Big FAQ 2 discussion

[kombatwombat]

Fair enough, I don’t think we will agree on this particular element of it but I do support the idea of creating some more tournament specific rules so that those of us who like to play matched play aren’t continually getting messed up because of tournament exploits and abuses. Matched play should not exist solely for tournaments.

 

Also, for what it’s worth, I totally agree about templates and the shadowsword :)

A reasonable human being on the internet. Wonders never cease. :P

 

I agree that Matched Play shouldn’t be just for tournaments. Matched Play works really well for pickup games and things like clubs where you don’t necessarily have time to set up a narrative ahead of time. A fourth type of play for tournaments would be great since it could mean they could do fixes for tournaments that then don’t screw over poor Timmy who just wanted to jump over a Guardsman squad to assault a Leman Russ with his Assault Marines.

[Closet Skeleton]

The new rules;

 

The Corsair change is welcome. I still wish smite was -1 because that make 1d6 denies relavent.

 

1d6 deny is a terrible rule, terrible rules shouldn't be given a purpose by bad rules.

 

 

The problem is though that now deep striking assault units still have to land 9 inches away meaning they’re unlikely to be in combat until the turn after they arrive which means turn 3 at best, bybwhich time most games have been decided. And now they can’t get past the screens in a charge anyway thanks to the change to fly.

 

 

As a 'middle tables' tournament player who never took a list that could compete against the really efficient ones, few of my games have been decided by turn 3. I either lost/won on the match up or the game ended up being quite close. Even when I fell far behind on points by failing some critical roles on turn 2 or 3 the latter turns still affected and at times changed the result.

 

 

Alpha striking was my way to level the playing field, not crush opponents outright, but since other people could with their Alphas, I get gimped.  

 

And with the usual uncanny timing, it was just as I'd purchased a load of Terminators.  Seriously, almost every rule change invalidates or cripples what I've just purchased or just painted.  It's surreal. 

 

Terminators weren't good at alpha striking before any recent change. Black Templars are bad because marines are bad.

 

 

 

Mono-dex armies should get a +1 on dice rolls for CP regeneration In My Opinion.  Except Eldar ... they can just die (okay maybe not but teachers pets get no pity and Eldar have been GW's love children for 20some years.

 

 

From my recent tournament experience, mono-dex Eldar are basically dead. You might see one Alaitoc player do okay but there is no codex Craftworlds meta out there. Index Orks is more popular as a faction. At heat 2 of the Warhammer World GT there were more Grey Knight Players than Craftworld players (eg there were no Craftworld players and the sole GK player came dead last but that still put him ahead of the no show Bel Tan players).

[Kallas]

Nerfing flying assaults is good: fly is by far the single most powerful ability in the game and either this or increase the pts cost of most units.

Cinematics be damned when it breaks the game.

If it breaks the game, then it needs a fix, sure. For the FLY changes in particular, their "fix" was massively heavy handed and is 'overbalancing'. The 0" Charges were an issue but they fixed that by simply removing that previous ruling from the FAQ (which they did); the further change to making FLY function only in the movement phase is not only uncinematic it is ridiculous from a lore point of view (and that should definitely be a factor for how things play/feel, if not the only driving force behind it), and it's not a fair change.

 

Simply, melee FLY is ok pre-nerf; it's only very powerful on certain select units (eg, Smash Captains and Dawneagle Shield-Captains), and even then it's predominantly due to the CP Spam issue where those units can have a huge amount of stratagems played turn by turn. The change to CP regeneration means that that latter point is somewhat curtailed; the cost increases to certain stratagems (eg, Upon Wings of Fire; and related but indirect, the Knight stratagem cost increases impact Smash Captain CP availability) also help curtail that element (but they also impact non-allied/souped units, which is unnecessary fallout). Also, consider that shooty FLY units are, generally speaking, more effective than melee FLY and that's because shooting is much more generally applicable and powerful/easy to apply: melee units still have to cross the board and charge the things they want to charge (often invoking some kind of overwatch, or otherwise having to get close enough).

