Blood Angels FAQ is published today!



Rant on!

And like a big fat kick in the balls, it arrives.  There was not a lot of unexpected stuff in the FAQ. They fixed the Vindicator of course, (Enough of you RAW asswipes actually trying to enforce that vindicator error) and officially spelled it out for all the douche bags out there that NO, models deep striking inside a Land Raider cannot use Descent of Angels.  They clarified that Baal Preds can indeed use their smoke launchers during their scout move. For some reason they repeated that Mephiston, Sanguinor and DC Tycho are single model units... That was clear enough... not quite agreed with on the Tycho and Sanguinor front but whatever.

My beef though? Disallowing Libby dreads from taking extra armor for one.  Why the F not? It just does not make sense other than some useless way of balancing. But since when does GW care about that? Cough Cough (Valkrye)  Oh wait... there is no 60 dollar Libby Dread model.

More beef.  Corbulo!  He has a farseeing eye. His precog ability has helped them to win entire wars before they even began. You would think the essence of that ability lies in using it to reroll the attempt to go first.  Nope. Apparently the farseeing eye is not quite so farseeing. It is the nearseeing eye... or slightly out of reach seeing.  Why bother with Corbulo now? You are spending 55 more points than you would on an ordinary priest, for a marginally better model that lets you reroll "Any" single die roll... EXCEPT for the only one that really matters.  Sure he can be used to reroll Seize the initiative... It even says so in the codex... Oh wait... STI was taken out of Hard Boys.  (But Allies weren't?)

But my ultimate beef comes down to the nerfbat slammed up against the Sanguinary Priest bubble of Furious Charge.  First of all, and let me be clear on this, I am not complaining about Sanguinary Priests getting nerfed. It sucks, but I admit, they were truly awesome and maybe gave the Blood Angels a little too much bite. Having said that, I wish to deal with the fact that GW has completely changed the mechanics of how a power works after what... 4 years of use? The Corbulo FC bubble from the PDF, and the priest bubble in the new codex worked the same.  If a unit had a model within range of the FC bubble at the start of their assault, then the unit got the bonus. Easy. Simple. Makes sense. The squad is inspired by the Blood Chalice, then charge off in a fervor of anger.

Well, now the Furious Charging models need to be within the bubble when they actually roll the dice for their attacks. Why is this rediculous? Well, for one, they only "fixed" half of the rule. They did not mention Feel No Pain. (previously, and still, a single model needed/needs to be within range of the FNP bubble to grant the power to the squad.) So long as a priest is lurking some where in range of one of the models, the whole squad gets it. But the Furious Charge bubble throws out the "squad gets it if a model is in range" rule, unnecessarily adding more complication to the game. Now no end of annoyance is going to sprout out as our opponents bust out the tape and measure each and every model on the table from every possible angle and dicker over hair widths. Oh my god I can see it now! "This model is just out of range Jawa, he does not get FC." "Look directly over the model asswipe opponent, you are looking from an angle." "Nope, from my point of view you can fit a finger nail in there... out of range."  Judge.."Dice it off.".  On to the next model... and so forth.

I cant wait until I come up on some other "aura" effect.

Thank you GW for adding one more element to the game to completely and utterly slow it down.

The ultimate question is... why?  First of all, Furious Charge was never a question. And definitely not frequently asked! The rule was plain and simple. "Ok, my assault squad is assaulting, and checking range this member of the squad is within 6" of a priest, so the squad gets FC." Easy!  Instead of dealing with measuring each and every model, and keeping track and whatnot... it was a common sense answer to a question that was never contested.  Why change it?

I can see that GW is attempting to reign in the power of the priest. I get it... sorta. Now in order to get FC granted to a whole squad, you need to send that priest in with it.  No more camping just out of reach, or worse yet, inside a transport. For the record, I have always been a proponent of fitting my priest with a PW and sending him in to fight. I have championed this cause many times over on Bolter and Chainsword, despite some of the "experts" over there calling me crazy for getting my priest out of his transport. So this change will not have a huge impact on my game, but that is besides the point! It will actually probably help because it forces guys to disembark their priests... But that is not the point either.

