculiar Games RTT, Peculiar Games and Hobbies, Peculiar, MO, April 21st, 2018
- Borderlands 40K 2000 Point ITC Tournament, Borderlands Comics and Games, Greenville, SC, April 21st, 2018
- Linebreakers Warhammer 40K ITC Tournament, Victorville, CA, April 21st, 2018
- 1500pt ITC Warhammer 40k RTT, Your Hobby Place, Martinsburg, WV, April 21st, 2018
- Burn in Hull: A 40k ITC event, Hulls Angels, Hull, England, April 21st, 2018
- Ardkore HEAT 4, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, April 21st, 2018
- Battle for Vendetta: ATC Prep Event, Vendetta Games, Dahlonega, GA, April 22nd, 2018
- Battle For The Wooden Spoon – April, Paper Games, Bartlesville, OK, April 22nd, 2018
- LBK Tour XXXVIII, Linkoping Sweden, April 22nd, 2018
- MAJOR: Broadside Bash 2018, Kingdom Con, San Diego CA, April 21-22nd, 2018
Upcoming AoS ITC Events
- Age Of Sigmar Wizards, Hero Complex Games And Entertainment, Wichita, KS, April 21st, 2018
- The Corn Berserkers AoS Tournament, Hancock Fabrics, West Des Moines, IA, April 22nd, 2018
- 1500 pts Age of Sigmar, Sequence Gaming, Ontario, Canada, April 28th, 2018
- The Unbound April SIgmar Tournament, Games Workshop: Scottsdale Towne Center, Scottsdale, AZ, April 29th, 2018
- Warhammer Spring Bash, Mythic Games, Elmira, NY, April 29th, 2018
40k ITC Top 10
| Rank | First Name | Last Name | Points | Events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Joshua | Death | 616.95 | 5 of 5 |
| 2 | Matt | Root | 563.92 | 4 of 5 |
| 3 | Daniel | Sansone | 448.93 | 5 of 5 |
| 4 | Gary | Frank | 443.12 | 4 of 5 |
| 5 | Sean | Nayden | 430.17 | 4 of 5 |
| 6 | Mitchell | Pelham | 426.09 | 4 of 5 |
| 7 | Shawn | Prosser | 409.59 | 4 of 5 |
| 8 | Nick | Rose | 396.11 | 3 of 5 |
| 9 | Paul | Bowman | 379.96 | 4 of 5 |
| 10 | Jeremy | Applebaum | 375.48 | 4 of 5 |
AoS ITC Top 10
| Rank | First Name | Last Name | Points | Events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jarrett | Zazuetta | 303.07 | 3 of 5 |
| 2 | Mathew | Jones | 270.19 | 3 of 5 |
| 3 | Steven | Hyche | 228.46 | 2 of 5 |
| 4 | James | Thomas | 226.72 | 2 of 5 |
| 5 | Ben | Klos | 193.36 | 2 of 5 |
| 6 | John | Feuerhelm | 192 | 2 of 5 |
| 7 | Jason | Heide | 188.58 | 2 of 5 |
| 8 | David | Rojo | 186.52 | 2 of 5 |
| 9 | Michael | Burch | 182.66 | 2 of 5 |
| 10 | Shane | Brakhage | 181.32 | 2 of 5 |
Tactics Corner
Completed Commissions
- The FLG Paint Studio has been killing it lately! Check out some of these beauties.
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
You know the depressing part, is that the Deep Strike change was lazy and stupid. It radically changes the game and was poorly considered. So rather than considered a more nuanced solution, you all fell back to what’s been done for the past 25 years because you couldn’t be bothered to think it through any further than that.
The game had gotten to a point where losing the first turn wasn’t a death sentence, now we’re back in the bad old days of lose initiative and pray your opponent is an idiot or incredibly unlucky.
Great job, keep selling it, I’m sure GW appreciates your support.
Yeah im pretty sure they made this rule not GW.