 

It's easy to say that FLY units could just jump over screening units before...but that wasn't necessarily true. If you weren't crossing them in movement phase already then you'd have to either charge the screen too (so as to avoid being within 1" of them at the same time) or you'd risk not being able to actually charge your preferred target due to a low charge roll. Some things could help mitigate that with stratagems (eg, Descent of Angels; but even with that, you're coming in 9" away and then need a reasonably long charge to bypass screens) but FLY going over units in the charge phase isn't a huge issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

Further, we saw a lot of BA Smash Captains being allied in because they could abuse the massive CP regeneration, but also because they're one of the few actually good units in the Space Marine line up. Nerfing them (and all other melee FLY by association) is ridiculously heavy handed and punishes many things that didn't need it. Simply, the problem was not the Smash Captains themselves (and in mono-Codex forces, Smash Captains can't just go full out because mono-Codex armies generally don't have the same CP available to spam those stratagems) - it was the soup/allies.

[Lemondish]

 

It's not THAT clear. Lots of people have referred to soup as lists that take the best of different Codexes regardless of whether it's in the same detachment or not even back then. Hence why I and others never bought into the "we fixed soups" and still kept using the term soup because essentially the problem lists that were meant didn't change at all with the Battle Brothers rule.

 

 

Anyway I'm not saying allies is the problem. Never did, never will. I like allies and want them to stay. I said that AM providing cheap CP is the problem here myself so no need to lecture me about that.

Also I WISH it would be lots CP = mediocre Stratagems vs few CP = awesome Stratagems, however that was never true. Marines have some of the worst Stratagems and I can't think of any super elite army that has strictly better Stratagems than horde armies. The powerlevel of Stratagems across the Codexes has been pretty random so far.

 

 

My idea to approach the whole problem would be not to restrict the CP usage but instead to homogenize the CP generation for all factions. That would also equal the playing field mono-dex vs mono-dex armies between elite and horde armies and would take away the pressure to take the cheapest Troop options available.

How would I do that? Simple. In Matched play we have points as means to balance things. This should include CP. Using detachment slots to balance CPs completely independing from points is bound to lead to problems.

 

So I'd change detachments to instead of having "requires 3+ Troop units" to "requires at least x% of the agreed points limit invested in Troop units".

 

That way an Astra Militarum list would generate as many CP as a Custodes list or a Marine list and the only reason to ally in Astra Militarum would be because you either really want them in your list or to have more bodies on the board (something that should be factored in in a units cost the same way as Toughness and Saves are anyway). It would also equalize Troop choices within the same Codex since there would be no point in going for the cheaper units to fill the detachment quicker. The only reason to go with Scouts over Tacticals now would be the ability to infiltrate and have slightly more models ... or Cultists over Chaos Marines only to have more bodies and the use of the Cultist Stratagem once per play. So the way it should've been all along.

 

 

Ah well, now I did go more into detail after all even tho that's not really the topic of the thread. My bad, guys. 

 

 

I will argue that "we fixed soup" is an accurate description because the Battle Brothers rule was designed to tackle soup DETACHMENTS right from the start. You can't bring Celestine, Guilliman, and guard in a single detachment any longer. You need to devote an entire detachment to them so it looks like an actual fighting force. That type of silliness was put to bed early, but where we're confusing things is by arguing that soup armies are now a problem. 

 

Now that the meta has had time to settle for about 4-5 months now following the Knights codex drop we're seeing exactly what the real problem is, and I think you're right on track in targetting CP generation across army builds, but your suggestion is overly complicated and unnecessarily disruptive. 

 

What do many of these changes (not all) GW has made so far have in common? They're largely criticized by the community for not going far enough or not being complex enough despite all evidence so far suggesting that the subtle tweaks and changes they make have much larger impacts than they are ever given credit for. I am convinced that the solution here is going to be treated similarly, almost as tradition. It will be subtle, yet far reaching, just as they have been for the past several balance changes. Look for simple, impactful tweaks that are easier to adjust to rather than adding more bookkeeping onto list building. 