The point of my issue with this change is that it is HALF ASS. Don't change half of a rule. Rewrite the damn unit. Or better yet, FUCKING PLAYTEST. For christ sake. I wonder if they even considered the impact of the FAQ on the game.  Or even the unit in the codex for that matter! If you are going to reduce the only good power of a unit... (FNP is a joke when 40% of all guardsmen in the imperium are packing melta and plasma guns.) Do it right! You need to fundamentally change the way the unit works.  Make him a squad upgrade. Reduce his point cost. Make the power only affect the squad he has joined. Any number of ways pop into mind... but no. Lets just create one more point of contention in an already contentious game.

What happened, did no one buy that priest model you took out of the old 25 dollar Blood Angels Honor Guard box set and tried selling alone for 15? Selling 130 point valkries 5 or 6 at a time to every guard player in the world for 60 bucks a pop was plenty of incentive to skip that unit when it came time to swing the nerfbat... but since no one is buying your priest swing away GW!

I don't mind nerfing. Just do it right!

I won't even get into the shitshow Nid FAQ. Doom needed clarification yes... but how bout making what was a cool unit completely and utterly useless!  Well done indeed guys.

Guh.

Jawaballs


EDIT: July 4, 2010

Due to the fantastic comments and input, I thought I would edit this and add a summary of what has been discussed.  First of all, the only difference in how a priest works now vs before the FAQ is that you measure the 6" distance at the time the models gaining the benefit make their attacks. Previously it was accepted that the models needed to be in range at the start of the assault phase... IE.. before they made their move, thus were able to get the bonus and charge off in any direction they want. Now, based on the FAQ, the priest needs to be closer to the squad, thus at more risk during assault.  It is a balance issue intended to thwart people hiding their priest in a transport and giving their entire army the bonus.

Also, to be clear, not every model needs be in range. At the time you make your attacks, one member of a squad needs to be in range to grant the whole squad the bonus!

Jawaballs

56 comments:

Gonewild said...

Great point: I hadn't noticed that Feel No Pain was not addressed with Furious Charge. I think you hit the nail on the head- a priest's modifiers conferred to a unit he has joined would have been a much simpler way to enact similar rules constraint with less time constraint. I'm going to start selling 6 inch radial plastic templates and call them "prayer circles".

ibril said...

Which unit did they rend completely and utterly useless?

Max said...

why didnt they clarify the psychic power section with how many powers a libby (upgraded or not) can use in one turn (ie defining a player turn)? This i find the most frustrating part!

The FC and FNP is abit douchie considering that shield of sang basically creates a bubble effect. Why have two different rulings instead of one consitant one!

Jawaballs said...

Turns have been defined as far as I know. I don't feel like looking up the rules but that one has been pretty clearly answered I think.

m0rm0k said...

I am a lot more shocked by the nid FAQ than the Angels one but I have to agree the FC rule is bad. This will now have to apply to Iron Hand and other units in other books as well. Seriously I can think of at least 4 codex that have FC bubbles. that's about 1/4 of the books. On another note why do Spores not work like droppods?

Matthew said...

The wording for FC was very poor...RAW people will have a field day but I'm pretty sure they intended it to mean the unit gains the bonus when it makes the close combat attacks. Meaning, the unit doesn't have to start within 6" of the priest to get the bonus, just has to be within 6" when the attacks are made. GW sucks at proof reading...

Ryanjsmall said...

@max

hey Dude. Yeh i brought that up awhile back. Its actually answered in the start of the 40K rulebook. Cant remember the exact page but i think around page 9? They say that when they use the term "turn" in either the rulebook or codexs it means player turn. It will only be game turn if it specifically states "game Turn" If you really need the Page number i can find it when i get home for ya.

Cheers

Darkwynn said...

You know my thoughts on it:) its utter horse shit and would love to pull a Wayne Brady on someone there.