Gee dubs are beta testing this rule the 8th ed is still young
And im sure they will look into fixing the armys that get killed turn 1 cause of this rule
Or just use more terrain and play smart so the opponent doesnt get the chance to shoot you off the board turn 1. Easyer to hide now that they cant deepstrike turn 1 and shoot you.
Lol, dude, calm down. You are throwing out all of these suppositions and speculative ideas that have no basis in reality. You have literally no idea why and how the choice was made, lol, so it is silly of you to make these statements.
Seriously, jut take a deep breathe, chill, this isn’t something that should ruin your day. Just give it some time.
In all fairness, of course, they have no idea. Nobody does because the process is kept secret. Which is fair enough but you can’t complain that a lot of guesswork and speculation is gonna happen.
Speculation and guesswork isn’t the same thing as stating you don’t know as fact.
Also what purpose is served by speculating anyway? The end result will the same regardless and you’ve wasted your time.
If you’re trying to say that as TOs of one of the largest tournament series in the entire hobby that you weren’t at least consulted on some of these changes, I call bullshit.
I’m sure that Reece, as majority stockholder of multimillion dollar traded company Games Workshop , gave final approval to every change in the faq….
Or as has been stated multiple times, as members of the play test group, they share their findings, which GW chooses to accept or ignore as they seem fit
My money is on Illumi-Tau Reece laughing on top his piles and piles of GW supplied bags with dollar signs
It is sad but I’m mostly laughing at the idea of GW rewarding all the effort Frontline puts into making their game playable at all. Someday soon they’re just gonna randomly decide that tournaments are the devil or retailers are the source of their issues and just try and shut it all down.
You know what? They have been AWESOME to work with and they have really gone out of their way to help us make even better events. I and the others are super thankful for the support they have shown all of us in the community organization line of work.
The first rule of the Illumi-Tau FAQ Masons is there is no Illumi-Tau FAQ Masons, lol!
But yeah, we are openly playtesters, yes we do provide feedback but no we do not write the rules or the FAQs.
In other news, the V have been absolutely awesome to us and really improved the quality of life for everyone. We are very hopeful this trend will go on until they eat us.
Nice reference, lol
Reece
You might be safe from the Tau thing…I was reading on Dakka that you are the reason Guard didn’t get nerfed. ?
Lol. I have seen and done a lot of things in my life but never have I been in a position where people think I have vastly more influence than I do, even when I ardently deny it. Like, usually it is the opposite, you know? People trying to put on airs as having more influence or being more special than they are. It’s very strange, lol.
You realise everyone has to play by that rule right? It doesn’t only effect one army.
Why does the elevation assault need to stay. Is it because “Thems the rules”? Why can’t you guys simply change the rule for ITC missions, Frankie and Reece both said this was their least favorite FAQ change. I think the reason why people are coming to you arguing and complaining is because that’s what you guys used to solve. If we are supposed to go to our TOs and discuss whether to use the beta rules or not, who are we supposed to go to for the LVO and BAO?
We could just apopt last editions rules for fighting in ruins. You just have to be directly below the models on the upper floor.
Also, what unassaultable units were in the game before this? Flyers? You just need to have the fly rule to assault them. Units in ruins? You used infantry. Am I missing something here?
I agree. This one is a mistake. We have a GW furnace that fits a RipTide base nicely. Does this mean if he starts on top of it, he can never be assaulted by anything?
I always agreed with those who believe anything that cuts down the ability for armies to interact is a detriment to the game. Armies that are very assault heavy are going to be at a huge disadvantage. It’s not that hard to line the top of a building with models/battlesuits/vehicles to make it nearly impossible to assault.
While I agree to an extent, you can shoot a few of those models and all of a sudden you have room. Or just go jump on objectives and win the mission, too, if that is a possibility.
Some models do not have guns. Some models are difficult to kill with shooting. Just because the problem is not completely unsolvable does not mean the problem doesn’t exist.
I never claimed it wasn’t an issue, just trying to illustrate that it isn’t a binary situation. Folks are trying to present it as: On terrain=immune to assault, which isn’t accurate.
And if you army has NO ranged attacks at all, you built an army that is probably not going to win regardless of the terrain rules. 8th ed is very much about combined arms tactics.