 

As far as stratagems of Horde vs Elite go - Deathwatch, Custodes, and Knights are great examples of elite armies that have substantially better and more impactful stratagems than AM, and whose stratagems inherently affect substantially more powerful units. 

 

In the absolute highest, strictest, most academic sense you are correct in your definition of Soup. However, as much (or even most) of the community does, I will use the term as what it has evolved to mean: a shorthand for ‘cherry-picking the best units from multiple Codexes because to hell with theme, I want to win’. Or, more simply, the as the polar opposite of a Pure (mono-Codex) army.

 

Technically right is the best sort of right :) The problem I have with what you're saying is that the word begins to mean nothing because it's a subjective term to denote a type of army list that has no real definition. Is two Guard detachments fighting along an Imperial Knight pledged to that regiment not thematic as hell? Aren't CSM fighting alongside Daemons theme incarnate? 

 

The problem was that Guard, with their ridiculous CP regen and generation meant you had no downside for taking them and funding the best units possible. That is no longer possible. You will no longer see a Blood Angels smash captain detachment alongside a Castellan and a Guard Brigade. That was pretty unthematic. It is no longer viable, and that came without targetting allies in any way, but CP regen instead.

 

Which once again highlights that soup is not the problem. CP generation and sharing is. Nobody is complaining about the Sisters/Ad Mech army. They're complaining about the outliers. 

 

Even aside from CP, Soup armies are stronger than Pure armies, even within the same overall faction. A Soup army of Custodes + Guard is natively better than a Pure army of Custodes. A Soup Army of Blood Angels + Knights is natively better than a Pure army of Blood Angels. 

 

Yes, a Custodes + Guard army is superior - thematically and on the table. 

 

Blood Angels and a Knight is also pretty thematic force, but these are two very different examples, though. Custodes are designed to be allies. They're thematically intended to be allies. Same with Imperial Knights. This not a problem one bit. To punish these armies and abandon their design principles isn't the best way to go here. 

 

But you stumbled on the problem by using Blood Angels as an example. That one is an issue of internal balance. Ask yourself why does Custodes choose only Guard? Why aren't we seeing Custodes fighting alongside codex marines, or BA, or DA, or SW, or Ad Mech, or Grey Knights...so on and so forth. Because what Guard brings is superior to every choice. They'll continue to be superior to every choice until we handle the main reasons why they're superior. They're outliers. The difference is that Custodes are designed to seek solutions to their problems elsewhere, and are designed to boost those allies through a selection of wargear items. Blood Angels on the other hand have access to units that can provide the same type of support that Knights can, though perhaps not in the same whole package. They have the entire Marine range to choose from with units that could, were they to be balanced accordingly, fill in those 600+ points with tools that can meet the same goals that a Knight brings. Why would they go Knights? Because the internal balance of marine units is bad. Punishing allies will do nothing to fix the actual problem. You're targeting a symptom, not the disease. 

 

Up to this point in your comment, I was convinced we actually were agreeing, just had different perspectives on how to get there. But then you say...

 

For the game to be fun for everyone, there must be some downside to the Soup option.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this statement, and I have yet to actually see a reason why this should be the case universally. Stamp down on the outliers and allow people to have OPTIONS to fit into their army to solve weaknesses. There's little benefit to going back to a time where entire BOOKS were rendered obsolete. Allied forces shouldn't be worse than mono - they should provide a relatively equivalent option that gives you different options tactically. Some factions are intended to be allies, and punishing them for that design doesn't seem like it'll do anything but render them obsolete.

 

Some factions have internal balance issues today where they MUST seek solutions outside. Punishing them for allying when they're simply being driven to do so because of internal balance issues doesn't solve the problem. Deathwatch is a great example. One of the biggest weaknesses folks highlight with Deathwatch is that they don't have great anti-tank solutions and will often seek allies to fill that need. For an army that includes Heavy Thunder Hammers, access to tons of meltaguns, Corvus Blackstars, Dreadnoughts, and Land Raiders, they still choose to go OUTSIDE the codex.