Can't wait till someone with Int 6 kills your priest and everyone loose the FC and FNP powers now...

averagehuman said...

VERY good point sir.. the curbulo thing is just dam stupid.. he IS the guy who dante would look at and say "alright.. what the #%^% are they doing" then he would adjust accordingly..the best way to represent this.. re-roll of deployment roll off!!


And the Sang Guard thing.. i think you hit right on the dot. they shoud be getting it at START of assault phase.. and there will be some asshats out there that will argue that point for EVER with you, that your squad ISNT in range... overall good FAQ IMO.. just those two things piss me off...

Well done Jawa!
Jeff

Kroxitau said...

You can have your FC bubble back to the way it was. Take away scout move smoke. Smoke is supposed to be done in the shooting phase, forcing you to choose to either shoot OR get a +4 cover save. Now you get to have your cake and eat it too. (although i never really got the sense of my "phrase" i just used, why wouldn't you eat cake if you had some?)So I guess, why wouldn't you scout smoke if you could.

Then again I do play Tau so whatever advantages you get in CC don't really matter because to beat Tau in CC all you need is something only slightly better equipped than a highschool football team.

-Krox

Jawaballs said...

They won't be asshats though. The FAQ spells it out. The term "models" is pretty clear. But some one else pointed out what I sort of eluded to. Blood Angels are not the only army that has bubble effects... and this FAQ is going to set a precedent to be sure.

Jawaballs said...

Kroxitau, not so on the smoke. The rule book says Once per game, after completing it's move, a vehicle may use smoke launchers. Then it goes on to say that the Vehicle may not fire any of it's weapons in the same turn that it used it's smoke, but will count as obscured in the enemies next shooting phase. It actually never says exactlly what phase you have to use smoke in. Only "after a vehicle completes it's move" and that it counts as obscured in "the next enemy shooting phase". By this rational, a tank that gets magna grappled can pop smoke! :) But smoke were definitely never used in either shooting phase. Popping smoke in the scout move is exactlly as the rule book says it should be. Vehicle moves, it can pop smoke, and counts as obscured in the next enemy shooting phase.

TheGraveMind said...

Lol, I came here looking from hope, as my heart was broken by the Nid FAQ, now named Nid FAil.
I'm thinking I'm going to switch to blood angels. at least most of these rulings don't change how I would play BA. The lib dread ruling seemed harsh. but other than that nothing seemed too bad (again, just came from nid FAQ camp).
I'm interested in how the next few days of gaming go about.

Alex said...

Hmm, you might be getting worked up about nothing here. The Codex clearly states the unit gets the bonus. Since this is not Errata but FAQ, I think that the use of model is simply what you measure to. If the unit has a model in range, you get the bonus for the unit.

Extirpation said...

Unless im misunderstanding the problem here. I have to agree with Alex on this one, if the model is given the bonus, it's also conferred to the unit. As the codex clearly says "all friendly units within 6 are subject to the furious charge and FNP special rules"

It does nerf the priests a bit as high int atks can kill the priest, or destroy the model thats within the 6in bubble, but I see no reason why it would omit the "unit" part.

Alex said...

Yeah, the more I look at it, the more it is clear that the question and answer clearly refer to the measurement aspect of it, not who gets the furious charge.

The reason the measurement aspect is even called into question is due to the nature of furious charge and the fact that you could be in two places in one phase. Whereas, with FNP it's straightforward. If the unit is within range at the time of the save, it's in.

douglas said...

I think GW made a screw up on the FC. Codex states that unit within 6in get benefit. So which do we use because a FAQ is not an ERATTA. That question was answered how it was asked. The question was asked model and not unit so it was replied as model not unit. Ask the question with unit in place of model. Or if you have a serious asshat on your hands state that it says nothing about the unit just a model so I will use the codex because it DOES define the unit. The FAQ still doesnt answer the question which is IMO as it should be. Let the debate begin..

FoxPhoenix135 said...

I'm kinda glad I'm not playing 40k at the moment. Go VOR, defunct game of a defunct company! At least nobody can screw with my ruleset.