If you are assaulting with Infantry you can just come up through the floor and by-pass the line of models on the edge of the building. Riptides and other large models with Fly are going to interact poorly with some specific pieces of terrain, it is not something you can rely on or list build for but I agree it will create poor situations for some armies. On the other hand LOS blocking terrain is a major pain the other way round, it does nothing to inhibit assault armies but stops shooting armies from interacting at all. The current simple terrain rules just do stuff like that.
I can see possible abuses with the new rule but if you really think the wobbly model rule was never being abused then I wonder what game you have been playing. I have never once had a player admit to a positioning mistake during combat once they go into wobbly model mode and do not really have to position their models correctly. Nobody is that perfect, nobody ever plays the perfect game but as soon as they do not really have to position the models they all suddenly claim that they have positioned them perfectly.
Anything that can’t go through walls of ruins could find themselves in unassaultable situations, now. Pretty much anything that doesn’t have the infantry keyword.
So, you have a unit on the other side of a wall, anything that can’t move through the wall cannot charge that unit. This is especially prevalent with ruins that have 3 or 4 walls (and with 4, a unit inside is invulnerable to assault completely except by infantry), or very long walls.
And as we have said many times since 8th ed dropped, we are no longer in the business of changing rules. We work with GW on rules issues and this is one they point blank said they intended it to work as they wrote it. What you can do, is talk to them in a very measured and polite way, explaining that you do not like that rule and explain why.
Now, what we can do as TO’s is define what constitutes placing a model. We have room to move there.
Reece is this still true with GWs interpretation of the Fly rule? They seem serious that units with fly “can move across models and terrain as if they were not there” (BRB pg 177).
I should add that charging, pile in and consolidation is considered movement.
The Fly keyword gets around a lot of stuff, yeah.
I appreciate the clear and thorough explanation. It may be a knee-jerk reaction but non-interactive aspects of the game rub me the wrong way. The FAQ other than this part is great, and it was a pleasure to watch your show as always.
Yeah, I feel you. I think there is room to move on that particular issue though as it leaves a lot of questions as is.
Glad you enjoyed the show!
To my understanding it was possible to assault units with vehicles, atleast during the LVO, if the unit behind the wall was within 1″ of the charging vehicle when it ended its assault, despise it bein behind 3 or more walls.
Yes, if you end within 1″ of a model you are in melee with it by RAW, even if there is a wall between you. Silly, but that is the way the rule reads.
However, you just keep your models inside and more than 1″ from the outer edge of the wall.
My biggest concern now is the ability for anybody with access to AM to spam indirect firing artillery.
Terrain doesn’t save you and AM can easily spam enough artillery to make your first turn exceedingly painful, and you can’t hide from it at all.
Nothing stops them from doing that now. That list hasn’t been a top level list since NOVA Open last year. That isn’t going to change, IMO. What caused that list to lose steam was the prevalence of -1 to hit armies, it was not because of deep strikers. -1 to hit for AM is brutal, very difficult to overcome, and their artillery just wasn’t cutting it, plus losing the ultra cheap conscripts was what put the nail in that coffin.
The top AM lists now are actually assault heavy, funny enough. Bullgryn, Catachan infantry and support characters do most of the heavy lifting backed up by a few artillery tanks (like 2) and often a super heavy tank.
I’d like to see a write up about how you’d use guard post-FAQ. After the first few weeks post-codex, the Guard material kinda dried up.
I wholeheartedly with this request for post-FAQ tactics updates
Yeah, no problem. My AM list literally changes not at all. The FAQ did nothing to it, but it was a straight up “normal” army, so to speak, really no gimmicks.
Sad but this whole outrage is basic human nature. People being angry, and brainfarting left and right. Wish you unending patience, FLG team.
https://goo.gl/ZgmdUU
Thank you! However, we’re pretty used to it. Whenever rules changes happen people get pissed and as you noted, it is understandable.
I know after watching all of what you deal with, If I was a play-tester, I would never admit it. Take that shit to the grave.