 

That's an issue with the internal balance of those selections. They aren't even remotely competitive. But if they lost Mission Tactics because they usually go outside to fill the AT holes their codex can't provide competitively, then the faction itself simply dies. It's a lose-lose. In your scenario, they either give up Mission Tactics to bring a cost effective AT platform from outside the codex, or they field weak internal selections and are overall weaker because of it. All the while the books with decent internal options continue to thrive. It shifts the questions from "why not add allies" to "why even take this force at all". I don't think that's healthy for the game. 

[Panzer]

 

Now that the meta has had time to settle for about 4-5 months now following the Knights codex drop we're seeing exactly what the real problem is, and I think you're right on track in targetting CP generation across army builds, but your suggestion is overly complicated and unnecessarily disruptive. 

 

 

 

I don't see how that's even remotely complicated or unnecessarily disruptive tho. It's been done in the past and even now GW uses a percentage to determine how much of your army is allowed to be put into reserves ("half" is the same as saying 50% but if it would make you feel better they could say "a fifth" instead of 20% for example).

[BitsHammer]

 

Nerfing flying assaults is good: fly is by far the single most powerful ability in the game and either this or increase the pts cost of most units.

Cinematics be damned when it breaks the game.

If it breaks the game, then it needs a fix, sure. For the FLY changes in particular, their "fix" was massively heavy handed and is 'overbalancing'. The 0" Charges were an issue but they fixed that by simply removing that previous ruling from the FAQ (which they did); the further change to making FLY function only in the movement phase is not only uncinematic it is ridiculous from a lore point of view (and that should definitely be a factor for how things play/feel, if not the only driving force behind it), and it's not a fair change.

 

Simply, melee FLY is ok pre-nerf; it's only very powerful on certain select units (eg, Smash Captains and Dawneagle Shield-Captains), and even then it's predominantly due to the CP Spam issue where those units can have a huge amount of stratagems played turn by turn. The change to CP regeneration means that that latter point is somewhat curtailed; the cost increases to certain stratagems (eg, Upon Wings of Fire; and related but indirect, the Knight stratagem cost increases impact Smash Captain CP availability) also help curtail that element (but they also impact non-allied/souped units, which is unnecessary fallout). Also, consider that shooty FLY units are, generally speaking, more effective than melee FLY and that's because shooting is much more generally applicable and powerful/easy to apply: melee units still have to cross the board and charge the things they want to charge (often invoking some kind of overwatch, or otherwise having to get close enough).

 

It's easy to say that FLY units could just jump over screening units before...but that wasn't necessarily true. If you weren't crossing them in movement phase already then you'd have to either charge the screen too (so as to avoid being within 1" of them at the same time) or you'd risk not being able to actually charge your preferred target due to a low charge roll. Some things could help mitigate that with stratagems (eg, Descent of Angels; but even with that, you're coming in 9" away and then need a reasonably long charge to bypass screens) but FLY going over units in the charge phase isn't a huge issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

Further, we saw a lot of BA Smash Captains being allied in because they could abuse the massive CP regeneration, but also because they're one of the few actually good units in the Space Marine line up. Nerfing them (and all other melee FLY by association) is ridiculously heavy handed and punishes many things that didn't need it. Simply, the problem was not the Smash Captains themselves (and in mono-Codex forces, Smash Captains can't just go full out because mono-Codex armies generally don't have the same CP available to spam those stratagems) - it was the soup/allies.

 

Fly was more than 0" charges. It was also turn one character assassinating warlords or even jumping screens to kill Knights before the opponent can even react. It was very easy to pull off with little to no downside for the player doing it. It was bad for the game and it needed to go.

 

And frankly I don't see the issue: Jump Infantry in previous editions couldn't jump units to assault things either. We should be more used to them hitting the ground and making the charge on foot instead of what were doing in this edition. Taking away something that was broken and unfun to play against is good for the game. Pretending it is somehow too heavy handed when it only hit the points it needed to without giving us some kind of insane flowchart to follow instead is perfect. 

 

Like I've said before, it was basically this or we'd need to be able to overwatch and fight with every unit you charge over as well to make the whole thing fair. And that means we'd need special rules just to govern the way units leaping over each other in the charge work and that's not exactly good for trying to keep the game from turning back into a convoluted mess of rule interactions that only occur sometimes, on a blue moon, while your opponent is standing on one foot, but only if he doesn't use a dice app to roll dice for his Orks.