Momba said...

Sorry, I do not think you got that right. The codex says for blood chalice: "All friendly units within 6"". So how do you find out if one model is in range? Well, it is in range if one model of the same unit is within 6" of the chalice.

Now you just do this measurement when arriving in combat instead of before. simple as that.

grav said...

yep, it needs a model in range to give the unit FC.

The FAQ does not mention that it changes the way bubbles work.

This is exactly how I always played it, by assaulting BA-squads intelligentlt one can pull the models out of the 6" bubble with the pile-in move, thereby denying FNP.

Kill the priest at >I5 and FC + FNP dissapears.

Jawaballs said...

Lots of great replies. Model or Unit? As per all accepted rules, if a squad has a model in range, the whole squad gets the bonus. That is how it should work. But this FAQ, which is official when it comes to determining how codex rules work, says Model not Squad. My point was that every rules lawyer in the universe will read that very literally and attempt to pick out which members of the squad get the bonus. But the biggest impact of this rule is that previously, it was possible to have the priest in range of several squads/units at one time, grant them all the bonus, then send them all out in their separate directions with FC, and all of them retain the bonus. That meant that most of those squads would have to leave the bubble to get into assault.

Now the priest has to move with the squads to make sure a model is within range when they do their attacks. It is essentially taking a bubble effect away, and turning the power into a squad only effect, since it is now very limited as to what squads it can have an effect on!

Instead of clamping down in this way, they should make the priests a squad upgrade that grants a squad only bonus of FC/FNP that does NOT take up a valuable elite slot. Black Templars get FC for 3 points a model. Answer? Make the apothecary a 40 point additional model that you can slap into every squad. Hell, there is one in the Honor Guard that is essentially free when comparing point costs.

Alex said...

Check the difference between an FAQ and Errata. One clarifies rules the other changes them. This is under the FAQ section. RAW really have nothing on this.

As to the other part of the rule. Yeah, it hurts a bit but I don't think it is unfair, just requires a bit more careful placement. Alternatively, if a unit is outside of 6" of the priest but assaults into the combat the priest is in or near it, the unit not gets furious charge.

FluffyPanda said...

Alex is spot on here. This isn't changing the rule at all (since that would require errata), it's merely clarifying it. The only thing that they are doing is pointing out that the wording change between PDF and the new codex is intentional.

The way you measure hasn't changed, so a single model has to be in range to grant the ability to his whole unit, but the /timing/ of the measurement has changed from PDF. Now you need to have your priests close to your fights and you might struggle to get the benefit on more than 1-2 squads.

The "model" wording is important because initiative could mean that a unit loses the ability half way through a melee, so some models in a unit might not get to take advantage of it.

This FAQ has just clarified the intent of the wording in the codex. Everybody here seems quite fond of RAI, so surely that's a positive thing? At least it might stop people from claiming that you're a RAW asshat when you try to use the rule exactly as it was intended!

Norsehawk said...

Does the Priest ruling also mean that the models have to be close to him to benefit from the FNP as well? Holy battlecannon bait batman!

Eamonn said...

I still can't see much change in the FC rule. In some situations it can be better as units tend to clump up in CC so the FC rule will now spread to all the BAs in that combat as opposed to only some if you charge from different directions. It does make it a lot harder to sit your SP safely at the back but that always struck me as a rather cheesy way to play anyway.

I find no problem with the wording either. The rule specifically says it applies to any unit with a model. So when your model makes his attack he needs to have someone from his unit near the Blood Chalice.

It is, however, a pretty clunky rule now with lots of unnescessary measuring.

As for Corbulo, that 55 extra points gets you +1BS +1W +1I +1A, S5 rending attacks in close combat and a 2+ FNP for Corbulo himself. The guy is worth the points even if he never gave you a reroll at all. Yeah, he is more of a run of the mill character but he is still pretty good value for what you get.

The one thing that I was wrong about was that the Dead Man's Hand doesn't count as an extra close combat weapon. They also never clarified whether Tycho's Rites of Battle is optional or compulsory, i.e. if his leadership is reduced does that affect your entire army.