Dude, I tell the other play testers every day to keep it to themselves, lol. So much better to be anonymous.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone with a major gripe concerning these FAQs, tried playing a few games with the Beta rules yet? Like if you can find legitimate, game breaking reasons why none of this should be implemented, and can prove it with actual scenarios, by all means spread the word on over to GW. These rules are for the benefit of the entire game. Yes there will be some collateral damage along the way with blanket changes like these, but that doesn’t mean that the armies effected can’t adapt to the current rule set. Personally, I don’t really agree with the 1st turn deepstrike restrictions, admittedly though, I have not play tested it yet. I want my Grey Knights to be valid just like everyone else. Instead of pointing fingers and claiming the game has been dumpstered, guess what I’m going to be doing this weekend? Playtesting the crap out of gunline and deepstriking armies. This has been THE BEST edition so far, solely in the fact that we finally have a living ruleset, and GW is actually listening to valid concerns that are conveyed accurately. We have a voice, and ultimately, we are the major driving factor behind these rule changes. If you don’t like something about the game, and you feel that a large part of the community agrees with you, present your in-game findings and encourage others to do the same.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Rubikan and for taking a measured approach to this. Appreciate it.
If you have to shoot 2/3rds of an enemy unit off a ledge to maybe pull 1 or 2 models into combat…what is the point of even having assault units in the first place? Just take your 200+ point assault unit and switch it for more shooting.
People who enjoy assault heavy armies are upset, it is justified. The playstyle already struggled and the FAQ made it just that little bit worse that might push it into irrelevance.
It’s not like your opponent can have their entire army on a ledge. There’s still plenty of stuff to charge on the ground…
Its more of the “just one more thing” effect. Can my opponent hide all their units…probably not. Can they hide the 3-4 units that can do the most damage to my army…quite possibly. There a have always been a lot of “ifs” to playing an assault army.
If there is enough terrain….
If I can kill or avoid my opponents screen…
If I can make my early charges…
If I can make average saves and get enough models to combat…
If there are midfield objectives to make my opponent play for…
If my opponent rolls average…
If I make 0 mistakes…
If all of those conditions are met I may previously be playing on parity.
The FAQ just added more ifs.
Note this isnt stopping me from taking a VERY assault heavy army to Storm of Silence. Will I struggle…yeah probably. Still gonna give it a go though, will probably make post tourney observations afterwards.
Note I am still taking a VERY assault heavy army to Storm of Silence. Will I struggle…almost certainly. Going to give it a shot though so I can either accept the changes or bitch in earnest.
It’s funny to read comments like this. Not funny because of the fact you are expressing distress, but it is always really interesting to me how much of a player’s perspective depends on their local meta. Here, the most powerful armies are very melee dependent. We all take some shooting, yeah, but the best performing lists locally are very much assault armies backed up with some guns. So the idea that assault struggles is just not reflected in our local meta at all. In fact, most of us are putting more assault elements in to our lists lately.
Having played LVO…I dont think most communities can have as much terrain as you guys do…or as heavily urban terrain as you do consistantly. Even though we play with a fair amount of terrain where I am there is still only so much a store can have and some tables are more woodland or desert terrain that lack as much LoS. In a 5 round I can count on sufficient terrain in 3 of 5 games. Those other 2 are rough.
I do really wish terrain were more standardized. Really hard to balance a game that plays completely differently based on how you set up the table.
Woodland and desert can just as easily have LoS-blocking terrain with big trees, rock formations, and so on.
It’s up to the community to ensure they have good terrain, it completely changes the game.
I’m not sure how my assault heavy armies are going to cope with IG and Tau getting an extra turn to light me up before I can assault them.
I am not even slightly concerned, personally. My only army that really changed was my Footdar that I would sometimes reserve the Banshees to drop and use Quicken to assault, but they work fine on the table.
My Tyranids walked up the table, too, the deep strike elements were kind of assault oriented but I will just wait a turn to do it.
My Catachans were a largely melee army, lol, so they don’t care, either.
With the clarification many of the armies that want to turn 1 assault still can.