[Kallas]

 

Which once again highlights that soup is not the problem. CP generation and sharing is. Nobody is complaining about the Sisters/Ad Mech army. They're complaining about the outliers. 

 

I think this is the crux of the issue. Soup/Allies can be fine, but as it is currently there is little to no downside for someone to pack in 180pts of Guard for 5CP.

 

The current available cherry-picking of powerful units is a bit of a problem too, as it makes overall balancing harder to achieve and means that, in a competitive environment, many units fall by the wayside simply because Guardsmen probably do it better - that's not the fault of the Guardsmen, it's more that the cross-Codex balance while maintaining internal Codex balance is difficult.

 

There are myriad units that need to be brought up to the average which could potentially make them a competitive choice, but it's not been quick to come, and a lot of the changes so far have been either too light a buff (eg, Commissars changing from "1 kill = autopass" to "kill d3 to reroll"), too heavy a nerf (eg, Guilliman/Razorbacks getting heavy point increases when they were one of the few Codexes out), or targeting the wrong things (eg, melee FLY).

 

I do agree that soup isn't, necessarily, the problem but it's certainly the unifying factor in top tier competitive lists.

[BitsHammer]

I'd argue min-maxing is the unifying factor in competitive builds, allying is just the means it's currently expressed by. But then I'd just be arguing semantics. :P

[Panzer]

 

 

And frankly I don't see the issue: Jump Infantry in previous editions couldn't jump units to assault things either. 

 

"It's always been like that so it's good. Let's live in the past. Screw new things." 

[Kallas]

 

Fly was more than 0" charges. It was also turn one character assassinating warlords or even jumping screens to kill Knights before the opponent can even react. It was very easy to pull off with little to no downside for the player doing it. It was bad for the game and it needed to go.

 

And frankly I don't see the issue: Jump Infantry in previous editions couldn't jump units to assault things either. We should be more used to them hitting the ground and making the charge on foot instead of what were doing in this edition. Taking away something that was broken and unfun to play against is good for the game. Pretending it is somehow too heavy handed when it only hit the points it needed to without giving us some kind of insane flowchart to follow instead is perfect. 

 

Like I've said before, it was basically this or we'd need to be able to overwatch and fight with every unit you charge over as well to make the whole thing fair. And that means we'd need special rules just to govern the way units leaping over each other in the charge work and that's not exactly good for trying to keep the game from turning back into a convoluted mess of rule interactions that only occur sometimes, on a blue moon, while your opponent is standing on one foot, but only if he doesn't use a dice app to roll dice for his Orks.

 

T1 Character Assassination was not easy or simple. The prime "abuser" of this was BA Smash Captains using Upon Wings of Fire/Descent of Angels to make a reasonably long charge; but even this is curtailed by decent positioning of screens. Same thing with Knights. With T1 Deep Strike going away entirely, and UWoF increasing in cost, that's not an issue when facing pure Blood Angels and can still be reduced in effect/threat by good play.

 

Previous editions are a bad bar to measure things, mechanically. Maybe you're used to it, and that's fine, and even if it was the way it worked in previous editions it still didn't make sense. Why does an Assault Marine not use his Jump Pack when charging? You say they didn't use them in previous editions, but isn't that what Hammer of Wrath (or whatever the rule was called) was? The Assault Marine using his Jump Pack for a powerful charge/impact?

 

Simply, things that FLY wouldn't just not fly when they're going to attack something. Skimmers, for example, are a ridiculous case in point: yes, a Land Speeder would definitely turn off its grav-plates and just rocket along the ground 

 

And you say it's "broken and unfun" - is it? In what way? There's counterplay in positioning - if you're facing melee FLY, you can keep your ranks tight to force more overwatch, or you can spread out like normal to make it harder to engage multiple units. FLY units tend to pay for their improved mobility, so it's not simply a free ability (although I would argue that FLY is probably too cheap on some things; most notably powerful shooting units like Riptides and Ravagers).

