New codex rules preview (OP updated with summary)

[autoxidation]

Nov 11, 2017 23:54:32 GMT keftii said:

A few noob questions here:

So how much damage does a Tyranid Prime do on a 6, if equipped with reaper of obliterax and toxin sacs? Toxin sacs increases damage by 1, and reaper of obliterax doubles the damage, so depending on where you insert the double damage in the equation, its either 3 or 4 damage on a roll of 6.


You can give only one character in the whole army (not detachment) a bio-artefact that is not your warlord, not multiple characters?

You get one bio-artifact for free, which can be given to any character as long as it meets the wargear requirement. You can spend 1/3CP for up to 2 more bio-artifacts.

For the damage question, this answer is in the designer's commentary:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic,
and that model is equipped with a melee weapon
that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain
the order in which the modifiers are applied to the
characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current
Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers
to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply
any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s
Strength characteristic.

So you would multiply first and then add.

[almostmercury]

I believe there’s a better heading in the rulebook that discusses multiplying and adding modifiers, since the faq is about strength.

The equation is still the same. Multiply and then add (just like the order of operations).

[autoxidation]

Nov 12, 2017 1:43:55 GMT almostmercury said:

I believe there’s a better heading in the rulebook that discusses multiplying and adding modifiers, since the faq is about strength.

The equation is still the same. Multiply and then add (just like the order of operations).

It's on page 175 of the rulebook but it's not in the Battle Primer (thanks GW).

You may also encounter abilities and rules that modify a characteristic. All modifiers are cumulative, though you should apply any multiplication or division to the characteristic (rounding fractions up) before applying any addition or subtraction.

[kazetanade]

I rememember some early discussions taking that multiply before addition bit, and saying its phase by phase. So a psychic spell that+1 will apply first, and the melee weapon will double it later.

Is there any sort of evidence supporting or contrary to that?

Edit: DERP its right there 2 posts above. My bad.

[russellr]

Nov 12, 2017 4:53:33 GMT kazetanade said:

I rememember some early discussions taking that multiply before addition bit, and saying its phase by phase. So a psychic spell that+1 will apply first, and the melee weapon will double it later.

Is there any sort of evidence supporting or contrary to that?

Edit: DERP its right there 2 posts above. My bad.

The designer's commentary above says determine the strength and then modify it based on the weapon
Just wanting to be clear, as that's opposite to the other section.

Edit: well not really the opposite. Determine strength of model by multiplying then adding. Then modify based on the weapon so you double it.

[Mauler]

Nov 10, 2017 15:57:27 GMT mattblowers said:

Nov 10, 2017 10:56:28 GMT Mauler said:

I'll have to wait to see the rule first-hand when I get my book tomorrow but just because the Broodlord has the Genestealer keyword doesn't make it a "unit of Genestealers", which is clearly plural and thus referring to an actual unit of Genestealers.

Genestealers = Genestealer

Broodlord = Genstealer

Broodlord =/= Genestealers

Not this again. "OOE is not a carnifex unit and doesn't buff himself or SSC" Round and round we went and it didn't end well for those saying it.

I haven't read the exact wording yet so I will reserve judgement, but I suspect this is more of the same.

I'll copy & paste the difference for you:

OOE:  "You can add 1 to hit rolls in the Fight  phase for friendly <HIVE FLEET> CARNIFEX units  that are within 6" of this model."


Infestation:  "If your army includes any units of  Genestealers, you can place up to four infestation nodes  anywhere in your deployment zone when your army  deploys. You can then set up any units of Genestealers  lurking, instead of setting them up on the battlefield. If  an enemy model is ever within 9" of an infestation node,  the node is destroyed and removed from the battlefield.   Whilst there are any friendly infestation nodes on the
 battlefield, this unit can stop lurking: at the end of your Movement phase, set it up wholly within 6" of a friendly  infestation node. That infestation node is then removed  from the battlefield. If this unit is still lurking when  the last friendly infestation node is removed, this unit  is destroyed."

Direct copy 'n' paste.  No EMBOLDENED CAPS, so no Keywords.  Throughout the Infestation SR it refers to "Genestealers" which is the title of it's parent datasheet, thus preventing any other unit from being applicable (including Cult 'Stealers which are labelled as Purestrain Genestealers), and not "friendly Genestealer unit" which would then include the Broodlord and anything listed in a Genestealer Cults list, even vehicles, because I intentionally left out "...infantry unit" to highlight how important it is to interpret precise phrases.

