pretre Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 next batch :https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1625001914487108&id=1575682476085719LOTD, Khornekin and Bloodoath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 All seem pretty reasonable, if perhaps somewhat unfortunate in some cases. I do wish someone had asked about the difference in the LotD's Scatter re-roll between their Dex and the SM Dex, tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewgeddon Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 A little disappointed that an official FAQ would have a ruling like "We suggest agreeing with your opponent..." I understand the intent, but would have been preferable to have a more concrete ruling one way or the other, and from there you could move into "agreeing with your opponent" territory. Glad to see the First of Khorne / charging issues addressed; I've felt how it's presented here was the intent on how it should be used, but I can see the point of those arguing against it. Really surprised to not see a KDK ruling on if a summoned Bloodthirster can charge on the turn it is summoned though, as I've seen it debated a number of times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 A little disappointed that an official FAQ would have a ruling like "We suggest agreeing with your opponent..." I understand the intent, but would have been preferable to have a more concrete ruling one way or the other, and from there you could move into "agreeing with your opponent" territory. Eh, I think it's solid enough. It's not ironclad, but it's pretty clear that they're saying "No, it doesn't work, but here's a recommended House Rule if you want to use it." Glad to see the First of Khorne / charging issues addressed; I've felt how it's presented here was the intent on how it should be used, but I can see the point of those arguing against it. Really surprised to not see a KDK ruling on if a summoned Bloodthirster can charge on the turn it is summoned though, as I've seen it debated a number of times. How is that even debatable? Summoned Units arrive by Deep Strike. Units that arrive by Deep Strike can't Charge on that Turn. Even tho, fluff-wise, the Character is turning into the Daemon Prince/Thirster, Rules-wise, it's very clear that it's a separate Model that's being Summoned. The two are even very briefly on the board at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 A little disappointed that an official FAQ would have a ruling like "We suggest agreeing with your opponent..." I understand the intent, but would have been preferable to have a more concrete ruling one way or the other, and from there you could move into "agreeing with your opponent" territory. Well, the thing is in that case there is no ambiguity at all; your whole army starts in reserve and you lose at the end of turn 1. GW's suggestion is essentially just your opponent being polite to you because you brought a sucky army and you don't want to lose the game as soon as it starts. They didn't need to put anything more than a "yup, don't be a dumb" reply there but they decided to be generous and throw a bone to people who like skelington men too much, and I can't really hate them for that. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewgeddon Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 How is that even debatable? Summoned Units arrive by Deep Strike. Units that arrive by Deep Strike can't Charge on that Turn. Even tho, fluff-wise, the Character is turning into the Daemon Prince/Thirster, Rules-wise, it's very clear that it's a separate Model that's being Summoned. The two are even very briefly on the board at the same time. I could have sworn I saw it debated a couple times via the interwebs, but now that I say it I can't seem to find it. I must be confusing it with FMC / Deep Strike / Flight Mode arguments, pre-FAQ. Well, the thing is in that case there is no ambiguity at all; your whole army starts in reserve and you lose at the end of turn 1. GW's suggestion is essentially just your opponent being polite to you because you brought a sucky army and you don't want to lose the game as soon as it starts. They didn't need to put anything more than a "yup, don't be a dumb" reply there but they decided to be generous and throw a bone to people who like skelington men too much, and I can't really hate them for that. Definitely no hate on my end. I do understand there intent. I guess with all of the "No, you can't do things disallowed by the rules" questions out there, it doesn't hurt seeing another one addressed in the FAQs, heh. For what it's worth, anyone who wants to roll 100% LotD against me is more than welcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PourSpelur Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The debate comes from in the LotD missions they have an extra rule called "Aid Unasked For" that allows them to deep strike first turn, allowing an all LotD army. Some (myself included to be honest) believed that it was simply omited from the unit rules by accident. Would have made it a playable codex on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 If they actually got Aid Unasked For as part of their codex detachment, you'd see a lot more LotD in tournaments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PourSpelur Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Every time the stats are listed in the "codex" Aid Unasked For is listed as one of their special rules. The one exception is in the actual listing for army building! Super frustrating because that one little inconsistency is the difference between a viable competitive choice and being relegated to bottom tier. They still wouldn't be game breaking but guaranteed first turn, ignore cover suicide squads would be a nice option. Then again, it's not like Marines have a lack of good choices as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IW Raptors Posted June 5, 2016 Report Share Posted June 5, 2016 I really like LOTD, I use them in combination with Lias Issodon in my Raptors army. They get work done! But yeah, it would be nice if their detachment actually got some benefits, Aid Unasked For would be perfect! Screw skyhammer, LOTD are much cooler (..or..something..I guess hot would be more appropriate). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.