 

When I say it was heavy handed, it's because it's addressing something that was only an issue when you take a very narrow look at something: specifically, the BA Smash Captain trio running around with effectively unlimited CP. An entirely unfluffy formation built to abuse the game mechanics that allowed it. A regular BA army doesn't have the CP available to abuse two Smash Captains, let alone three.

 

As someone who was using mono-Codex Blood Angels (and now mono-Codex Space Wolves), my melee FLY units were good (or at least fun), but it wasn't because being able to FLY over things in non-Movement Phases was overpowered. Melee is generally worse than shooting in the majority of the game; making some more melee units worse because of the excesses of loose soup/ally rules and CP abuse is not an appropriate response.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

 

And frankly I don't see the issue: Jump Infantry in previous editions couldn't jump units to assault things either. 

 

"It's always been like that so it's good. Let's live in the past. Screw new things." 

 

Newer isn't always better. 

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

And frankly I don't see the issue: Jump Infantry in previous editions couldn't jump units to assault things either. 

 

"It's always been like that so it's good. Let's live in the past. Screw new things." 

 

Newer isn't always better. 

 

 

I never claimed that. Just that "It's always been like that" is a terrible argument. ;)

[Kallas]

Newer isn't always better. 

Neither is tradition.

[MyD4rkPassenger]

Playing Devil's advocate here on this one, and this is all as always pure opinion, I do think there needs to be a consequence to "cherry picking" the best units from multiple codices.  Age of Sigmar has the alliance system where to take allies they must fit within a certain point parameter, can't take relics, only benefit from aura and command abilities if their keywords combine a la the KHORNE keyword for example, and each faction has a list of battletomes they can even have this option of allies with.  If one doesn't like these restrictions they can play under their grand alliance, a la CHAOS, and receive some mild benefits and GA only relics that are weaker than faction bonuses but allow you to take anything in the alliance's range at the cost of your faction specific abilities.

 

 I think a general version of this ported over to 40k, and major changes to CP sharing, would go a long way to preserve the thematic and tactical viabilities of themed armies while also curbing the headache lists everyone seems to be encountering.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

 

 

 

And frankly I don't see the issue: Jump Infantry in previous editions couldn't jump units to assault things either. 

 

"It's always been like that so it's good. Let's live in the past. Screw new things." 

 

Newer isn't always better. 

 

 

I never claimed that. Just that "It's always been like that" is a terrible argument.

 

Point was less that it was better, just that most people should be more used to it. Heck, many were still playing it that way because they didn't even consider it to be possible. My point wasn't which was "better" but rather a point that the reactions like this was never a thing before and was a completely new change out of left field are clear knee jerk reactions that frankly should be dialed back.

 

I know this is the internet where the only arguement is one filled with hyperbole, but let's dial it back a little at least.

 

 

Newer isn't always better. 

Neither is tradition.

Tell that to the Ministorium and the Adeptus Mechanicus. :P

[USNCenturion]

To be fair, the charge phase is completely different from the movement phase, so it makes sense that FLY can be separated as it is now. Units don’t use their movement value in the charge phase, so why should they utilize a rule designed for the movement phase in the charge phase too? I’d argue that you can FLY over the screen unit you intend to avoid, and then charge the one you want in the appropriate phase. This all seems fine thematically and mechanically.

 

Furthermore, the design of the charge phase specifically stated from the beginning of 8th that you can’t go within 1” of a unit you did not intend to charge. It makes sense now that the FLY is basically a vertical 1” move over models, and not an applied unlimited vertical distance.

 

Edit for full disclosure: this is coming from a guard player who doesn’t utilize FLY chargers and who values screen units

[Kallas]

To be fair, the charge phase is completely different from the movement phase, so it makes sense that FLY can be separated as it is now. Units don’t use their movement value in the charge phase, so why should they utilize a rule designed for the movement phase in the charge phase too? I’d argue that you can FLY over the screen unit you intend to avoid, and then charge the one you want in the appropriate phase. This all seems fine thematically and mechanically.

