New FAQ Out Today

Other armies have much nastier T1 deepstrike than we do. Tzaangor Webway Witchtime and the fight-again stratagem means that unless you bubble-wrapped your crap, our army's crippled.

While we got nerfs, our enemies generally speaking got nerfed way harder. I assure you, you want these rules to become official.

Man, I'm pissed I can't run a Kabal only army in tournament play without A) using Spec. Chars I don't want or B) Using a single Brigade at most.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu#####

They might update the CP for the raiding party in the Drukhari specific FAQ. They would have to make the 3 Patrols +6CP to be the equivalent of being one more than a battalion. Would that means 6 Patrols would be +12CP though!?

hekatrixxy wrote:

They might update the CP for the raiding party in the Drukhari specific FAQ. They would have to make the 3 Patrols +6CP to be the equivalent of being one more than a battalion. Would that means 6 Patrols would be +12CP though!?

The Drukhari FAQ was released yesterday as well. No extra CP, and no Raiding Party exceptions for matched play.

Talos and Cronos get FLY - YAY!

No more mixin benefits from Flayed Scull Obsession of a transort and passengers from other kabal - Meh (expected)

You will suck Command Points only if your Warlord is on the table - NAY!

Alliance of Agony once per battle - Meh

Only one mortal wound from Ossefactor - NAY!

Wanted exception for rading parties? LOL if there is an upper limit of 3 Detachments per Battle-forged army you BRING ONLY 3 DETACHMENTS.

So we have in total 1 YAY vs. 3 NAY
It could be worse.

Talos being fly is only decent if you field them...but its still a positive overall for DE.

Ossefactor rule was being abused and had already split opinion on this site...it was always going to be one mortal wound once the question got asked so I am fine with that as I wouldn't have played it any other way.

Mixing benefits was never meant to be a thing and again this was just people trying to abuse the rules so that is not a nerf, it is simply the rules as intended.

Command points and the Archon having to be on foot is pretty bad if true...kinda feel like another FAQ on that would help.

Spamming is over...that has to be a good thing????

Why can't you run Kabal only?

Datasheet restriction means 3 Archons max. If you run 1 Brigade you can't run any other Kabal. If you run 1 Battalion and 1 Spearhead, no 3rd Kabal detachment for you (unless you take Drazhar). You can still take 3 other detachments, but that undercuts your CP.

Tactical reserves.
Plays a big part in our game since we often deep strike a lot. On the other hand the max half power points makes more sense than all those little groups unlocking units of 200+ point deep strikers.
Hate that turn 1 deep striking can no longer shoot the tanks from the table, but other armies have it worse than us.
Question, is it only a player's first turn, it would mean both the first turn of me and the first turn of the opponent? Someone was already advocating going second might be better now since then you can deep strike in round 1 since it is not the first turn of the game.

Battle brothers, it kinda sucks, but I understand.
It gives to many problems with minor factions. Sure some of the nasty armies cannot be used anymore. But usually the nice imperial soup (having a few extra units who do not have codexes yet) suddenly is impossible, as are some options of the eldar soup. On average it works quite well, I am just sour since I cannot have a inquisitor with his unit and a unit of silence sisters with an assasin in a single detachment anymore. Needing a minimum of 3 assasins is a deal breaker for me.

More command points makes our special option nearly useless if there is a max on detachments.

The ignoring wounds stuff makes sense

I actually like the max 2/3 unit restriction for non troops. Even if it does hurt our mono builds and makes them fighting an uphull battle without special characters. I always disliked the spam armies and thus sort of like it. Although I still think a max % in points would have been better.

I like how they made commissars so cheap and actually usefull again that it might actually be ok to field them again.
And that the price changes stop the craftworld psykers from being an autoinclude.

Slight nerf to Labyrinthine Cunning: it now require that the WL is on the battlefield, so no Cunning while he is embarked ..

That is a suggestion for Tournament Organisers to base their rulesets around ...... Hardly a problem for 99% of players though surely?

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Spamming is over...that has to be a good thing????