Alex said...

It's not about distance, it's simply about when the measurement is made, so if a model is within 6" at the time of the save, its entire unit gets FNP. There's nothing new there. The only thing that is new is when the bonus for when Furious Charge is measured. Most people did it before the assault was made and now it is done at the point you start rolling dice.

Teeef said...

My only real disappointment is Tycho. Like Eamonn said his Rites of Battle could really screw you if you follow RAW. They could have clarified that. That Tycho cannot be IN the Death Company like Lemartes is more of a loss for modeling enjoyment and fun games. I am never going to make/use a Death Company Relentless Bolter Squad of Doom or ever use a HQ that has rage. For fun games a squad like that would be worth throwing out but so far I haven't read about any BA armies at 'ard Boyz loading up on DC in any form. Making the DC uncontrollable doomed them in tournament play it seems.

I think GW is losing revenue when they make these decisions. Marketing-wise every model should be usable. Game-wise they should simply structure the points or the rules to prevent imbalance. If DC Tycho or DC Lemartes could join and control a DC of 5-or-less models but not a larger squad a lot more people would by a box of 5 and the HQ model. Also notice that the only plastic kit with artificer armor is in an army where the Captain cannot have that upgrade. No cool Captains for the BA.

Although I side with Alex and the others that the FAQ is answering 'model' and the FAQ never over-rides the Codex – I am not happy with the lack of clarity. Eventually (like in the next week or two) you are going to have a game spoiled by a FAQ/Codex/RAW/RAI' haggle. This FAQ just gives you one more opportunity to have that argument.

People who do not think there will be arguments must have already forgotten that in a recent tournament some jokers were trying to use Descent of Angels on a Deep Strike by a Land Raider. A game should never be structured so you need to be prepared to argue to play.

Matthew said...

After reading it some more, all the FC "clarification" is saying is that the FC bonus doesn't kick in until the attacks are made. Meaning, you can't start in the bubble, then move away from it and retain the bonus. You need to be in the bubble when the attacks are made. Some people think you are not gaining the initiative bonus until too late, but this is incorrect.

Jawaballs said...

Fluffypanda, all the guys claiming RAW when it came to Blood Angels vindicators were not being asshats? Despite the fact that the same error was made, and corrected in two other codexs... (or was it just the SM codex and not SW?)

FluffyPanda said...

Eh? I never said anything about the vindicators...

Jawaballs said...

No you didn't but on my last BoLS post talking about Vindis and Predators, a couple RAW proponents kept repeating over and over, infecting every ones comments and discussions with their silly little poo that Blood Angels vindicators were not blast weapons. (referring to the typo in the book.) Sure, RAW in that example supports them. The Vindicator entry in the BA codex omitted the word Blast, as it did in the SM and I think SW codexs requireing FAQs. So, if they wanted to be asshats, they could chant RAW! RAW! over and over, throwing all common sense to the wind, demanding I change my post, despite the fact that they knew it was going to be FAQd any time. Thank god the FAQ was released a day after my post went up!

That is the sort of behavior I was talking about in this post. Silly, idiotic nonsense that is intended only to be disruptive and counter productive in blog posts, and sucks the fun out of games... Like every sport that tried to use Descent of Angels on a deep striking Land Raider with an assault squad inside because the rule was included in their profile.

FluffyPanda said...

Ah, I see.

What I meant was that up to today if someone said "you can't take FC, you've moved out of the bubble before making the hit" you would probably have called them a RAW rules lawyer and slammed them on your blog.

The FAQ actually clarifies that the _intent_ of the rule was always this way. In this case RAW and RAI are exactly the same, there was no mistake. People just assumed there was. I'd feel pretty sheepish right now if I'd ever argued RAI for the continuation of the PDF version of the rule!

Vindicators are another thing altogether. That was a pretty blatant mistake, but I still think it's polite to make sure you agree with your opponent before the match if you're going to make assumptions about what the author really meant. In the case of Vindicators that just means a quick "We can both agree that this should have been a blast weapon, yeah?" Anyone who isn't a total jerk should have been amenable to that.