 

Furthermore, the design of the charge phase specifically stated from the beginning of 8th that you can’t go within 1” of a unit you did not intend to charge. It makes sense now that the FLY is basically a vertical 1” move over models, and not an applied unlimited vertical distance.

The Movement Phase also says you can't move within 1", but FLY gives an exception. Technically, there are no rules for how to move in the Charge Phase...so you could argue that you can just 'phase' through ! (Edit: by that, I mean it just tells you that you get to move 2d6", and can't move within 1" of a unit not targeted; but what about terrain? The Movement Phase says you can move in any direction, which presumably includes vertically up ruins; but the Charge Phase doesn't!)

 

And it's really not thematic. Seriously, give it more than -1 second of thought... Think about a Jetbike; does it just turn off and scrape along the ground? Sounds like superior Custodes training to me! 

[BitsHammer]

 

To be fair, the charge phase is completely different from the movement phase, so it makes sense that FLY can be separated as it is now. Units don’t use their movement value in the charge phase, so why should they utilize a rule designed for the movement phase in the charge phase too? I’d argue that you can FLY over the screen unit you intend to avoid, and then charge the one you want in the appropriate phase. This all seems fine thematically and mechanically.

 

Furthermore, the design of the charge phase specifically stated from the beginning of 8th that you can’t go within 1” of a unit you did not intend to charge. It makes sense now that the FLY is basically a vertical 1” move over models, and not an applied unlimited vertical distance.

The Movement Phase also says you can't move within 1", but FLY gives an exception. Technically, there are no rules for how to move in the Charge Phase...so you could argue that you can just 'phase' through !

 

And it's really not thematic. Seriously, give it more than -1 second of thought... Think about a Jetbike; does it just turn off and scrape along the ground? Sounds like superior Custodes training to me! 

 

The jetbike swoops in low but can't clear the defensive fire of the unit he's trying to dive past forcing him to engage them first, fight a hole through them and then consolidate into the target he wanted to fight?

 

I mean, let's be honest, 40k has never been really good about the whole 3d space thing, but if we want to be hung up on it, there are ways to justify it rather than "he gets off and pushes" or "it scrapes the ground".

[Kallas]

The jetbike swoops in low but can't clear the defensive fire of the unit he's trying to dive past forcing him to engage them first, fight a hole through them and then consolidate into the target he wanted to fight?

 

I mean, let's be honest, 40k has never been really good about the whole 3d space thing, but if we want to be hung up on it, there are ways to justify it rather than "he gets off and pushes" or "it scrapes the ground".

That's pretty minimalistic/reductionist. Do all flying units just pull away from their target if there's Random Guardsmen #885,009,293 slightly in front of their target, even if they're not particularly near the target?

 

A couple of Guardsmen near the flying unit can stop you charging something else just 'because'? Even though pretty much every FLY unit can just boost up an over - even more ridiculous when you consider actual FLYERS: they drop into Hover Mode (which is obviously less than a foot off the ground  ) and then can't fly over something in the way, right?!

 

Edit:

Maybe just give everyone For The Greater Good. Then give everyone hooves and blue skin. And then we wouldn't have to worry about the Charge/Fight Phase anyway!

[Panzer]

To be fair, the charge phase is completely different from the movement phase, so it makes sense that FLY can be separated as it is now. Units don’t use their movement value in the charge phase, so why should they utilize a rule designed for the movement phase in the charge phase too? I’d argue that you can FLY over the screen unit you intend to avoid, and then charge the one you want in the appropriate phase. This all seems fine thematically and mechanically.

 

Furthermore, the design of the charge phase specifically stated from the beginning of 8th that you can’t go within 1” of a unit you did not intend to charge. It makes sense now that the FLY is basically a vertical 1” move over models, and not an applied unlimited vertical distance.

 

Edit for full disclosure: this is coming from a guard player who doesn’t utilize FLY chargers and who values screen units

 

Because it wasn't originally designed for just the movement phase. That's just the case NOW after the new Errata.

