cj
neophyte
Posts: 734
|
Post by cj on Apr 16, 2018 14:27:03 GMT -6
I thought Disgusting Resilient was FNP, were people using both? I can't imagine arguing that with a straight faceThat's because you aren't a jackass. People suck and will try to argue any ambiguity or even argue that there is an ambiguity.
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Apr 16, 2018 14:41:01 GMT -6
That's because you aren't a jackass hold on now let's not jump to conclusions
|
|
zyggy
initiate
Posts: 242
|
Post by zyggy on Apr 16, 2018 14:44:44 GMT -6
doubleback There were certain ignore wound rules that were vague in whether they could stack with other ignore wounds like Disgustingly Resilient and the Tenacious Survivor Warlord trait. This new rule has firmly nipped that in the bud.
|
|
doubleback
novice
I rock harder than most, yet less hard than some.
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by doubleback on Apr 16, 2018 15:06:42 GMT -6
That's because you aren't a jackass hold on now let's not jump to conclusions Russel is probably in the right on this, if I'm being 100% honest I would have to go back and look, but I feel like it expressly said that Disgustingly Resilient allowed a FNP save. The wording never left me with the idea that there was even a loophole there to exploit
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 16, 2018 15:28:39 GMT -6
So the loophole is that there's no such thing as Feel No Pain. All these rules have different names (disgustingly resilient, tenacious surviver, etc.). That was my main issue with getting rid of "universal special rules" cause it makes it very tricky to monitor or revise special rules now. I'm glad they have found a way to FAQ things like FNP and Deepstriking, but there will always be some waac player trying to exploit the wording.
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Apr 16, 2018 15:39:13 GMT -6
Is there even a way to give DG an extra save other than the disgustingly resilient? Sorry, I'm not too familiar with the codex.
|
|
jesse
neophyte
Posts: 732
|
Post by jesse on Apr 16, 2018 16:41:32 GMT -6
While I think it's good that they eliminated stacking FNP, I don't think it was necessarily assholes trying to do it. I'm fairly certain stacking FNP style things is an aspect of AoS, so I assumed it would also work in 40k. Daughters of Khaine and Death both are able (I believe) to stack multiple FNPs (if my memory and understanding based on watching Warhammer Weekly is accurate).
But, yeah, we don't need that in 40k. Death Guard are tough enough.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 16, 2018 19:49:21 GMT -6
GW themselves had it in the previous errata - they specifically said that Tenacious Survivor and Disgustingly Resilient stacked and that similar abilities did too. I think they saw how silly that was in practice, and rightfully decided to walk it back.
Overall I'm happy with the FAQs - it is going to make for more fun, friendly, more evenly matched games - and that's what is most enjoyable about this hobby in my book.
Also subtle boost to Nids - units that are "in the tunnels" for reserves can come up on the board behind *any* tunneling unit - raveners, mawlocs, etc etc. That's freaking awesome.
|
|
mike
Butts
Posts: 628
|
Post by mike on Apr 17, 2018 1:00:29 GMT -6
Kinda ambivalent about the FAQ/Errata. The cap on datasheets is fine. The smite fix is fine. Points changes also seem fine. A lot of the other big changes seem like steps sideways to me. The character targeting rule is still weird. The soup nerf is weak. My impression is that most competitive lists aren't mixing factions within detachments. You can still take your command battery/screen IG detachment in any imperial list for example. Maybe if command points were detachment specific instead of freely spent across factions you'd see less soup?
And the battalion buff is awkward for helping elite armies. My deathwing would still be rocking 5 CP's as constructed, while my DE got bumped up to 13 (which is crazy).
The DS adjustment will change the game the most... I kind of like turn 1's where there's a bit of jostling for position, but I don't know if it means the game will be better.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 17, 2018 7:21:52 GMT -6
I completely agree with Mike. I think their stated reasoning for each change actually doesn't help at all - like saying they want to help small elite armies, but then giving Brigades 12 CP.
Elite armies aren't skipping brigades because they're not worth CP GW, they're skipping them because they can't physically fit that many units in at 2000 points. They should have given outriders, spearheads, and vangaurds 3 CP or something to balance it out - or give Battle Forged lists 5CP to start with, something.