Or in a competitive situation get a ruling from the organisers before you start if you're relying on the blast marker. Competition brings out the jerk in a lot of people ;-)

That's the real problem with RAI... who knows what was intended? If the FAQ had come out and stated that BA armies use solid slugs in Vindicators and therefore don't get a blast then there would have been a lot of red faces (mine included).

RAI is /far/ better amongst friends where you get a better game by playing the rules how you think they make the most sense. Hell, you can even just make up new rules if they give you more fun. RAW does have the advantage in competitive play that it's black and white and everyone plays by the same rules.

Of course then there are the (many) areas where things simply aren't covered adequately by the rules.... Good old 40k!

FluffyPanda said...

Incidentally, wasn't that the most ridiculous typo ever? Matt Ward wrote C:SM and managed to get the Vindi wrong in 2 pages (1 didn't list blast and 1 listed it as barrage!).

He later erratas it to the correct Ordinance, Large Blast and then starts writing the BA codex.

What do you know? He manages to forget the word "blast" on 2 pages of the codex. Either he or his editor really should have learned from the C:SM mess!

^Agent9 said...

honeslty you could probably say that FNP comes under the new aura rules with FC, anyone can make that arguement, this sux but it does weaken BA

-kevinmcd28

xman said...

I think the priest rule sucks too. I also think I may be the only Blood Angels player that doesn't spam Razorbacks.

Da Warboss said...

wtf are you complaning about? As if BA don't get enough goodies....

Jawaballs said...

Warboss that was a typical closed minded forum comment. Thanks for your input. If you would read the article with out the standard internet troll approach you would see that I was not really complaining about the Blood Angels getting nerfed, or really complaining at all. You see, I pointed out a problem, and offered a solution. That is not complaining. It is writing an editorial offering a positive forum for debate and discussion about issues with the FAQ. I was pointing out the half ass way in which the game publishers dish out silly, ill prepared rules, then try to fix them with silly, ill prepared solutions.

ravenwing24 said...

The term "model" was only used because the question used the term "model". The question was either directed at a single model unit, or the single model that needs to be in for the rest of the unit to be in. The FAQ did not state that the word model was a replacement for the word unit and therefore the codex wording is still used.

Chad said...

No one's buying the Sanguinary priest model because I do't think anyone can get their hands on it. GW cancelled my order after two weeks because they couldn't send the two I ordered and it was going to be another 3-4 weeks before they could 'try' again. *sigh*
I think the same guy that posted the DH and WH PDF codices is the same one that wrote the FAQ. Ugh!

Pavonis said...

Under the Ordinance weapons rule section on page 58 of the LRB, it states that unless their profile specifies otherwise, ordinance blast weapons use the large blast marker. Notice the lower case 'ordinance blast', now if the rule stated, 'Ordinance Blast' weapon, I would know they were talking about something specific (aka: a proper noun). There's an Ordinance Barrage section, but no Ordinance Blast section. And secondly, the rule is under the 'Ordinance weapon' header meaning all Ordinance weapons. And the Vindi rule did not specify that the demolisher was not a blast weapon so the first part of that rule also holds true...'unless specified otherwise' which means explicitly. So a FAQ is totally unnecessary, just perhaps a lesson in English grammar. ;)

Pavonis said...

Sorry to multi-post on ya, but I just read the FAQ more closely. For Sanguinary Priests, they did not Errata the Blood Chalice to work differently, it still effects all models of all units within 6". What was FAQ'ed was when to check if a model needed to be in range. The question was asked from the perspective of a model and the answer was given from the perspective of a model. That makes sense to me as what I have been seeing is when to check; at the start of the assault move, or when making close combat attacks.

FluffyPanda said...

The Ordinance thing has been discussed to death, but it's worth repeating that "Ordinance" doesn't imply a blast marker by itself. The page 58 wording isn't as clear as it should be, but it does indeed mean that an "Ordinance, Blast" weapon will use a large marker by default.

