Wow, GW just made us even worse

Creeping Darkness wrote:

It's only Deep Strike that really suffers though. For anything else you can still start next to the transport and embark + flat out on your first turn.

It's a nerf that is squarely aimed at marines that just happens to scatter onto DE - and jinking won't do us any good!

I keep hearing that it's a nerf for Space Marines. How?

CptMetal wrote:

I keep hearing that it's a nerf for Space Marines. How?

A lot of imperium builds rely on taking drop pods from marine allies and putting their own units in them. Can't do that anymore.

Transports are only for that faction/codex, this includes drop pods.

Grenades can only be used 1 per unit in melee now too.

Pivot counts as moving can hurt too.

Count Adhemar wrote:

hydranixx wrote:

On the brightside, we're not Codex: Eldar Taxi's anymore

The darkside of that brightside being that we can no longer include Farseers, Shadowseers etc in a Grotesquerie if we want the Grots in a Raider. So Freakshows get nerfed too.

The nerf to our lead neg bubbles also hurts.

Well if you think about it, Corpse Thief got a slight buff now that marines cant all use their grenades. Str 4 vs t7 .

I've never had a CTC get into assault with Marines. Just realized that.

mrmagoo wrote:

Well if you think about it, Corpse Thief got a slight buff now that marines cant all use their grenades.    Str 4 vs t7 .  

I'm pretty sure all their grav guns will ensure no Talos makes it into base with them...

I didn't say they were perfect. Just got a little buff.

Hmm, there are definitely nerfs to a lot of armies here, but for the way I like to play my DE, it just got hugely affected - I used to run two full gunboats deep striking and not mishapping over enemy units, making the most of rerolls to hit whilst still firing at full BS from a jinking transport.

It's a damn good job Dark Eldar have night vision cos mine are going to be sitting in a box for a while after this. Not gonna sell them, I'll wait for a new codex to come out and see what that's like, but they won't be hitting the table if this FAQ is finalised in this format.

Azdrubael wrote:

What oversight ? We used to be able too flat-out, roll some cover saves, next turn disembbark or not, then shoot. Now the same but shoot at BS1 even if you disembarked, cause you count as jinked...

Thats nerf, plain.

I believe their thinking is that with all that jixing the guys spilling out of the transport are all car sick and too busy throwing up to shoot straight...

Ultra Magnus wrote:

Azdrubael wrote:

What oversight ? We used to be able too flat-out, roll some cover saves, next turn disembbark or not, then shoot. Now the same but shoot at BS1 even if you disembarked, cause you count as jinked...

Thats nerf, plain.

I believe their thinking is that with all that jixing the guys spilling out of the transport are all car sick and too busy throwing up to shoot straight...

Ask a sailor when he gets out of a bad ride if he is sick.. the answer is no.

Creeping Darkness wrote:

It's only Deep Strike that really suffers though. For anything else you can still start next to the transport and embark + flat out on your first turn.

Well the deep strike effects us competitively in a big way, but aside from that, I was under the impression that if a unit embarked or disembarked on a transport, it couldn't flat out in the same turn. Was I wrong? (Probably should check your rulebook)

So now don't jink and deep Strike but drive from cover to cover and keep shooting. Couldn't that be a solution? I know it's not perfect but still...

But it's sad indeed because Venom will be seen much more often now.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

The grenade decision is hands down the worst rules interpretation I've ever seen.

I agree with this. Reading it, I immediately felt like I was reading the work of someone who was
mentally challenged.

Same with the Jink mechanic - in the rulebook it's clear that only models that actually have the Jink rule get the bonuses and penalties of Jinking. e.g. If you have a Jump Pack IC attached to a squad of Jetbikes, and they Jink, only the Jetbikes will get the 4+ save and, likewise, only the Jetbikes will be snapshotting next turn.

So, even if the passengers of a transport count as Jinking when it Jinks, they shouldn't be affected because they don't have the Jink rule.

And, if they're forced to snapshot next turn, does that mean they also have a 4+ cover save in the intervening time? Like, if their transport explodes, will they get Jink saves against the damage? And then against any subsequent fire?

The Shredder wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

The grenade decision is hands down the worst rules interpretation I've ever seen.

I agree with this. Reading it, I immediately felt like I was reading the work of someone who was
mentally challenged.

Same with the Jink mechanic - in the rulebook it's clear that only models that actually have the Jink rule get the bonuses and penalties of Jinking. e.g. If you have a Jump Pack IC attached to a squad of Jetbikes, and they Jink, only the Jetbikes will get the 4+ save and, likewise, only the Jetbikes will be snapshotting next turn.

So, even if the passengers of a transport count as Jinking when it Jinks, they shouldn't be affected because they don't have the Jink rule.