"Sarge, there's a 3-ft wide hole over there, I advise caution!"
*Leman Russ barrel emerges from Genestealer nest hole*
"WAT."

Haha   

[russellr]

Yep the infestation tokens can only be used by one unit, that's for sure.

It's risky anyway so that's not too bad.

[mattblowers]

Nov 14, 2017 8:28:25 GMT Mauler said:

Nov 10, 2017 15:57:27 GMT mattblowers said:

Not this again. "OOE is not a carnifex unit and doesn't buff himself or SSC" Round and round we went and it didn't end well for those saying it.

I haven't read the exact wording yet so I will reserve judgement, but I suspect this is more of the same.

I'll copy & paste the difference for you:

OOE:  "You can add 1 to hit rolls in the Fight  phase for friendly <HIVE FLEET> CARNIFEX units  that are within 6" of this model."


Infestation:  "If your army includes any units of  Genestealers, you can place up to four infestation nodes  anywhere in your deployment zone when your army  deploys. You can then set up any units of Genestealers  lurking, instead of setting them up on the battlefield. If  an enemy model is ever within 9" of an infestation node,  the node is destroyed and removed from the battlefield.   Whilst there are any friendly infestation nodes on the
 battlefield, this unit can stop lurking: at the end of your Movement phase, set it up wholly within 6" of a friendly  infestation node. That infestation node is then removed  from the battlefield. If this unit is still lurking when  the last friendly infestation node is removed, this unit  is destroyed."

Direct copy 'n' paste.  No EMBOLDENED CAPS, so no Keywords.  Throughout the Infestation SR it refers to "Genestealers" which is the title of it's parent datasheet, thus preventing any other unit from being applicable (including Cult 'Stealers which are labelled as Purestrain Genestealers), and not "friendly Genestealer unit" which would then include the Broodlord and anything listed in a Genestealer Cults list, even vehicles, because I intentionally left out "...infantry unit" to highlight how important it is to interpret precise phrases.

"Sarge, there's a 3-ft wide hole over there, I advise caution!"
*Leman Russ barrel emerges from Genestealer nest hole*
"WAT."

Haha   

After reading the actual codex I don't think broodlords can benefit, but not for the reason you state. I couldn't give a toss about bold, BOLD CAPITALS, <SPECIAL WORDS>. GW has been wildly inconsistent with keywords and how they work. Their rulings have been somewhat arbitrary and often counter intuitive. They have a keyword system, all they have to do is follow it. Trying to make GW rules stand up to close grammatical scrutiny has always been a suckers bet, adding bolds, CAPITALIZATION, Capitalized first letter only, etc, is a terrible way to try to make this work.

In this case it's an ability on the dataslate for the genestealer troops units. All they had to do was say "When you place this unit you may.... and this unit may use it to...". Then there would be no confusion or ambiguity. Again, wild inconsistency on the part of GW across the indexes/codexes for formatting on abilities. You make it seem as if they used a template to describe them all, which they did not.

[Mauler]

Nov 14, 2017 12:29:54 GMT mattblowers said:

After reading the actual codex I don't think broodlords can benefit, but not for the reason you state. I couldn't give a toss about bold, BOLD CAPITALS, <SPECIAL WORDS>. GW has been wildly inconsistent with keywords and how they work. Their rulings have been somewhat arbitrary and often counter intuitive. They have a keyword system, all they have to do is follow it. Trying to make GW rules stand up to close grammatical scrutiny has always been a suckers bet, adding bolds, CAPITALIZATION, Capitalized first letter only, etc, is a terrible way to try to make this work.

In this case it's an ability on the dataslate for the genestealer troops units. All they had to do was say "When you place this unit you may.... and this unit may use it to...". Then there would be no confusion or ambiguity. Again, wild inconsistency on the part of GW across the indexes/codexes for formatting on abilities. You make it seem as if they used a template to describe them all, which they did not.

"Throughout the Infestation SR it refers to "Genestealers" which is the title of it's parent datasheet..." Righto, I'll take that.

Some rules affect other units, some don't. The Infestation SR doesn't mention keywords, thus only applies to the Genestealers unit, as it and I said. You can ignore the keyword system for whatever reason you like, that's your call, it just means that you might end up having to discuss things more than most.

