40K 10th Ed. Discussion Thread

[me_in_japan]

urgh

I had written a counterpoint, but honestly I'm fully aware that it's not intended to give the Lord's ability on stuff the HB shoots - I'm mostly just annoyed that it's such an obviously badly written rule. Keywords are there for a reason, y'know? Could they not have just said "Until the start of your next turn, that enemy unit has its Toughness value reduced by 1" or however they want to format that phrase? Given that the army is filled with units that key off being in Contagion Range of things, it's just such a poor way to phrase it.

Yech. MtG may be a ridiculously overpriced cardboard crack habit of a game, but at least they know how to format their rules consistently


I mean, am I being dumb? RAW, I'm pretty sure it can be read as saying the target takes the Lord's D3 MW? I'm certainly not going to apply this in-game, but just in terms of how I'm parsing the grammar, it can be read as such, yeah?

[The Other Dave]

I... don't really think so, sorry. I might have 40K-rules-knowledge brainworms, but "within contagion range of a unit from your army" is very different from "within contagion range of this particular unit". Just "a unit" means "a notional but unspecified unit" rather than "a unit of your choice" (thinking of it, I can see that the latter reading is possible, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to read it that way).

I reckon the reason they specify "is within contagion range" rather than "has -1 toughness" is for future-proofing for forthcoming detachment stratagems - the Plague Company is all about "target is within contagion range of an infected objective you control," but it's easy to imagine stratagems or other effects just based around "target is within contagion range of a unit from your army".

[Jye Nicolson]

I mean, am I being dumb? RAW, I'm pretty sure it can be read as saying the target takes the Lord's D3 MW? I'm certainly not going to apply this in-game, but just in terms of how I'm parsing the grammar, it can be read as such, yeah?

No, sorry. The Chaos Lord very specifically says "model". Even if you parsed it to say the Helbrute's ability let you specify which unit it was in range of (and I think that's a stretch, it's about satisfying the condition of the army rule), you still need to measure from the Chaos Lord himself, not his unit (which could be just him but doesn't have to be, they're not synonymous).

Both are good abilities - the Lord's can trigger twice a battle round and helps in grinding melees, the Helbrute's lasts a whole round and gets around a fundamental limitation of an army rule of limited range on a slow army. But they don't have any synergy RAW.

I assume the reason they don't just say "-1 T" is so that it doesn't stack and can be enhanced by other rules that enhance the army rule (like a future detachment that pegs a movement penalty to it or something, could easily be a detachment for each 9th ed Contagion).

[me_in_japan]

Fair enough, and thanks for the input on what is really just me fussing over a persnickety point of grammar. I've had way too much free time this week since classes stopped, so I've been kinda getting into the weeds a wee bit.

I think, generally speaking, I'm probably just overexposed to MtG, where taking a rule and applying it just so is a major part of how the game is played (I mean, how many folks have built decks that make an opponent say "it does what with what?!? Really? That's broooooken!") I guess I need to reset my brain to be more forgiving of somewhat ambiguous rules (and I readily agree it's not that ambiguous. I think the usage of the word "a" in "a unit from your army" as opposed to "any" is pretty important, for example.)

I'd say the Lord's rule where it says "this model" certainly has plenty of game relevance, as it means you can't do his D3 MW based on his bodyguards' ConRan, (which is clearly a good thing). I don't think it has relevance to the hypothetical interaction with the Helbrute debuff, though.

Jye's point about it not giving a flat -1T so it doesn't stack with regular Contagion is an extremely good point, and one I hadn't noticed. Good call

Anyway - this is a largely hypothetical argument, as I'm absolutely in agreement that the intent was not for a Lord to be able to MW on things shot by a Helbrute. Cheers, folks - looking forward to a game at the end of the month (and I promise to leave my MtG rules-lawyering hat at home on the day 🫡)

[Jye Nicolson]

You just need a 40k rules lawyering hat

GW are really doing much better with rules (the glossary/commentary nails down a TON of problems for example) but they're not in the same place as the Magic side of Wizards for sure. They've only started doing their events/tournament stuff in 9th for example.

So maybe it's time for 40k rules lawyers to upgrade from the baseball cap but maybe not ready for the top hat.

[me_in_japan]

On a side note, I am suuuuuper excited about the Legends updates today. Death Guard possessed! Eldar Phoenix! Mah Corsairs!!!! (<-happy tears!)

[Jye Nicolson]

Go ahead and play 'em. I want to use my 30k stuff so I have zero objection to seeing other Legends on the table!

[me_in_japan]

Cheers

Actually (and I do appreciate your comment was meant sincerely and helpfully, of course, so thank you kindly ) I find the internet discourse about whether or not Legends are ok to use/require oppp permission to be very interesting. There seems to be a vocal minority of players (mostly American) who see 40k through the the lens of a competitive, tournament game. So, from their point of view, Legends throw off game balance and are looked upon unfavorably. Thing is, that kind of player is not who mostly plays 40k, and it kind of vexes me that they're warping the perception of Legends in the player base in general.

GW make it abundantly clear that if it ain't a tournament, then Legends are not only legal, but encouraged. 40k was not even remotely balanced for decades, and even now it's highly questionable whether it's fit for competitive play (see previous chat re rules clarity). Legends are no more or less balanced than anything else at this point, and are likely to get comparatively worse, not better, over time. Of course, a player can reserve the right to refuse to play against Legends, but they could do that for anything, really. I was discussing this with some random folks online recently, and while a few folks were of the "No Legends without consent" opinion, the majority were very much in favour of treating them as just a regular part of your army (with the caveat that if you're planning on putting down a titan or something equally game-warping, it'd be decent to inform your oppo beforehand. But if you're just including a unit of infantry or summat, there's no need to even do that.)

What do you reckon about Legend usage in general? Should we be asking opponent consent before using them?

[The Other Dave]

I'd say go for it personally - if you have cool models you want to use and bring, do it (it helps that I can't imagine anyone in our group saying anything but "ooh, cool!"). As you say, there's a very small, very vocal minority of players who sort of idolize tournament play (even though surveys show the vast majority of 40K players play the vast majority of their games in a non-tournament setting). I can sort of see a point if you're in a game store, playing pick up games with strangers, but especially for the very casual way the Nagoya group does 40K it really doesn't float.

Titans are a different story, though, yeah.

[Primarch]

Not that my opinion on how to play 40K has any weight, but just bring what you like. So long as the rules seem fairly reasonable and not say Deathwatch levels of brokenness, you should be fine. As more and more balance updates are rolled out for non-legends minis, you might find more power discrepancies, but right now everything should be on an equal footing. That isn't to say things are balanced, but they never are.

I think that the reason tourney players have such a big impact on people's views is that they are the type of players you're more likely to encounter in the wilds. Newer players (kids) are playing with their friends on their bedroom floors. Hoary old grognards are playing in their gaming rooms with a closed circle of friends. It is the tournament types who are at the games stores night after night playing. If you turn up at the store looking for a pick-up game, they are the majority you will run into, so you'd better have a tourney legal list. This then creates a knock-on effect where non-tourney players don't bring non-tourney minis to the store and it becomes the normal way to play.

NagoyaHammer is pretty well removed from all of that nonsense, so don't sweat it. And if push comes to shove, I'll happily play a game using house-ruled 30K and fan-dexes so you can run your corsairs as Imperial Armour intended.