Unless you wanted to field 2 Kabal Battalions without having to include Drazhar. Or, you know, if you wanted to field more than 3 Lhamaeans or Sslyth in your army.

I don't know, it affects me as 99% of my games are under tournament rules (even the friendly ones). It might be the same for FattimusMcGee. I'm OK with the limitation though, as I play mixed DE anyway, I can see how it would be irritating if you wanted to play mono-faction. The requirement forces intra-codex soup if you play DE in tournament settings and don't use Aeldari soup.

I think the new FAQ was not too bad. It hit other factions much harder than us. Also, I like the maximum number of same datasheets rule. It forces people to stop spamming the same units over and over. And as I like to use different units it doesn't really concern me. I only feel sad for people owning 6 Ravagers or stuff like that.

The only thing I really hate about the new FAQ is that CPs for battalions went up, but raiding party is still at 4. This means we get 1 CP less and need one HQ and 2 detachments more. I really liked the concept of raiding party because I like to play a balanced army with cabal, cult and coven units. I guess I will switch to 1 cabal battalion with 3 raiders + 30 warriors. And what I'm going to do with my wyches and wracks I don't know yet. Maybe getting more Talos' and make a spearhead detachment. Or reavers for an outrider detachment.

Raiding party seems pretty dead to me. Except you don't own enough models to build a battalion, I can't come up with a reason to use it.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Spamming is over...that has to be a good thing????

Unless you wanted to field 2 Kabal Battalions without having to include Drazhar. Or, you know, if you wanted to field more than 3 Lhamaeans or Sslyth in your army.

True we have been screwed over with our lack of HQ options. If you feel you need two Kabals you can still take two Kabals...like a Battalion alongside a different detachment. We do have Drahzar he can be taken as a 4th HQ if you feel you really need the CP...I accept this is a tax on us that shouldn't exist.

It does seem as though taking x2 Kabal battalions is not a great option for us. For the points x2 Succubus for a Cult Battalion seems pretty legit...I am not sure I would want x2 Haemy. Kabal Battalion along with a Cult Battalion and simply a Coven detachment still gives us 13/14 CP with a further D3 if you take the Soothsayer Trait. That means we would be getting an average of 14/15 CP.

Battleforged +3
Kabal Battalion +5
Cult Battalion +5
Coven Spearhead (Heamy & Talos) +1
Alliance of Agony -1
Soothsayer +D3

I am just thinking out loud here guys, if I do make mistakes I apologise.

Im not sure intra-codex soup is correct...

More like a Dark Eldar mixed grill

I would really like to know how this new suggestion impacts on other armies....does anyone play any other armies that this badly hurts? I understand SOB got hit badly by this.

"A lot of campaigns and tournaments already follow the Organised Event Guidelines on Detachments in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. From today, we have another suggested event option, this time on the number of repeated datasheets in a force."

"This ruling is designed specifically as a recommendation for events but, like the Detachment limits, you’re welcome to use it in any of your games."

Literally just a guide for tournaments.  Shouldn't affect day to day play.

Drager wrote:

I don't know, it affects me as 99% of my games are under tournament rules (even the friendly ones). It might be the same for FattimusMcGee. I'm OK with the limitation though, as I play mixed DE anyway, I can see how it would be irritating if you wanted to play mono-faction. The requirement forces intra-codex soup if you play DE in tournament settings and don't use Aeldari soup.

Most tourneys also got a "no duplicate detachment" rule... so the complaint are you cant take what? A kabal Batt + spearhead + ??? or Batt + Brig + spearhead? Vanguard and Outrider... why would you run Kabal on those, as they are cheaper with a Succy.
I got a hard time to see this being a problem for DE with the codex release, even with our limited HQ options.

Keast Kannegaard wrote:

Drager wrote:

I don't know, it affects me as 99% of my games are under tournament rules (even the friendly ones). It might be the same for FattimusMcGee. I'm OK with the limitation though, as I play mixed DE anyway, I can see how it would be irritating if you wanted to play mono-faction. The requirement forces intra-codex soup if you play DE in tournament settings and don't use Aeldari soup.

