Speed of the raven

[breng77]

Sorry still disagree adding a modifier to rapid fire is anywhere near as logical, or any where near as easy to amend in that way. The fix is "use this stratagem when a RW unit advances, it may still shoot and charge as if it had not advanced." Cleaner and easier to either rule posted by you. One is adding something to the game the other could be assumed to ether be the writer forgetting the interaction with assault weapon rules, or assuming that the common sense interpretation is that the penalty be ignored (the argument that as written weapons that can fire when advancing suddenly are worse at it than weapons that cannot.). RAW feels totally games and not logical to how you would expect it to work.

 

As to play testing just because it is supposed to catch things doesn't mean it does, and this is much worse for non computer elements. I've already pointed out that there are playtesters who believe it to work as I believe it does. Did they test it that way assuming it was obvious the -1 did not apply. Your statement of "if they meant x they would have wrote x exactly." Ignores the tons of FAQ and errata this game has

[Bryan Blaire]

Sorry still disagree adding a modifier to rapid fire is anywhere near as logical, or any where near as easy to amend in that way. The fix is "use this stratagem when a RW unit advances, it may still shoot and charge as if it had not advanced." Cleaner and easier to either rule posted by you. One is adding something to the game the other could be assumed to ether be the writer forgetting the interaction with assault weapon rules, or assuming that the common sense interpretation is that the penalty be ignored (the argument that as written weapons that can fire when advancing suddenly are worse at it than weapons that cannot.). RAW feels totally games and not logical to how you would expect it to work.

As to play testing just because it is supposed to catch things doesn't mean it does, and this is much worse for non computer elements. I've already pointed out that there are playtesters who believe it to work as I believe it does. Did they test it that way assuming it was obvious the -1 did not apply. Your statement of "if they meant x they would have wrote x exactly." Ignores the tons of FAQ and errata this game has

We'll have to agree to disagree then and see what GW does. I disagree with your version of logic, in that it is also "gamey" as well as an assumption that you know the minds of the rule authors.

 

Additionally, the playtesters having assumptions implies nothing about how the rule authors wrote the rules, it implies that's they are poor playtesters that may not understand the game as well as they think. Good playtesters would have caught the error and turned it in to the authors/editors so that it could have been reviewed and corrected if it was actually an error. If they were specifically told not ignore the Assault weapon modifier by their instructions/testing contact, rather than testing based on an assumption, then they missed the boat by not simply asking "So why isn't it just written like that?"

 

"Common sense" in a game with rules isn't to play the game based on how you assume the rules function or based on your fallible human memory, but how they are actually written (as in having the book open to check things so that you don't miss stuff). If you are finding flaws in how it is written, then you start asking questions and if those aren't resolved/resolvable, then you make your homegrown rules.

 

The funny part is, if these guys doing the testing are the same ones making revisions/adjustments to the games as TOs for their own tournament rules or are "hard-core tournament" participants, that doesn't speak well for how they are run or how they are playing, if they are making judgments or are reliant on whimsical assumptions, rather than what the rules actually are.

[breng77]

I get that you think RAW is super important but FW has shown over and over that they do not with how they write rules. I don't pretend to know their mind but the game breaks down when you go too strict to RAW in a lot of cases. For people in general I would see how you TO wants to rules this strat. But as I said playing it as written just means Black knights will never see play in my lists, because they are terrible if they are always -1 to hit.

[Bryan Blaire]

I get that you think RAW is super important

Actually, if you had ever looked at my posting history, you would see that I am probably one of the biggest proponents of using house rules with mates to play this game. Tournaments are totally inappropriate to this game to me, specifically because of all the rules problems it has (that comes from almost three years of managing a game store and running tourneys there), and I do agree that GW writes more of a beer and pretzels game for friends, which generally makes strict RAW unnecessary if the friends are reasonable and actually interested in each other's fun, rather than beating their faces in.

 

However, I disagree with the assumption on what the rule was intended to be or that the playtesters some how lend credence to the idea. The fact is, we have no clue what was intended, and the "logic" that was presented lends itself equally well to alternate implementations, so nothing makes the way suggested any more likely than any other concept that would be of equivalence. Any assumption about rule author intent is based on the way we want it to work.

 

As far as rules discussions online though, RAW is the only way to actually discuss them, since it's been shown numerous times on the B&C that there's no "common sense agreement" on what RAI actually is.

