These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k
last day of Spring 20th June - "ack!"
1: Codex Errata
A couple of weeks after the release of every codex
2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs
Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September
3: Chapter Approved
(just like we did with the first Chapter Approved).
I had to read it for myself
Use this Stratagem at any time to do one of the following:
reveal D3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is
using Concealed Deployment); identify a Mysterious
Objective anywhere on the battlefield; or shoot with an
ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without
the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low
Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.
Use this Stratagem at any time to [...] shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army
wait for tears when you explain that he can't take saving throws .. because "It's not the shooting phase" ....
/me watches tables flip
by the same logic ... and yes I'm massively overthinking this ... as it's outside of the game and doesn't specify ... you couldn't actually make the attacks in the first place ... for those same reasons ...
And now the balance is restored ... sanity can resume
But simple people who were touched in the bad place like @CrusherJoe eat it up
To use a points limit, you will need to reference the points values, which are found in a number of Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In these you will find the points costs for every model and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the agreed limit for the game.
(emphasis is mine)
Codex: Astra Militarum p142
Unit: Veterans | Points Per Model: 6
\ If models in these units form Heavy Weapons Teams, there is no additional points cost.
1x Veteran Sergeant
1x Veteran Weapons Teams
9 models x 6 points per model = 54 points
Assumption: Units are paid for when taken, then gear is replaced (not well supported by current rules text from BRB 214, which implies but does not specifically state this is done at end step)
Follow-up: nowhere does it say things being replaced refund what they replace.
Guard Squad: pay for 9 +1, two models that are not refunded per the follow-up form a single-model HWT and pay for a heavy weapon
Scion Squad: pay for 5, two models take plasmaguns, the hotshots they are equipped with by default ar not refunded either.
if replacements are refunded, then the HWT replacing two guardsmen refunds those guardsmen.
nowhere in the BRB is cost and replacement handled, just the order to tally up what your army is comprised of.
Assumption: Units are paid for by contents at end of configuration
Guard Squad: take 9+1, configure with two models forming a single-model HWT, and take a heavy weapon. points costs calculated from end composition of 7 guardsmen, 1 serg, 1 HWT model. (HWT cost same as unit per Ork/SW FAQ)
Scion Squad: take 5, two models replace, squad is calculated as paying for equipped weapons only.
IN BOTH CASES the IFS winds up as an illegal unit due to only having 9 models, one of which is a HWT while the datasheet requires "9 guardsmen and one sergeant" a unique condition that is found nowhere else in the game to my knowledge. in other cases where units may be replaced, example aspect warriors, this is already called out in the upper datasheet block
Hey @/all - maybe we can alter a guideline about madly sticking to so-called RAW
I'm thinking about adding a clause that would explain that in corner cases, where there are no legal ways for a rule/replacement/etc. to work as written (RAW) [see the case of HWT where the RAW suggests you cannot field minimal unit because it's 9 models after replacement
we reserve the right to decide on the most logical/fitting/working-at-all resolution
If one person is wrong, either everyone helps fix his shit, or if that’s impossible everyone uniformly goes to the same status as the guy who’s shit is all fucked up
That might also be a guideline. It's actually in the "fluff" of our guidelines that they are meant to provide consistency across catalogues.
If a similar option/selection/validation is already implemented in another place/catalogue, you SHOULD follow the same pattern for the sake of consistency. If the pattern might use an update, discuss this with fellow maintainers.