See the Imperial Guard FAQ for an example of where Ordinance without Blast was intentionally written that way so that the shot would have improved penetration but no blast marker.

The BA errata was most definitely needed (or they would have just answered in the FAQ section and left the weapon profile alone!).

PsychoSquire said...

Yeah, it was a pretty big kick in the nuts all around.. I am going to scout smoke the shit out of my baals tho :P How they could NOT fix that and could give us this measuring from the model during assault b.s. is unreal.. And is there another vehicle that simply can't take the generic army upgrades for their army, besides libby dread? I can't think of any.

Nids got hosed, poor DoM, apparently GW isn't going to make a model of you ever.

Oh, and I'd like to state for the record that one codex's rules in no way affects others. I don't even think they use it as a basis as there are so many army specific rules that conbtradict each other, making all the standardization they did for the main book a total waste.

Matthew said...

People aren't reading the whole discussion, or understanding the FAQ correctly.

First, an FAQ is different than an errata.

Priests - the question and answer reference "model", but they aren't saying ONLY the models within 6". They are just talking about measuring and when the FC bonus takes effect. The unit still gets the bonus as long as a model of the unit is within 6". As for FC, they gain the FC bonus when the attacks are made. Meaning you must be within the 6" when the attacks are made. I guess you could consider this a nerf, but I think that is pretty fair and logical anyway.

Really the only downside to our FAQ/Errata was Corb's rerolls. That was totally lame.

Da Warboss said...

Sorry to 'troll', it was an honest 'why camplain'. The reason equipment is not avaialble to some units is indeed balance. Sure, Libby dreads should be able to have whatever a normal dread can have. And vanilla SM terminator sgts hould be able to take a powerfist...but they can't.

I'd LOVE if my chaos landraider had half the crap you loyalists get (instead of being a glorified rhino). I'm glad they reined in somewhat the uber angels. And the Nids DOM, regardless of the fluff, should suffer the same 'no effect on a unit in transport' as any other psyker power. If Winds of Chaos don't allow cover saves, you could say a vehicle is not protection either.

On the other hand, I do agree they r getting stupid with bubble-effect. For most abilities (I.e. my beloved ork kustom Force Field), having one guy froma unit in range counted for all. Get ready for Protractor Hammer.

FluffyPanda said...

Jawa, given that a lot of people read your blog and take it as gospel, would you be able to edit the post to make a quick note that the bubble effect is still conferred to the unit?

Clearly a lot of your readers aren't following the comments... I don't want to end up arguing rules with someone because "Jawaballs said that you have to measure to each model now"

Cheers.

Jawaballs said...

Panda good point! This turned into a pretty good topic and the comments made a lot of headway. It will be worth while to edit the post to reflect the great discussion!

The_King_Elessar said...

Bah. Too many comments I'm afraid, I'm tired. I may read them later. Meantime, two things.

1) This does not, never has, and probably never will, set a precedent. GW does not operate that way. It is the opinion of the company that the game should never be taken seriously enough to require actual debate or discussion. If you do not at first agree on rules, dice off, and check after. I think it's pathetic, but that's their view.

2) IF the Priest sales were anything to do with sales they would indicate they were actually doing well with the solo Priest, that they had the feeling it's sales had peaked already, and could be allowed to dip. After all, with no convertability it's very much a limited buy for modellers and gamers alike.


PS - It is ORDNANCE, FluffyPanda, not ORDINANCE, which is a legal term.

Jawaballs said...

I was being absurd with the priest model sales. That wasn't meant to be taken seriously. :)

The_King_Elessar said...

Okay. lol I'm tired. :)

Tynskel said...

The new Furious Charge rules aren't bad at all. You can still keep your priest in your tank, just drive your tank closer. You can always have the Priest run in the shooting phase (he is charging first, and everyone follows!), if the opponent is at the maximum range.

Tynskel said...

My Question is:

Can a Furioso Librarian take additional equipment (such as extra armour)? No.