If you can just hide assault units behind walls and never be shot why even take shooting units that cannot ignore LOS?
Same logic.
Some of the terrain rules do create non-interactive edge cases. If wobbly model is a cure-all for everything that might ever hinder an assault army then terrain is a pure advantage for one style of play and a pure disadvantage for another.
Absolutely pure 100% assault does struggle, as does pure 100% shooting in the current meta. Both have some games and some match-ups that are just really hard to win because they are fundamentally rather one-dimensional. We can add some terrain setups that seriously skew the game for either pure shooting or pure assault.
Assault army players who believed that terrain was always to their advantage are perhaps shocked that it is now only sometimes on their side – and sometimes is an actual problem for them.
Say what you want but the fact THAT they/gw actually change things is one gigantic positive sign!
No changes nor FAQs will be bug free and some might even worsen the game but as long as they listen to our whining, crying, complaining and *gasp* constructive criticism things can “in general” only get better.
My personal main problem is that the horrible codex creep imbalance is never really addressed seriously but that is just it, my personal gripe that I find important but that all else may not.
Sooner or later, after much community outrage, I am sure we will see a better and improved 40k, both tournament wise as well as beerhammer wise. Just hope I dont die of old age before that happens 😛
I agree =)
Honestly as I think about it there are a few additional changes I wish they had made to keep assault armies happy and improve interactivity in the game.
The big one in my mind being a simple change to fall back. The unit being fell back from gets to make a 3 inch consolidation move. I think that change would improve the game massively.
I think so as well.
They could also make a reverse overwatch against units that fall back. I mean if u charge into a unit , they get free overwatch. After your resolve your fight and roll like a potatoe they get a free atack phase. Then in the movement phase they just show you middle finger, blow a kiss and run away. We call it savage and bloodthirsty close combat.
Let the units being fallen back from make melee swings that hit on 6s like overwatch.
I’ve no idea why not just make melee be same as coherency:
1” from opponent on the ground or 5” vertically. This would solve this problem really easily.
That’s a good idea, worth suggesting to GW I think. Maybe allowing monsters to measure for this as if their base extended up to the top of their body (not head, wings, arms, guns etc.)?
Wrote them about it and about the no deepstrike turn 1 rule and how it ruins armies that rely on it
Right now there is almost no way for (non-nurgle) Chaos Daemons to compete as they rely on deepstrike. If you go second, you have to last through 2 whole turns. Turn 1 your opponent moves up without getting out of position. Turn 2 your opponent gets out of position but makes the board deepstrike proof. You cannot interract with the board until AFTER the first turn you can deepstrike.
Also it is next to impossible to reliably get First Blood equivalents due to very limited ranged options.
I can absolutely see why people aren’t happy about that, but at the same time as a more casual player first turn charges from deepstriking just weren’t fun, it’s not like they rely on a silly thing only comp players would do (like spamming one super unit) anyone could do them and unless you built to face them more casual lists just can’t deal with it.
Honestly I don’t really have an answer though as like I said I can see how it takes a very useful tool away from some armies at a competitive level. Maybe having it so the person who goes first can’t deepstrike turn 1, or maybe the half power level on the board would have been enough by itself? Or maybe even making the no turn one deepstrike a narrative play thing so in a format with not optimised lists anyway you have some protection from that?
I also think the event suggestion table thing should also mention los blocking terrain numbers, like 1 per quarter in 2000 point games, at least two on the centre line, something like that.
This might be an argument if pishing deepstrikers out wasnt cheap and easy for most armies.
Tau have kroot, stealth suits, and pathfinders.
Eldar have rangers.
All imperium armies have scouts and ratlings easily ebough.
Chaos can get nurglings.
Only armies off the top of my head thst dont have surefire deepstrike protection are Necrons and DE.
Which is fine if you’re in a competitive environment and you expect to build around it, of you’re not it’s an easy tactic that’s unfun to play against and ends games early.
