26 replies to this topic

[Joe]

The new Death Guard FAQ is up on Warhammer Community and it's a fairly short one - of note, they've removed the 'Lord of the Death Guard' keyword from the Demon Prince.

[Marshal Loss]

Inexorable Advance doesn't apply to Difficult Ground. That's a significant blow to IA's usefulness

[Azekai]

So does this mean you can include one or two DPs in a detachment now? Or just 1 DP and 1 lord?

[McElMcNinja]

Inexorable Advance: The Death Guard trudge towards the enemy at a relentless pace, unless they are on a battlefield, then they move like everything else.

You can still only include 1 DP per detachment, from the way I read it.

[Azekai]

Inexorable Advance: The Death Guard trudge towards the enemy at a relentless pace, unless they are on a battlefield, then they move like everything else.

You can still only include 1 DP per detachment, from the way I read it.

Gotcha. No change due to the 1 DP limit and Infernal Jealousy, but you can include a lord or Typhus.

Meh.

Edited by Azekai, 22 February 2021 - 05:19 PM.

[Bulwyf]

I love this change. We can at least now take 1 DP with a lord now. I'm not stuck with a Plaguecaster in a HQ slot as mandatory choice.

[jgascoine011]

Well the change for daemon princes was obvious as the rule made no sense.
The change to IA means that IA is literally garbage 😂

[Marshal Loss]

Surprised (but not at all complaining) that the Tallyman wasn't changed. I expected them to modify the wording to only trigger in our command phase

[Heretic]

Ridiculous. 

[infyrana]

Inexorable Advance: The Death Guard trudge towards the enemy at a relentless pace, unless they are on a battlefield, then they move like everything else.

Made me laugh and think of the game title 'Pointless' 

[Azekai]

Does this make souping more viable? As one of the main bailiwicks of our faction seems to be non-functional (or at least contentious to the point of being worthless).

[Marshal Loss]

Does this make souping more viable? As one of the main bailiwicks of our faction seems to be non-functional (or at least contentious to the point of being worthless).

Nah. IA wasn't what was dissuading soup to begin with.

[Putrid Choir]

I was hoping they would let the legion trait affect every unit in the codex and not just "bubonic astartes". So friggin' stupid. And now they clarified how crappy the movement part of our trait is.

[Tokugawa]

With or without the change, I prefer to bring a LoC than a DP now.

[Verbal Underbelly]

Could someone tell me where Inexorable Advance now applies if it does not apply to Difficult Ground?

 

I can't think of anything...

[Tokugawa]

Could someone tell me where Inexorable Advance now applies if it does not apply to Difficult Ground?

I can't think of anything...

At least you should remember "the Droning" lol

[jgascoine011]

Could someone tell me where Inexorable Advance now applies if it does not apply to Difficult Ground?

I can't think of anything...

Certain strats such as the custodies “reduce charge by D6” etc

[Dark Legionnare]

 

Could someone tell me where Inexorable Advance now applies if it does not apply to Difficult Ground?

I can't think of anything...

Certain strats such as the custodies “reduce charge by D6” etc

 

Which, thanks to lack of GW's ability to ever get any sort of terminology standardization or technical writing in place, people have been RAW arguing since codex release that Tanglefoot is not ignored by IA, since it reduces "charge distance", not the "charge roll"; IA protecting the "charge roll" from being modified. Oi vey.

I'm of the mindset to say "That's just RAW for advantage, and should be ignored, it totally makes them immune to Tanglefoot". I'm sure we'll see even more fun with that too now that GW gave even more "RAW is law" incentive by saying IA doesn't protect against difficult terrain -2.

Edited by Dark Legionnare, 23 February 2021 - 02:13 PM.

[Reskin]

I think it's in anticipation for other factions with stratagems and psychic powers or abilities that affect the MS characteristic of a units profile.

Edited by Reskin, 23 February 2021 - 02:20 PM.

[BloatyMcBloatFace]

Hi guys, am I alone in thinking that as the rule also states that you ignore penalties to advance and charge rolls that these are unaffected by terrain? "It can ignore any or all modifiers to it's Move characteristic, Advance rolls and charge rolls."

Edited by BloatyMcBloatFace, 23 February 2021 - 02:22 PM.

[Heretic]

 

Certain strats such as the custodies “reduce charge by D6” etc

 

 

This strat reducing charge distance. DG can ignore only charge roll modifiers.  

[Azekai]

 

 

Certain strats such as the custodies “reduce charge by D6” etc

 

 

This strat reducing charge distance. DG can ignore only charge roll modifiers.  

 

Feels like an absolutely arbitrary distinction. The d6 roll then applies a negative modifier equal to whatever is rolled.

[Emicus]

Certain strats such as the custodies “reduce charge by D6” etc

This strat reducing charge distance. DG can ignore only charge roll modifiers.

Feels like an absolutely arbitrary distinction. The d6 roll then applies a negative modifier equal to whatever is rolled.

Like the arbitrary distinction presented in the FAQ?
It's not the characteristic it's the move the characteristic makes, which therefore isn't itself.

'Ignore movement modifiers' somehow doesn't ignore modifiers to distance moved

[Azekai]

 

 

 

Certain strats such as the custodies “reduce charge by D6” etc

This strat reducing charge distance. DG can ignore only charge roll modifiers.

Feels like an absolutely arbitrary distinction. The d6 roll then applies a negative modifier equal to whatever is rolled.

Like the arbitrary distinction presented in the FAQ?
It's not the characteristic it's the move the characteristic makes, which therefore isn't itself.

'Ignore movement modifiers' somehow doesn't ignore modifiers to distance moved

 

Oh, I totally agree with you. The powers that be at GW seem to want DG to be affected by terrain, but that seems like the most obvious application of Inexorable Advance.

The FAQ is illogical and makes a mockery of the idea of reading Rules as Written.
'Modifiers to distance moved' is ipso facto a movement modifier.

[McElMcNinja]

It seems they don’t want movement modifiers to affect DG unless there are movement modifiers, in which case they affect DG. Clear as mud!?!