 

But as I said playing it as written just means Black knights will never see play in my lists, because they are terrible if they are always -1 to hit.

It's a Stratagem, it can be used once a turn in Matched Play - how in the world does that equate to "terrible if they are always -1 to hit"? That's unnecessary and illogical hyperbole.

 

It's essentially impossible to make that happen in Matched Play, and I would simply use that Stratagem on a standard RW squad and still Advance and fire with Black Knights as normal. It's very unlikely in most games that you are going to want to use that Stratagem each and every turn and have enough CP to do so, since those are a finite resource. The latter even applies in Narrative Play, possibly even more so, since even with the restriction on Stratagem use per turn lifted, you're unlikely to have enough CP to use on every single RW squad every round unless you are playing some massive points totals or are using minimal RW squads (in which case, is it even really a consideration and the Stratagem is ultimately very situational).

[breng77]

Black knights want to advance every turn so they have a 4++ save. Without it they are too fragile. -1 to hit makes their shooting subpar. They are only ok in melee. I don't find them to be a good choice in general but I could see using 1 large squad for use with this strat and WOTDA. Small squads are flat out worse than regular bike squads with special weapons.

[Madmonkeyman]

raw you get the -1 to hit. Prob be an FAQ stating otherwise as it's kind of dumb and clearly written with black knights in mind. Shouldn't be long too an FAQ hopefully

[Bryan Blaire]

Black knights want to advance every turn so they have a 4++ save. Without it they are too fragile. -1 to hit makes their shooting subpar. They are only ok in melee. ...snip... Small squads are flat out worse than regular bike squads with special weapons.

I'm assuming you are talking about comparing them points-wise, because from what I can tell, Black Knights are identical in Toughness, Wounds and Save compared to standard RW bikers. So RW bikers would be even more fragile and less useful, because they would also want to advance every turn to gain the same save, but then they have almost nothing that can be fired, and their Assault weapons are also -1 to hit. RW bike squads are even less useful in melee.

 

It's like the squads are built similarly, but to do completely different things, because the standard RW squads are less useful than Black Knights if you try to use RW squads the same way you would Black Knights.

 

On the flip side, not everything about the game is about building the most point efficient army unless all you play is smash-face pick-up games or tournaments (of which, I will only play PUGs if I'm absolutely desparate for a game over several months time, and I will never register for a tournament again - see reasoning above).

[breng77]

Yes I mean using points in min squads 3 bikes have better shooting and 1 less attack in close combat, and none of their close combat attacks are particularly great.

 

As for any slight BK advantages other squads do those things better. So yes fluff is the only real reason to bring them.

[Normal Norman]

Standard Ravenwing Bike Squads can swap their bolt pistols for chainswords and so get 2 attacks each. Not that it improves their ability when they are in combat but a 3 man Squad does have 7 attacks which isn’t terrible.

[breng77]

At 3 mine usually only have 6 attacks because the sarge swaps his pistol for a combo-plasma/flamer instead. The big advantage for RW bikers is shooting 12 bolter shots before they charge. That + specials + 6 attacks is better than black knights 6 plasma shots and 7 attacks

[CaptainCaveman87]

Dark angels faq is up and speed of the raven does not give a - 1 to hit when advancing and firing after using the stratagem.

[Maxamato]

No modifier for assault weapons after advance and usage of the Statagem! :D

 

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warhammer_40000_dark_angels_en.pdf

[lhavoc]

I frabjulous day! Dark Angels FAQ released and we don’t get -1 on our Assault Plasmas on Speed of the Raven

[Shadowseer]

Yay for common sense!

[Bryan Blaire]

Very good! They probably should have just written that the first time, but at least it's an Errata, instead of a FAQ "How we interpret our poor wording".

[Kallas]

They probably should have just written that the first time, but at least it's an Errata

"erratum

 

noun

plural noun: errata

 

AN ERROR in printing or writing."

 

;)

[Bryan Blaire]

erratum

noun

plural noun: errataAN ERROR in printing or writing."

;)

:O

 

You're right, how foolish I must look to you. It's so shocking that it is a single thing in an Errata. You know, that heading up top above their corrections.