All this did was give Imperial Guard brigade CP batteries even MORE CP to work with, like basically unlimited CP. And I think it makes other "battery" type relics/warlord traits almost must take - with 13 or 14 CP flying around most lists, there's a way higher chance of recouping a not-insignificant number of them by game's end with various abilities.
And the Soup "fix" doesn't have any real teeth - it doesn't solve the problem that LVO showcases, which is that detachments that don't benefit from faction traits and abilities can still use faction stratagems; I'd like to see them real that in completely. If you want Saim Hann stratagems to make your shining spears balls out awesome, then you should have to invest in an entire detachment of Siam Hann, not just throw a unit of them into a battalion lead by Yvraine and still get access to them.
Overall I think it'll all be fine, its not like anyone here really plays Soup lists anyway, and I'm curious to see how the new reserves rule (read:old reserves rule) changes playtstyle this edition. I think we're going to see an immediate shift from deploying reserves units first in order to keep your opponent honest, to deploying reserves last to keep your opponent honest, not knowing if/how many units you'll have in reserves during their deployment.
|
|
cj
neophyte
Posts: 734
|
Post by cj on Apr 17, 2018 8:09:02 GMT -6
I was interested in the requirement that if a unit is able to grow it cannot get larger than its starting point without having points in reserves. I'm still interested in poxwalkers for typhus, but it changes a bit of the construction for them.
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 17, 2018 9:19:35 GMT -6
Yeah, totally agreed. I like the solution of giving flat 5 cp for battleforged. (I think they probably raised the brigade because a brigade is essentially 2 battalions and 1 vanguard/spreahead/outrider)
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 17, 2018 9:20:41 GMT -6
Also, it's clear that GW and the competitive organizers don't understand the soup problem. Reecius at FLG was proclaiming that "soup" has been fixed.
|
|
|
Post by daniel, why on Apr 17, 2018 10:28:54 GMT -6
I mostly agree with the sentiments in this thread.
The Battle Brothers beta rule seems a little off the mark, but I guess that's why they're testing it. It seems to address inter-detachment unit mixups, which didn't seem to be a problem in the first place? I guess I'm unclear what the issue is with 'soup' lists. It seems totally reasonable to construct an Army with different Factions per detachment to maximize Chapter Tactic or Craftworld Attributes. Are people upset about Detachments chosen exclusively to increase Army CP? The cross-Detachment use of Stratagems seems like a clever part of constructing a list to me.
If the issue is soup across Detachments, then a cleaner solution might be rewarding an Army for containing at least two or maybe three Faction keywords. Then Allies aren't discouraged, but it makes those cheap IG Detachments just for the CP a little more difficult to choose. Like, having an entirely <Imperium> <Adeptus Astartes> <Iron Hands> Army nets you more CP beyond the Detachments and base 3. Taking even one <Imperium> <whatever> would break the bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 17, 2018 10:44:26 GMT -6
Well, i personally really don't like soup armies because: 1. Each codex is built with certain strengths and weaknesses. No army is perfect at everything, and it requires that you play to your strengths and try to cover your weaknesses. 2. This is further emphasized with the new subfaction traits. They really push specific styles of play. For example, a Nid Kraken army is particularly good at combat and movement, while a jormungandr army is good at shooting and slow infantry movement. When choosing my faction and subfactions, there are costs and benefits that come along with it. 3. By allowing allies, you basically allow players to fully negate inherent weaknesses in their armies. For instance, my space marine gunline has a real problem with deep striking melee units. Oh I can take a 150 point battalion of guardsmen that completely negates that weakness while giving me 5 COMMAND POINTS. 4. This seriously disadvantages armies that cannot take allies (like necrons, orks, etc). As a result, their codexes must be buffed in order to compensate and make them viable. It also disadvantages armies that don't have multiple subfactions for similar reasons. 6. Now that those codexes have been buffed, someone like me who just wants to play a single army is completely outmatched.
TLDR: allies are powerful, which makes solo codexes require buffing, which then makes allies completely necessary.
Edit: as a marine player, it's very clear that subfaction traits are not there to allow you to optimize every unit. They are there to let you add more flavor to your army and further emphasize a specific playstyle.
|
|