And, if they're forced to snapshot next turn, does that mean they also have a 4+ cover save in the intervening time? Like, if their transport explodes, will they get Jink saves against the damage? And then against any subsequent fire?

They actually said in the FAQ if a vehicle explodes they do not get cover says.

But yeah ALOT of these Faqs are not faqs but actually Rule Changes.

My local will not be play withing these rules yes sense they technically are till drafts.

amishprn86 wrote:

They actually said in the FAQ if a vehicle explodes they do not get cover says.

Fair enough, but the part related to subsequent fire on the squad still applies. Are they actually getting the benefit of Jink, or just the penalties of Jinking with no benefit whatsoever?

amishprn86 wrote:

But yeah ALOT of these Faqs are not faqs but actually Rule Changes.

Indeed.

The Shredder wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

They actually said in the FAQ if a vehicle explodes they do not get cover says.

Fair enough, but the part related to subsequent fire on the squad still applies. Are they actually getting the benefit of Jink, or just the penalties of Jinking with no benefit whatsoever?

amishprn86 wrote:

But yeah ALOT of these Faqs are not faqs but actually Rule Changes.

Indeed.

By the FAQ yes the unit is counted as having been Jink.

With that said...

Grots in Raiders Moving + Flatout is looking better and better now.

Declare Jink, get out, free 4+ save in open and Charge haha

That's awesome.

amishprn86 wrote:

Declare Jink, get out, free 4+ save in open and Charge haha

I noticed this too, but I'm pretty sure most people will cry foul on this. They want troops in skimmers to take all the penalties of jink without the benefits.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Declare Jink, get out, free 4+ save in open and Charge haha

I noticed this too, but I'm pretty sure most people will cry foul on this. They want troops in skimmers to take all the penalties of jink without the benefits.

But we dont know if thats what GW want, clearly they dont even know what they want changing rules completely opposite of the BRB hah

GW clearly has their "third stringers" on FAQ duty. Many of these rulings appear to be the work of an intern who's only briefly skimmed the rules and replied with what they think makes sense based on almost no active knowledge of how the game has actually been played for the past 2 years.

I expect that they put less experienced people than previously would have been on FAQ duty, thinking that since they were going to get community feedback, said feedback would make up for their lack of experience.

Pretty sure that since they hadn't put out FAQs for the last couple years, all the old, more experienced FAQ guys probably got canned in the last corporate downsizing. So it's all newbs now.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Creeping Darkness wrote:

It's only Deep Strike that really suffers though. For anything else you can still start next to the transport and embark + flat out on your first turn.

Well the deep strike effects us competitively in a big way, but aside from that, I was under the impression that if a unit embarked or disembarked on a transport, it couldn't flat out in the same turn. Was I wrong? (Probably should check your rulebook)

Embarking (page 80): If the vehicle moved before its passengers got aboard, it cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running or charging). If the vehicle did not move before its passengers got aboard, it can move as normal after they embarked. In either case, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram in a turn that a unit embarked upon it.

Disembarking (page 81) If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or ram on a turn that a unit disembarks from it.

So as long as it didn't move embarking on it will not prevent you from going flat out with the vehicle.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Creeping Darkness wrote:

It's only Deep Strike that really suffers though. For anything else you can still start next to the transport and embark + flat out on your first turn.

Well the deep strike effects us competitively in a big way, but aside from that, I was under the impression that if a unit embarked or disembarked on a transport, it couldn't flat out in the same turn. Was I wrong? (Probably should check your rulebook)

Embarking (page 80): If the vehicle moved before its passengers got aboard, it cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running or charging). If the vehicle did not move before its passengers got aboard, it can move as normal after they embarked. In either case, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram in a turn that a unit embarked upon it.

Disembarking (page 81) If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or ram on a turn that a unit disembarks from it.

So as long as it didn't move embarking on it will not prevent you from going flat out with the vehicle.

Good to know. Thanks for the rules quotes!

So I guess battle brothers embarking and moving flat out turn 1 is a possible thing. Sucks if you're going 2nd though.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Declare Jink, get out, free 4+ save in open and Charge haha

I noticed this too, but I'm pretty sure most people will cry foul on this. They want troops in skimmers to take all the penalties of jink without the benefits.

Unfortunately, this seems to be what GW want - as they've basically changed the rules so that the passengers of Jinking skimmers suffer all the penalties of Jink, seemingly without gaining the benefits.

As in, passengers counting as Jinking doesn't affect them (since they don't have Jink), but then they specifically said that the passengers are firing snapshots next turn. We're left with no idea whether the passengers are supposed to get the full effects of Jink (implied, but against the rules), or just the penalties (also against the rules, but we're told that this is somehow the case).


Then again, perhaps we're reading this all wrong. These aren't draft faqs, they're faqs for a draft rulebook. Apparently one that has some very different rules to the rulebook they actually released.