 

How dumb of me... or maybe I'm not the fool, but the response was, and what I said was exactly what was meant - they wouldn't have had to write it at all if they simply had written what they meant or hadn't made the mistake/caught the error in the proofreading stage.

 

It's like the response was meant to "edumacate" me, but doesn't hold any content of note.

 

:facepalm:

[shabbadoo]

The Errata/FAQ is out, and it only really addresses two things. The FAQ part was just a few "Duh?" questions.

 

For errata, the Company Champion gains the combat shield in their listing (a real mistake that slipped through).

 

For Speed of the Raven there is an explicit change, and they took it in the right direction by giving no penalty for Assault weapons firing. This is not what the original rule implied or meant, as it is not spelled out anywhere that the penalty was to be ignored, and so this original intent very much needed to be explicitly stated (and now it has been). While I don't think it was particularly needed, and GW could just as easily have given Rapid Fire Weapons a -1 penalty to hit instead, then there would at least be a rule covering everything. Rapid Fire weapons apparently don't have any penalty to hit after Advancing either, as the core rules do not specifically deal with them (namely because Rapid Fire weapons can not normally be fired at all after Advancing, so there was no need to specifically address any penalty for a situation that is explicitly disallowed in the core rules to begin with). And so we have no true rule for Speed of the Raven and Rapid Fire weapons, and so must just assume that, as there is no normal penalty in the core rules to begin with (even though that is because no rule was needed for a situation that was specifically excluded) Rapid Fire weapons have no penalty to hit. Certainly this is a lost opportunity to deal with it all in one go, but better baby step FAQ's than no FAQ's. Black Knights are just outright arse kickers with this stratagem now. Easy first turn charge, and a full 10-bike squad of them would be pretty sick. And this stratagem can be used for Ravenwing Land Speeder Squadron or Ravenwing Talonmaster to fire their Heavy weapons (and  Charge for the latter) after Advancing to a more favorable firing position too.

 

One bit of errata they missed is the Power level of the basic Librarian, which is listed as 8, whereas Ezekiel's and the Primaris Librarian's Power levels are both 7 (and I am pretty sure a basic Librarian is not better than either of them).

[Kallas]

How dumb of me [..] they wouldn't have had to write it at all if they simply had written what they meant or hadn't made the mistake/caught the error in the proofreading stage.

It's like the response was meant to "edumacate" me, but doesn't hold any content of note.

 

It was meant as a light ribbing 

[dtse]

Thread canbeclosed. As expected faq says no -1

[Kasper_Hawser]

Good news to the dresswearer legion. ....... ahem, chapters. FAQ has updated your rules so that in addition to the current wording where you can advance and still shoot, you no longer suffer penalty for Assault or Heavy weapons when you advance. Rejoice for your Dark Talons who can get their invuln and still shoot with no penalty which will improve your BS shooting ground targets even more to 2+ I think.

 

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warhammer_40000_dark_angels_en.pdf

[Solrac]

Good news to the dresswearer legion. ....... ahem, chapters. FAQ has updated your rules so that in addition to the current wording where you can advance and still shoot, you no longer suffer penalty for Assault or Heavy weapons when you advance. Rejoice for your Dark Talons who can get their invuln and still shoot with no penalty which will improve your BS shooting ground targets even more to 2+ I think.

 

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warhammer_40000_dark_angels_en.pdf

 

It's just assault weapons that do not suffer the -1 to hit penalty when they advance. A Dark Talon's rift cannon will still incur the -1 to hit for moving with a heavy weapon.

[Kasper_Hawser]

 

Good news to the dresswearer legion. ....... ahem, chapters. FAQ has updated your rules so that in addition to the current wording where you can advance and still shoot, you no longer suffer penalty for Assault or Heavy weapons when you advance. Rejoice for your Dark Talons who can get their invuln and still shoot with no penalty which will improve your BS shooting ground targets even more to 2+ I think.

 

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/warhammer_40000_dark_angels_en.pdf

 

It's just assault weapons that do not suffer the -1 to hit penalty when they advance. A Dark Talon's rift cannon will still incur the -1 to hit for moving with a heavy weapon.

 

 

My bad. you are right.

[jlmb_123]

Well predicted, Breng!

[Interrogator Stobz]

+++ Problem solved! Nicely discussed, maybe this thread helped GW, maybe not. Either way, we can move on. +++