Prot Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I don't have time to make a list right now for SIA. The problem I understand with characters is the generic ones don't have the "Ability" (RAW) to allow for SIA. Just as an FYI I wanted to let people to know that I did actually mention this several times on Warhammer TV today which hosted a Nid/Deathwatch game. Eventually enough people in the Warhammer TV chat chimed in and I was surprised when the hosts of the game actually mentioned it. At first Rob seemed... mildly perturbed that players in general would not assume SIA as an ability of Deathwatch generic characters. His thought was that the SIA rule would apply as long as he's equipped with one of the various weapons named as having access to SIA. His co-host actually stepped in and mentioned the 'ability' that people were debating in the chat. To his credit he said it's something the 'team' could have missed for wording, and they would take it to the rules guys and have it amended to reflect the intent, or if it was intentionally missed, they'd find out. I'm going to be honest the debate it caused was probably why it got some attention. I had to re-explain why "RAW" it was difficult to be certain. As a side note there was a generic Captain in the game they covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irbis Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I fail to see what he was perturbed by. Besides Artemis and WM, all DW HQs use generic SM unit entriess and last time I checked these neither have SIA and nothing in DW section grants them SIA. I get he was assuming they still had it as written, like in 7th edition, but RAW it's absolutely not the case (and maybe for the better, see my thread). Though, it's nice to see even the official playtesters seem to think the rule writer for DW is incompetent. Who knows, maybe it will prompt change to someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moostick Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I think we can agree that RAW does not support them getting it, but people realize that it'd be something they should/would get. It is simply poor writing and oversight because Deathwatch is rather unique in terms of rules. That and the production team had the worst QC/QA team ever. Edit: I think a good question would be why they didn't make Veterans have a base cost of 16 pts, and have SIA as a 3 pt wargear instead. Maybe include a rule that SIA must be taken if one of the eligible weapons is taken. This removes the "tax" if we replace the eligible weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leth Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I think we can agree that RAW does not support them getting it, but people realize that it'd be something they should/would get. It is simply poor writing and oversight because Deathwatch is rather unique in terms of rules. That and the production team had the worst QC/QA team ever. Edit: I think a good question would be why they didn't make Veterans have a base cost of 16 pts, and have SIA as a 3 pt wargear instead. Maybe include a rule that SIA must be taken if one of the eligible weapons is taken. This removes the "tax" if we replace the eligible weapon. Or make boltguns 3 points for deathwatch rather than keeping them free. Or two points for a bolter, 1 point for a bolt gun. They can over charge us for storm shields, but cant seem to do it for boltguns? RIIIGHHHHTttttt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prot Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 I mentioned the cost as well but they didn't address that. I've been chasing these guys for months for answers and obviously they can be very selective when choosing to answer questions so I was just happy they addressed my continual hounding on the generic character wording. But yes it is obvious by their reaction the character SIA ability was definitely intended as far as they saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Oversights are certainly possible, and likely with this much material coming out. Not an excuse for poor product, OFC, but a reason certainly. I have a feeling the reason they were reticent to discuss this specific issue is both a matter of pride (producing a shoddy product) and not wanting to be called out "live", as it were. Unfortunately, GW is still trying to come to grips with consumer interaction in the information age and I don't think they realize that honesty during such events would go much further than trying to bury or ignore problems. IMO, the next battery of FAQs they release should be accompanied by a livestream discussing items found in them and explaining the reasoning behind each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 I think we can agree that RAW does not support them getting it, but people realize that it'd be something they should/would get. It is simply poor writing and oversight because Deathwatch is rather unique in terms of rules. That and the production team had the worst QC/QA team ever. Edit: I think a good question would be why they didn't make Veterans have a base cost of 16 pts, and have SIA as a 3 pt wargear instead. Maybe include a rule that SIA must be taken if one of the eligible weapons is taken. This removes