NagoyaHammer.com

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-c ... 018_en.pdf

I think it's all pretty good stuff! Highlights include:

-The psychic rules that got previewed a bit ago are in (multi-casting Smite adds 1 to the difficulty per time you've used it, unless you're Grey Knights or Thousand Sons).
-The characters can't screen other characters rule likewise.
-Units "deep striking" in turn one can't drop outside your deployment zone.
-Units in a single Detachment can't use Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids as their unifying keyword and still be Battleforged. (My only gripe here is that it seems to make it impossible to use Inquisitors at all except in Auxiliary Support detachments.)
-Battalions now add +5 CP, and Brigades +12. (Which counteracts the previous for me personally, anyway.)
-In Matched Play, you get up to 2 Detachments and up to 2 instances of the same Datasheet (except for Troops), plus 1 per full 1000 points. (These are, technically, "suggestions for event organizers" rather than hard and fast rules, but the way things work it essentially makes it a Thing.)

Also a few army-specific stratagems and points values have been jiggered.

Opinions?

And I guess the big question is, are our army lists set-in-stone enough that we couldn't use these rules at NagoyaHammer next month? The big ones for army list building are the keyword limitations on individual Detachments (which I don't imagine impacts anyone but lil' old me and my insistence on using Eisenhorn) and what would be a limit of 3 detachments and 3 instances of a Datasheet (which I know would impact job and his Helbrute Party list, and who knows who else - so we could certainly choose to ignore that "suggestion" if it's an issue). For me personally, the CP look juicy but I'd have to limit myself to just Marines since I don't have enough AdMech HQ units yet. Which, you know, I can do no problem.

The deep strike and keyword sharing bits are both beta rules, so they're not mandatory for play.

The Other Dave wrote:-In Matched Play, you get up to 2 Detachments and up to 2 instances of the same Datasheet (except for Troops), plus 1 per full 1000 points. (These are, technically, "suggestions for event organizers" rather than hard and fast rules, but the way things work it essentially makes it a Thing.)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the way things work.' It's explicitly a suggestion for events, not all matched play, so I wouldn't expect to use those rules in all my games.

Overall, I think I like most of the changes in the faq.
The "no (meaningful) deep strikes turn 1" beta rule seems pretty heavy handed though, and it makes gunlines even better. So deep striking alpha strikes are bad, but shooting alpha strikes are okay?

Also note that a lot of the codex FAQs got updated at the same time.
Guard got commissars adjusted again so that executions are not mandatory, and the relic of cadia is now limited to one use per battle (which was obviously the intent to begin with).

Edit: And sure, I'd be in favor of using the updates for Naghammer, including the event play rules for detachment and datasheet numbers.

Dekana wrote:The deep strike and keyword sharing bits are both beta rules, so they're not mandatory for play.

The Other Dave wrote:-In Matched Play, you get up to 2 Detachments and up to 2 instances of the same Datasheet (except for Troops), plus 1 per full 1000 points. (These are, technically, "suggestions for event organizers" rather than hard and fast rules, but the way things work it essentially makes it a Thing.)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the way things work.' It's explicitly a suggestion for events, not all matched play, so I wouldn't expect to use those rules in all my games.

Mostly just that people tend to assume things like that as the baseline - rules that you assume are in effect unless you explicitly agree with your opponent to change them - rather than the opposite. Which sounds like what you're saying anyway; in casual games, saying "do you mind if I use my lotsa-dreadnoughts list?" is cool. (You'd also need to waive it to use Dark Eldar as their new codex wants you to, since six patrols in a 1500 point game is pretty much what they want to bring to the table.)

The no-Soup rule is a beta rule. GW is still undecided about it. I don't know how I feel about it b/c I play just one codex armies, but I want to use my Assassins within my IG and I still don't know how they can fit according to the rules in a battleforged army.

I'm disappointed about the max 3 at 1500pts rule. NuGW is doing the same than oldGW. The issue is not spamming Elites or Heavy Support, the issue is spamming CERTAIN units. Wave Serpents were Dedicated Transports and spamming them back in 6th (I think?) was hell on the opponent... with the new rule a too good transport or Troop will be spared, while other armies get shafted.