I’m not saying I agree with the turn 1 no deepstrike in competitive play, I think the half PL on the table is enough, hence why I said maybe making it for narrative play and not matched.
rvd1ofakind
that is a pretty silly idea … so when you’re in a building your arms grow 4″ ?
buildings should offer some more protection, especially if the floor is merely a ledge … why not simply club together and buy better terrain which allows more models to fit?
Hey Reece, is there any insight you can share for the wording of the coldstar errata? I’m wondering why they made it “swap out both the HOBC and Missile Pod for 2 items” rather than “May swap out the HOBC for 1 item. May swap out the Missile Pod for 1 item.”
I’m assuming we can expect a FAQ on whether the BA strategem/veil of darkness/da jump is affected by the deep strike rule?
Looks like GW have already clarified this on the facebook page. If they started the game on the table, they are not subject to that turn 1 deep strike restriction. Happy days
Yeah, still a little confusion as it contradicts the existing FAQ but that–as we stated–was written for a different context.
Not to mention othet existing rules. They need to clarify this.
I should add that Facebook is not consists an offical rules source as far as my knowledge goes meaning if that is the answer put it in the faq. Furthermore, all they said on facebook is you can use the power not that you can use it to jump out of your deployment zone.
True.
Hey I’m not criticising GW for putting out the FAQ, the fact they are trying to improve the game is fantastic.
This one just seemed as though they didn’t put their usual amount of thought into it, evidenced by the fact the community is so confused
I am glad as well. The problem I have is rules confusion leads to gotcha moments which cause bad bad things. Also TOs have a tendency to answer player questions by email, which is great, but does not inform every other player attending their event of the private ruling they made with the asking player.
They just put up a graphic to clarify this, . This also means you cannot use forewarning on things that do this like wings of fire or da jump. Unfortunately, they did not clarify for summoning typical GW.
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3&theater
I could not see anything there overruling the existing FAQ that interceptor abilities work on da jump etc.
It just means that the beta rule only affects units that did not start the game on the table. Which is fine as it makes a number of aggressive tactics viable without eliminating all element of risk from them – if you get seized on it might hurt.
Forewarning says, “Use this Stratagem immediately after your opponent sets up a unit that is arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements” since these powers (gate, jump, wings) do not count as reinforcements as the units were already on the battlefield at the start of the game the unit would not be arriving on battlefield as reinforcements.
One of the parts that confuses me is that they use reserves and reinforcements interchangeably, which while reserves is a part of reinforcements it is not the only part. This also happens when we talk about wounds. GW has it set up that it is called hits, wounds (the to wound roll), wounds (the number of damage the attack does), when it should be hits, wounds, damage.
Yeah nowhere in that graphic does it say that units set up on the table, and then removed via an ability or stratagem don’t count as reinforcements. They just don’t count as reserves for purposes of the beta reserves rule.
They are not considered arriving on the battlefield from reinforcements is how I took the graphic so it would not trigger these types of abilities. It is a moot point as the SM FAQ says you can use auspex scan on these types of things so forewarning is good.
According to the Space Marine FAQ for Auspex Scan, you are specifically given permission to use that on targets that are remove and redeployed. I don’t see any reason that forewarning would be any different.
Thus the comment directly above yours.
Great
Max 3 detachments, the ugly clone war spam is gone, spaming of unit types will still exist.
Wait and see
The reinforcement rule on turn 2 will require games to make full judgement on.
Bad
The ruin levels , what were they thinking?! This feels like pouring salt in the wounds after removing turn1 assault reserves.
How hard as it to implement that combat is 1 inch horizontally and 3 inch vertically to represent fighting for ladders/climbing. Monsters with 6 inch vertical combat to represent them being able to reach in through windows/walls. Terrain rules fixed!
Hang tight on the terrain thing, we’re seeing how much room we have to flex on that one.
Hey Reecius,
With regards to LOS terrain and terrain setup in general, does ITC or even GW have a recommended board setup, or even a guideline to help players achieve balance in this regard?
We do yeah, GW does not at this time.
Do you have a link to it? I couldnt find it in the ITC section
Ah no, actually. I have been meaning to work on an ITC Terrain guide for a while but keep getting sidetracked.