the "tax" if we replace the eligible weapon. Fluff-wise, isn't the unique type of ammunition a standard issue for the Deathwatch? It's as common to them as regular bolt rounds are to regular Astartes Chapters? I honestly believed that the generic HQs have the ability immediately because they have the weapons to support it and that their Special Issue Ammo wasn't included in their datasheet because it could easily be mistaken as them having it regardless of what Chapter they are designated to. But sadly, not every one sees it that way and would rather adhere to what is written in the rules and while I understand where they are coming from (to an extent), it still bothers me as someone who prefers to play a theme-heavy army. And Artemis can only amuse me for so many games before I change him to a generic captain. WIth that said, I am glad they are forwarding this over. No rule system is perfect and even a messed up or two is bound to pass their QAs, especially when it comes to the lesser played armies like the Deathwatch. Oh and I actually am fine with the point values of the Deathwatch Veterans as they are not meant to be taken as a larger force. Can one argue that they considering they spent more time with other Chapters that they are more knowledgeable and adept than the regular Chapter Veterans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Oh and I actually am fine with the point values of the Deathwatch Veterans as they are not meant to be taken as a larger force. Can one argue that they considering they spent more time with other Chapters that they are more knowledgeable and adept than the regular Chapter Veterans? If only that was somehow reflected in their durability . . . :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moostick Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Fluff-wise, isn't the unique type of ammunition a standard issue for the Deathwatch? It's as common to them as regular bolt rounds are to regular Astartes Chapters? Oh and I actually am fine with the point values of the Deathwatch Veterans as they are not meant to be taken as a larger force. Can one argue that they considering they spent more time with other Chapters that they are more knowledgeable and adept than the regular Chapter Veterans? What you're describing is RAI, which is something GW has already confirmed during Warhammer Live. RAW depends entirely on what is written in the rules, so things like lore or background do not matter in RAW. The problem I have with the coat is that Sternguards are 16+3 pts. They are essentially exactly the same in being seasoned Veterans, but they don't have to keep that silly tax if they switch weapons. It's simply unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Oh and I actually am fine with the point values of the Deathwatch Veterans as they are not meant to be taken as a larger force. Can one argue that they considering they spent more time with other Chapters that they are more knowledgeable and adept than the regular Chapter Veterans? If only that was somehow reflected in their durability . . . They got better toys than even the Sternguard, so that's a fair compensation at the very least. Fluff-wise, isn't the unique type of ammunition a standard issue for the Deathwatch? It's as common to them as regular bolt rounds are to regular Astartes Chapters? Oh and I actually am fine with the point values of the Deathwatch Veterans as they are not meant to be taken as a larger force. Can one argue that they considering they spent more time with other Chapters that they are more knowledgeable and adept than the regular Chapter Veterans? What you're describing is RAI, which is something GW has already confirmed during Warhammer Live. RAW depends entirely on what is written in the rules, so things like lore or background do not matter in RAW. The problem I have with the coat is that Sternguards are 16+3 pts. They are essentially exactly the same in being seasoned Veterans, but they don't have to keep that silly tax if they switch weapons. It's simply unfair. Hmmm.... with this, I'll find a way to make the most out of what I got. From what I have experienced with the Deathwatch so far, they are powerful, but I got to play really REAAAALLLLY smart over my opponents, which is gonna be the greatest challenge yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irbis Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Oh and I actually am fine with the point values of the Deathwatch Veterans as they are not meant to be taken as a larger force. Can one argue that they considering they spent more time with other Chapters that they are more knowledgeable and adept than the regular Chapter Veterans? Seeing what they beat in fluff... Either DW should have nearly free gear to actually have damage output/durability to take on something that would give them no problems in books but easily beats them on tabletop (plus, they are that well outfitted), or some way to outplay enemies (like, say, deep strike on everything they had in 7th), or have better stats seeing they are elite of the elite. Instead, their gear is more expensive and has BS limits, they lost a lot of mobility, and are inferior to regular sternguard. Go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.