[mattblowers]

Nov 14, 2017 13:57:55 GMT Mauler said:

Nov 14, 2017 12:29:54 GMT mattblowers said:

After reading the actual codex I don't think broodlords can benefit, but not for the reason you state. I couldn't give a toss about bold, BOLD CAPITALS, <SPECIAL WORDS>. GW has been wildly inconsistent with keywords and how they work. Their rulings have been somewhat arbitrary and often counter intuitive. They have a keyword system, all they have to do is follow it. Trying to make GW rules stand up to close grammatical scrutiny has always been a suckers bet, adding bolds, CAPITALIZATION, Capitalized first letter only, etc, is a terrible way to try to make this work.

In this case it's an ability on the dataslate for the genestealer troops units. All they had to do was say "When you place this unit you may.... and this unit may use it to...". Then there would be no confusion or ambiguity. Again, wild inconsistency on the part of GW across the indexes/codexes for formatting on abilities. You make it seem as if they used a template to describe them all, which they did not.

"Throughout the Infestation SR it refers to "Genestealers" which is the title of it's parent datasheet..." Righto, I'll take that.

Some rules affect other units, some don't. The Infestation SR doesn't mention keywords, thus only applies to the Genestealers unit, as it and I said. You can ignore the keyword system for whatever reason you like, that's your call, it just means that you might end up having to discuss things more than most.

I love the keyword system. I hate their daft way of using it. Look at Privateer Press for an example of how simply and clearly they can be used.

[Hive Tyrant Qiln]

Nov 14, 2017 14:44:00 GMT mattblowers said:

Nov 14, 2017 13:57:55 GMT Mauler said:

"Throughout the Infestation SR it refers to "Genestealers" which is the title of it's parent datasheet..." Righto, I'll take that.

Some rules affect other units, some don't. The Infestation SR doesn't mention keywords, thus only applies to the Genestealers unit, as it and I said. You can ignore the keyword system for whatever reason you like, that's your call, it just means that you might end up having to discuss things more than most.

I love the keyword system. I hate their daft way of using it. Look at Privateer Press for an example of how simply and clearly they can be used.

Lol, use anything but PP please. Half the time they have to FAQ that a unit name counts as a keyword because they don't put it on the header. They are just as inconsistent as GW.

[mattblowers]

Nov 14, 2017 15:39:38 GMT Hive Tyrant Qiln said:

Nov 14, 2017 14:44:00 GMT mattblowers said:

I love the keyword system. I hate their daft way of using it. Look at Privateer Press for an example of how simply and clearly they can be used.

Lol, use anything but PP please. Half the time they have to FAQ that a unit name counts as a keyword because they don't put it on the header. They are just as inconsistent as GW.

Wasn't the case in MKII, I haven't played MKIII enough to know. Still, use MTG (so I hear), the old L5R card name, or best yet, Malifaux. There are tons of examples that do it much better. I'll cut them some slack since it's a new rule mechanic for them but I certainly hope we aren't arguing that the keyword roll out has been a bang up success.

[almostmercury]

A success in that it’s straight forward. Doesn’t mean they aren’t making mistakes in the text.

Still, mistake or not, it’s easy and you just play it like it says until it gets fixed. This isn’t new.

[Hive Tyrant Qiln]

Nov 14, 2017 17:33:41 GMT mattblowers said:

Nov 14, 2017 15:39:38 GMT Hive Tyrant Qiln said:

Lol, use anything but PP please. Half the time they have to FAQ that a unit name counts as a keyword because they don't put it on the header. They are just as inconsistent as GW.

Wasn't the case in MKII, I haven't played MKIII enough to know. Still, use MTG (so I hear), the old L5R card name, or best yet, Malifaux. There are tons of examples that do it much better. I'll cut them some slack since it's a new rule mechanic for them but I certainly hope we aren't arguing that the keyword roll out has been a bang up success.

Don't remember what mk2 was like, but there was a week where an entire theme force was an unplayable because it only allowed "thrall units and solos" but there was no such unit with that keyword.

[mattblowers]

Nov 14, 2017 18:27:05 GMT almostmercury said:

Still, mistake or not, it’s easy and you just play it like it says until it gets fixed. This isn’t new.

OK. I'll bite.

Which rule takes precedent: Jorg trait that states you always get the cover bonus or units that say they ignore the bonus for a unit being IN cover? RAW would be the Jorg trait still works. Just read it and do what it says isn't that simple. We had the same problem with Dark Reapers that was a hotly contested item on Eldar forums and GW ruled that the Dark Reaper trait takes precedent and can even hit the assassin on a 3+.

Also, remember the OOE buff fiasco?

Not as simple as play it like it says.