Also I'm of the opinion that a turn sequence like in Kill Team would probably work great for 40k so in that case charging would be part of the movement phase again anyway lol

[Brother Casman]

Folks, I want to point out that you're not going to get anything changed by arguing about it here. Email GW!

[Kallas]

Folks, I want to point out that you're not going to get anything changed by arguing about it here. Email GW!

I fully intend to, after I've gotten a reasonable base of games under my belt to pull out and wave at them saying how stupid the change is.

[Panzer]

 

 

To be fair, the charge phase is completely different from the movement phase, so it makes sense that FLY can be separated as it is now. Units don’t use their movement value in the charge phase, so why should they utilize a rule designed for the movement phase in the charge phase too? I’d argue that you can FLY over the screen unit you intend to avoid, and then charge the one you want in the appropriate phase. This all seems fine thematically and mechanically.

 

Furthermore, the design of the charge phase specifically stated from the beginning of 8th that you can’t go within 1” of a unit you did not intend to charge. It makes sense now that the FLY is basically a vertical 1” move over models, and not an applied unlimited vertical distance.

The Movement Phase also says you can't move within 1", but FLY gives an exception. Technically, there are no rules for how to move in the Charge Phase...so you could argue that you can just 'phase' through !

 

And it's really not thematic. Seriously, give it more than -1 second of thought... Think about a Jetbike; does it just turn off and scrape along the ground? Sounds like superior Custodes training to me! 

 

The jetbike swoops in low but can't clear the defensive fire of the unit he's trying to dive past forcing him to engage them first, fight a hole through them and then consolidate into the target he wanted to fight?

 

I mean, let's be honest, 40k has never been really good about the whole 3d space thing, but if we want to be hung up on it, there are ways to justify it rather than "he gets off and pushes" or "it scrapes the ground".

 

 

Alright, so that's one example that works out in your favour but only if you assume the hipfirering Guardsmen were actually a threat to the Custodes on a Jetbike.. How about some few Nurglings who don't have any ranged weapons and are easily overlooked but a Heldrake or similarly huge FLY unit still can't charge over them? It just doesn't work out narratively in most cases.

Folks, I want to point out that you're not going to get anything changed by arguing about it here. Email GW!

 

Aye, it's probably a discussion for a new topic anyway. In any case I've already send my mail when B&C was still down.

[kombatwombat]

 

 

For the game to be fun for everyone, there must be some downside to the Soup option.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement, and I have yet to actually see a reason why this should be the case universally. Stamp down on the outliers and allow people to have OPTIONS to fit into their army to solve weaknesses.

Right, I don’t have time to address the whole post right now (timezone differentials) but I will address this one point. I’m not having a go at you, but I am genuinely gobsmacked at your position here.

 

Your contradiction to my point seems to be arguing that there should be no downside whatsoever to being able to cherrypick from any Codex to cover any conceivable weakness your army might have. In other words, that you should just be able to take all of the strongest stuff and not have any limitation or drawback from doing so. So just take Guard tanks and chaff, Custodes combat monsters, Marine buff characters, Eldar flyers, Knights superheavies and Chaos Primarchs? Can you not see how being able to take the strongest units from each codex to totally subvert the idea of a faction’s structural weaknesses (Eldar aren’t tough, Daemons can’t shoot, Tau can’t punch etc) is a massive advantage that should be balanced by lacking an advantage that Pure armies get?

 

I really don’t mean to be attacking you here, but your position as I understand it is so mind-boggling I’m feeling like a white girl in that I literally can’t even. Yes there are internal balance issues, but say for a minute that every single Codex has perfect internal balance and that you got a fixed 10CP for your army. Soup armies as a concept would still be stronger than their equivalent Pure constituent armies.

[USNCenturion]

Thanks for the insight into fly; it does seem some emails and additional review is in order. It definitely seems wonky as I said before, and I’m glad I don’t use it much but am feeling the pain of those who do. I get where people are coming from.

 

I did notice heroic intervention was addressed in the BRB FAQ, but don’t recall seeing much play on its new/elaborated understanding. I know some people used it differently or didn’t know when to fully apply it, so hopefully it’s made clear for all. I don’t use it so again, I wouldn’t know lol.