The one we have is pretty ugly, I send it to other TOs to help them out but wouldn’t want to publish it as is as it does not look professional.
So do we think summoning is effected by the T1 deployment zone rule?
Yes, everything starting off the board is affected
A good answer. Still not entirely sure that applies to summons, but it’ll do for now.
The tactical reserve rule tells you the answer, did it arrive mid-game, check. Was it place on the battlefield from somewhere other than disembark, check. And finally what are the points called that you use to bring daemons on the board, reinforcement points. Remember they did not specifically call out deep strike they said reinforcements can not come in outside of your deployment zone.
Since the deployment zone thing is still in beta, I’d like to offer an alternative. Instead of only being able to come down in your deployment zone, you must appear outside of your opponent’s deployment zone. 9″ rule still applies.
I was thinking the same thing. It allows for critical units to have some protection from alpha deep strike, while still allowing for melee based armies to have something to do first turn.
Hahahaha! It is I, Reecio!
I am to blame for all of this! I run GW secretly behind the scenes you fools! I REECIO!
Tau dies by my hand!
Guard rises by my hand!
This FAQ is my design and my ploy to take over the world!
It is I Reecio!
I like the cut of this Reecio fellas’ jib 🙂
Reecio shirts for sale @ FLG store soon?
lol
You need an evil moustache badly photoshopped at a pic of Reece for your avatar.
Evil Goatee man, get it right!
Yes! lol
After playing with some army ideas for Tyranids, I don’t really like linking PL to deep striking. I find myself manipulating squad sizes (11 man termagant squads are 44 pts for 6 PL, which is the same PL as a 20 man termagant squad with devourers!!!)
So I can deep strike 20 termagants with devourers (admittedly I have to pay for the Trygon) but to pay for them I take 11 termagants with fleshborers. I mean c’mon.
GW needs to just give up on the PL system, or make sure they adjust it when they adjust points. Another example, the Malanthrope is 140 pts for PL 5. That’s just not right.
Yea this is a matched play rule, it makes zero sense to talk about powerlevel, it used to be 50% points back in the day so using powerlevel is just dumb.
Just remember, PL is a faster way for alot of people to do this, and while it’s got some flaws it’s pretty close anyhow to the point values.
Exactly, it is used for simplicity.
They need to stop trying to cram the square power level peg in the round matched play hole.
In matched play we take a 6th guy with leftover points, we run squads efficiently instead of taking “the average amount of upgrades,” and we have squads that have had their points lowered from their original cost but still have a power level reflecting their old one.
Examples from BA, we have sanguinary guard, where running an efficient 5 man unit at 175 points takes up TWENTY (!!!!) power level. A 180 point 4 man inceptor squad with assault bolters is another twenty PL.
And then there are units like Death Company that have a billion wargear options, but when playing matched points no one is ever going to run them all holding thunder hammers and inferno pistols. As a result you can end up with say…a 27 power level squad of 11 that costs 256 points. Literally less than half the cost that the power level assumes is the “average.”
Whether or not the idea to place a value cap on deep striking is good or not, there is no arguing that the actual method used to determine that value cap is god awful. In matched play we’re already calculating up a bunch of points, its really not a problem to total up the deep strikers and see if that number is less or greater than 1000.
I would hope that in a short time, smart TO’s will apply the quick and obvious fix of saying to use total points and not total PL for the rule.
For the record, this isn’t the first matched play rule to reference power level. The chaos daemons deep strike stratagem also references power level to determine the cost of the stratagem.
All systems are manipulable; Power Level is absolutely nothing special in that regard. It is not (and was never intended to be) a perfect representation of a unit’s value. 50% PL on the table is meant to be a broad restriction to stop players- and especially Tyranid players- from starting all of their “relevant” units off the table while nine Spore Mines magically held the field, rendering them completely immune to any sort of enemy offensive.
(Forge World’s complete inability to understand what the hell Power Level means is another problem entirely. Players in the community had figured out that PL roughly equals twenty points within an hour of the 8E previews being released, but apparently division is too complicated of a skill for the FW crew.)