M.

Edit: The blog says that Oficio Assassinarum and SoB can be deployed using Vanguard Detachment sans HQ.

Miguelsan wrote:Edit: The blog says that Oficio Assassinarum and SoB can be deployed using Vanguard Detachment sans HQ.

That's in the FAQ, yeah - but note that it's Sisters of Silence, not Battle. SoS, Assassins, and Legion of the Damned can be in HQ-less zero-CP Vanguards, and there's some complicated stuff for Ynnari that I can't be bothered to read. But for Assassins, you basically have to take 3 (in a 0-CP Vanguard) 1 (in a -1-CP Auxiliary, which you could always do anyway) or none at all. I'm in the same boat with my Inquisitor, really - my only real option is to take him alone in an Aux detachment and eat a CP, but with the increased CP from Battalions I'm not sure I mind.

But yeah, they're beta rules and may change - but I wouldn't expect it to change a *lot* or get dropped entirely. The Smite change (which was -1 to the warp charge roll for each consecutive smite) was changed to +1 difficulty per attempt, and exceptions were added for Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, but the basic rule made it through.

Dekana wrote: Guard got commissars adjusted again so that executions are not mandatory.

Well that's heresy right there. Executions should be compulsory for all guardsmen and women, it's the Imperial way!

those changes seem reasonable.

As it happens, I'm actually sat at my computer today trying to think up a viable list for Naghammer day 2. It's...really difficult. And I dont mean "difficult to maximise its potential", I mean "difficult to find a single game-legal list comprised of miniatures that I own". Which is ridiculous, given the number of minis I have (for nurgle, in this case.) I'm at the point where it's so frustrating I'm thinking of throwing my toys out the pram, almost. Detachments are a nice idea, and all, but the way my mini collection falls on the requirements for them is doing my nut in.

Y'know, I've been away from 40k for a few months now, happily enjoying Magic. Coming back to 40k and finding it so...frustrating and time consuming...it's kinda vexing. And dissappointing, too. I dunno. Maybe I'm just tired

If you want to bounce some ideas off me about list-creating, drop me a PM or ask here - the system can be pretty flexible if you squint at it right.

I was kind of pleased to find that I actually can bring my Gryphonne Crusade list after all. A Marine Battalion, an AdMech Patrol and an Inquisition Vanguard ends up being the same number of command points I had in my old list, and I don't really have to give anything up either - the Acolytes (read: some Guard I have kicking around) to fill out the Inquisition detachment are awful cheap.

The Other Dave wrote:

Dekana wrote:The deep strike and keyword sharing bits are both beta rules, so they're not mandatory for play.

The Other Dave wrote:-In Matched Play, you get up to 2 Detachments and up to 2 instances of the same Datasheet (except for Troops), plus 1 per full 1000 points. (These are, technically, "suggestions for event organizers" rather than hard and fast rules, but the way things work it essentially makes it a Thing.)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the way things work.' It's explicitly a suggestion for events, not all matched play, so I wouldn't expect to use those rules in all my games.

Mostly just that people tend to assume things like that as the baseline - rules that you assume are in effect unless you explicitly agree with your opponent to change them - rather than the opposite. Which sounds like what you're saying anyway; in casual games, saying "do you mind if I use my lotsa-dreadnoughts list?" is cool. (You'd also need to waive it to use Dark Eldar as their new codex wants you to, since six patrols in a 1500 point game is pretty much what they want to bring to the table.)

Something that bugs me about the deep strike beta rule is that you really need to know if you're using it before you even make a list. The previous beta rules didn't affect list building unless you were trying to cheese something, so it wasn't a big deal if you used the rules or not.
If I went to my FLGS now, I'd be forced to bring two lists and the appropriate models with me - stormtroopers if the opponent wanted to use beta rules, or more basilisks if they didn't. (Or to look at it another way, I'd want to bring more bubble wrap troops if beta rules are not in effect.)

In any case, I agree that the deep strike change is likely to become permanent with the next FAQ, so it's better to just get used to it now.

I think I'll put up a poll thread for Naghammer to what people want to do re: the latest FAQ. For me at least, the poll will affect what I paint for the next month.