Now, do upgrades count as 'additional equipment'. Like: upgrade the stormbolter to a hv flamer, or exchange bloodfist for a Frag Cannon. You are technically not taking them in addition to the standard loadout--- you have to exchange them for something.

FortyTWO said...

I have read down all of these comments and some peoples take on the FC debate are quite odd. Some people seem to forget this is a FAQ. It simply confirms how the rule works. No major changes at all.
the quote from the book is:

"All friendly units within 6" are subject to the Furious Charge and Feel No Pain special rules."

I can see no point in that sentence that can be at all confusing. There are no grey areas whatsoever. Either a member of the unit is within 6" or not. If there is - you get the benefits, if not - you don't. All this talk of being within 6" at the start of phases and then moving away is nonsense. You leave 'the bubble' and you leave your benefits behind, simple as. The fact that this has caused such an 'outroar'[seriously?] is beyond me.

jmagic911958377 said...

Yes, how terrible no guaranteed alpha strike. That's cheap and dirty. Even if it makes sense-which it doesn't, rules wise-it would be broken. You can't re-roll a roll to see who goes first. You're seeing who goes first in the game, the game hasn't started! Seizing the initiative-which it explicitly calls out Corbulo for being able to do- is the first thing you do in a game, i.e. seizing the initiative roll is the first game action. Therefore any "roll" for any purpose that takes places before this is not considered 'during game'. Also the Blood Chalice ruling was needed to many Ard Boyz losers would use the Corbulo thing to re-roll to see who goes first and then use their Sanguinary Priest as an IC by himself and start their charge within 6' of him, but by the time they actually charged that unit they were far out of that bubble. It's just cheap and needed to be fixed.

Jawaballs said...

Fortytwo, two help clear things up for you, the sentence you quoted is confirming a major change from the rule in the PDF here:

"Any Blood Angel unit within 12" of
Corbulo at the start of one of its own
Assault Phases receives the Furious Charge
ability for the rest of the turn."

Blood Angels players simply moved into the new Codex playing the rule with 2 or 3 smaller bubbles rather than one big one. The change was small, and most honestly missed it until the release of the FAQ, including me. I simply started playing with the new codex just as I did before. But yes, you are correct. Codex: Blood Angels is written as you pointed out. The FAQ confirms that the new codex is played differently from the old which most people, BA players and opponents, had no idea they were playing wrong.

So, yes, this FAQ does indeed change the way it is played, without making any changes at all.

Seriously.

And jmagic... A reroll on the roll to go first in no way guarantees a Blood Angels Alpha Strike, especially not in the way that the Emperor's Tarot does...

But your logic is just wrong. Rolling dice is the essence of gaming. The act of a player and his opponent rolling a cube to determine who gets to move his toys first is by definition the beginning of competition. It is the first part of the game. By your logic, the Emperor's Tarot should not be allowed either. How can a piece of wargear that does not yet exist in the multiverse have an affect on something that is not part of the game? The answer? The roll to go first is part of the game.

Just curious, why did you put quotes on roll and during the game? They are not necessary at all.

Oh and seizing the initiative is absolutely not the first game action by any means since deployment, redeployment (if you have the ability) and scout/infiltrate plus what ever other thing I may have missed all happen before it. And some of those events do indeed require dice rolling on occasion! If I tried to scout move a Baal Predator over terrain and roll a 1, by your logic I am not allowed to use the Corbulo re-roll on that.

Is it cheap? Maybe. It would make Blood Angels another army that has the ability to effect the roll to go first. A definite advantage. Daemon Hunters and subsequently any army who is taking an inquisitor as an ally, can buy the power to do so for a few points. But Blood Angels are paying an extra 55 points for a single re-roll.(Corbs increased stats and weapon are insignificant.) It is certainly not a cheap power. And the inability to use it on the roll to go first makes it even less of a value.

Scott R said...

My righteous fury to hit rerolls from my Imperial Priests have always been at the mercy of initiative and wound allocation.

Post a Comment