Most tourneys also got a "no duplicate detachment" rule... so the complaint are you cant take what? A kabal Batt + spearhead + ??? or Batt + Brig + spearhead? Vanguard and Outrider... why would you run Kabal on those, as they are cheaper with a Succy.
I got a hard time to see this being a problem for DE with the codex release, even with our limited HQ options.

Yeah, like I said its fine for me, but if someone else wants to run pure Kabal under tournament rules it might affect them and whatever weird build they have in mind. Battalion/Spearhead/Vanguard (Archon and Mandrakes?) I don't know, not a build I play.

Hellstrom wrote:

"A lot of campaigns and tournaments already follow the Organised Event Guidelines on Detachments in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. From today, we have another suggested event option, this time on the number of repeated datasheets in a force."

"This ruling is designed specifically as a recommendation for events but, like the Detachment limits, you’re welcome to use it in any of your games."

Literally just a guide for tournaments.  Shouldn't affect day to day play.

Except when your day to day play is under tournament rules. Like I said this will affect the majority of my games and those people I play with. I acknowledge it won't affect people who play differently to me, but it does affect me and it could easily be the same for someone else complaining about it. Also I'm actually OK with it, the only one of my armies it messes with is where I have 4 Lhameans and an Archon in one army.

I wonder now that spamming has been killed that the tourny scene will ease up on the duplicate detachment rule.

Being able to deep strike our Ravagers is still legit at least. Screaming Jets keep them off the board in case you don't get first turn. Simply drop them in your deployment zone turn 1.

Reavers are now even better when combined with Red Grief. One of the fastest units in the game surely?

While people are saying Raiding Party is dead...it isn't really dead. On the tourney scene I don't think people would have used the Raiding Party. Outside of the tourney scene you can do as you please.

Just to add my two cents, I think the Deep Strike beta rule takes it too far.
I can understand that GW want to seriously nerf alpha-strike, despite some armies being based on it, but I think making it deployment zone only is too harsh a restriction. So much so that it makes it kind of pointless being in reserves if you plan to come down turn one.
It would have made more sense to say your table half, or anywhere on the board not in your opponents zone. They even could have extended the drop range to higher than 9". That would have made more sense to me.

On other stuff, its mostly meh to me (although I still hate the new targetting additions).
I don't see them being massive issues, especially as the Detachments rule is a "suggestion" for events only. My local meta, and local tournaments (who usually keep it fairly casual) were pushing towards exemtping Patrols from detachment limits anyway, and it doesn't look like anyone has changed their mind after this.

Bit of a shame the Drukhari FAQ didn't directly address a few things like Agents Of Vect, being on wrong transports, etc.
But I'm not sure we'll get another.

Perhaps we need to bombard GW with questions and ask for a proper one.

Squidmaster wrote:

Just to add my two cents, I think the Deep Strike beta rule takes it too far.
I can understand that GW want to seriously nerf alpha-strike, despite some armies being based on it, but I think making it deployment zone only is too harsh a restriction. So much so that it makes it kind of pointless being in reserves if you plan to come down turn one.
It would have made more sense to say your table half, or anywhere on the board not in your opponents zone. They even could have extended the drop range to higher than 9". That would have made more sense to me.

I'd have thought the more sensible option would be to say that you can't bring more than half of your deep striking units onto the table on turn 1.

So if you have 6 units in reserve, no more than 3 of them can enter on turn 1.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

Just to add my two cents, I think the Deep Strike beta rule takes it too far.
I can understand that GW want to seriously nerf alpha-strike, despite some armies being based on it, but I think making it deployment zone only is too harsh a restriction. So much so that it makes it kind of pointless being in reserves if you plan to come down turn one.
It would have made more sense to say your table half, or anywhere on the board not in your opponents zone. They even could have extended the drop range to higher than 9". That would have made more sense to me.

I'd have thought the more sensible option would be to say that you can't bring more than half of your deep striking units onto the table on turn 1.

So if you have 6 units in reserve, no more than 3 of them can enter on turn 1.

That would work too.
And would be more sensible than the proposed rule.