Lol savage
Justin,
GW Games designers used PL and points interchangeably on the broadcast announcing this changes.
Also guys, on the cast I accidentally said Wyrdvane Psykers have the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, sorry! I got my editions mixed up, they do not have that rule anymore.
I still say it’s silly that troops and DTs get excluded from the rule of 3. ‘Oh, but mah triple battalion, oh but mah double brigade’ If they actually cared about armies being able to build every combination of detachment they wanted, they already missed the mark; SoB and Inquisition can’t build several different detachment combinations due to the unit limitation.
Meanwhile, this is supposed to be a balance and unit variety based change. What happens when specific troops and specific DTs start getting spammed? What happens if you have the top 2-3 armies running triple battalions of cheap troops to get more DTs or just spamming out bodies? We’ve already had at least instances of dedicated transports (asscan spam) or troops(conscripts) being spammed out enough that it had to be nerfed down, what happens if a couple of new books or combos come out at once and SEVERAL of these units become broken?
And if you’re saying ‘well they’ll address those units individually’ WHY WASN’T THAT THE ANSWER THIS TIME?!
The exception is there because many armies only HAVE one troop and one dedicated transport. That would mean taking anything beyond a basic Battalion impossible. Troops are also intended to be the most common and most numerous units in their respective armies.
What troops and/or transports do you foresee becoming a problem in the environment? Because I can’t think of any.
Agony,
you’re moaning about armies that don’t have a Codex. Expect the SoB Codex by the time the plastic models come out in 2019. By then other unit choices might be available.
So, with the new info graphic GW released, can BA use upon wings of fire and descent of angels on a unit turn 1?
Yep and they can use it to deep strike outside the deployment zone turn 1. My auston is Cab these units then move via ability or mind power? I guess it is only pertinent for cultists through tide.
If they are considered as coming on as reinforcements, then I would say no. Nothing on the wings of fire Strat says they are treated as reinforcements, but I don’t have the rules handy to say for sure that anything that is removed and set up again is or isn’t reinforcements.
They are reinforecements for the purposes of auspex scan so I would say they are, they just start on the table so they are not limited by the new rule is my take.
Sorry, the new rule limiting deep strike but they would still be subject to the no movement rule.
sounds right.
Heres a honest question, In regards to the second floor blocking. If the rules were changed to simply have models interact with one another while within an inch of any part of the model. Wouldn’t that solve a majority of the problems were having? Would it cause some kind of broken unintended consequence?
Yeah it would but then you introduce modeling for advantage issues with “I charge you with my back banner” type stuff.
Two possible solutions:
1) Define the “Model” for these purposes to be a cylinder extending the area of the Base up to the level of the Model’s head.
2) Bring back the definition of the Model’s body, comprising the torso, head, legs, and arms (or equivalent body parts in some cases), and specifically excluding weapons and decorative parts such as banners. Maybe add some specific clarifications for a few Units, like some Nids, where the distinction between an arm and a weapon isn’t particularly clear.
What about tanks? Or Dreadnoughts with guns for arms? Jetbikes?
Wings. Wings are a big one, because they almost always project outward and upward.
This already happens with models without bases or those with the hover rule (such as a raider with a huge sail or a frickin land raider). Which is the silliest sh@t possible.
Idea to test: Victory Points cannot be scored on round 1. Any damage done that would have granted points grants nothing. (Other than damage to the enemy army.)
What is it you think this accomplishes, other than lowering the overall score of the game?
Allows armies to get in position without getting “unacceptably behind” in points, especially armies that are now missing significant forces until turn 2.
It’s yet another smack in the face for those armies like Daemons, GK, and BA that they are going to start virtually every game down 2-4 points in itc or other progressive systems. This would at least patch up that disadvantage.
Idea to test….skip turn 1 go directly to turn 2.
Not remotely the same thing, but nice fallacy though.
Warhammer 40k Facebook posted a beta rule about certain abilities/stratagem/powers can be use outside your 1st turn deployment zone.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2013246815662614&id=1575682476085719