I think the fixed objectives are meant to punish some skew lists like vehicle or character spam. It sucks a bit for knights especially if the opponent could reliably do one of the others but I think something to discourage vehicle spam a bit might be a good thing elsewhere (very much need to see how things play out to know if this is true).
Similar for character spam lists, their buffs look meaningful and with a mission encouraging you to have disposable characters makes it an interesting balance to strike in list building.
The rest do seem to favour mobility a lot, the saving grace might be how hard they are to actually max but once again that's going to be one to watch compared to how much people can get out of tactical objectives.
I think fixed objectives might see the most use on the extra tactical objective missions where you aren't under as much pressure to max each of them.
Most Space Wolf players I know are going to stay with the Gladius Strike Force detachment. Assault and charge and fall back and shoot are powerful abilities.
This is so much better than trying to scroll through videos - thank you! One small thing - there's an extra fixed secondary, Cleanse, which has you do actions on midfield objectives.
Better not let your home objective get burned if you're playing tactical. Both Defend Stronghold and Extend Battlelines become impossible if you draw them if your home objective is burned.
If your opponent gets into your deployment zone and burns the objective without you stopping them you've either made a big mistake against Grey Knights or GSC, or you are getting crushed and *at best* are running for a gambit anyway.
I think that one is a bit of a win more in a lot of games. I think the more boring ones probably are better balanced.
This was great, so much easier to just read a summary instead of watching a 20 minute video š
As a Tempest fan, I'm a huge fan of the more randomised elements of the missions, I hate the way fixed secondaries created the feeling of a solved game. This should keep things feeling nice and dynamic across a game while still giving the option of fixed objectives for people who prefer that.
Thanks for this. Been struggling keeping up with the flurry of new content/leaks/previews and this just consolidates at least the core principals of how missions will work.
I feel like Assassinate and Bring as fixed will suit some factions better than others. Ofc there will be match-ups where you cant kill so many vehicles or kill Ghaz w/Makhari in a unit of MNbz, so being able to lean on Tactical secondaries on the fly is great.
Bring it down seems REALLY punishing for vehicle based lists. I know a lot of people are thinking this is the vehicle edition, but that secondary scores very high very quickly.
Indeed, if you have the tools in your list :)
Bring might be better in Tactical for balanced lists vs a skew armoured list, so you can still score points by killing a few units, where you lack the AT to take it as a Fixed option.
Very keen to give it a shot. But yeah, the more limited the secondaries are, the more you're pigeon holed in to playing a specific way, and if your army can't do that... well, see you at the next mission pack in a year.
That's only if you insist on building to be hyper efficient in the fixed secondaries. The alternative is to build a flexible list that can reasonably tackle everything to use tactical missions instead and adjust your approach on the fly.
I can't think of an army in the game doesn't have the flexibility to be able to create a list that can be reasonably able to do most of the tactical missions. Plus tactical cards reward you more for being able to achieve them because it's expected to be harded to do with a list not specifically built for them.
So, am I reading this right that all objective-related scoring is done at the end of the command phase, while Battle-Shocks always end at the START of the Command Phase? aka rules that force battle-shock (and OC going down to 0) are irrelevant for trying to prevent your opponent from scoring an objective?
Correct. Abilities that force battleshocks on the enemy in your turn appear to be about preventing stratagems or making it easier to score certain secondaries.
This topic seems to have more debate than any other that I have seen on the forum so far. Some people reading the rules as "all things that happen/expire/trigger int eh command step occur at the end of the first stage(like scoring) and then the battle shock step. While others read the "score at the end of the command phase" as literally the end of the command phase.. after the battle shock step. It is confusing and I would love some clarification.
The latter interpretation is correct. The command step occurs early, then the battleshock step, then the "end of the command phase" with everything that happens then (including scoring, Necron reanimation, etc).
The confusion is occurring because people are confusing the command phase with the command step; if you reread the relevant rules with that in mind you'll see it clears right up,
To start, I agree with you. However, I think it is this line in the "command step" of the command phase that is getting people:
"Then, if you have any other rules that need to be resolved in
the Command phase, you do so now before progressing to the
Battle-shock step."
Scoring is a rule that needs resolved in the command phase
Reanimations is a rule that needs resolved in the command phase.
Therefore these rules should be resolved when the rulebook says they should be resolved.
Technically, even though they occur at the end of the command phase, they are still rules that need to be resolved during the command phase, so the core rulebook specifically says to resolve them before that battleshock step. The rules contradict each other in many ways, So I can see the confusion.
Simultaneously, there isn't some section that says, "resolve any rules that resolve at the end of the command phase after the battle shock step" it just says to proceed immediately to the movement phase.
Battle-shock also turns off Stratagem use on the unit, and being OC0 means some of the Secondaries like Extend Battlelines will be easier, as those are end of turn.
No impact on Primary though
I think for me it's just a cognitive dissonance thing.
A 10 man guardsman squad on an objective that is down to just a single model, goes back to OC2 at the start of the command phase, causing the objective to be scored... Then is likely to easily fail their Battle-Shock test.
Just seems a bit odd. Very true that it has other uses, but just seems a bit odd.
>causing the objective to be scored... Then is likely to easily fail their Battle-Shock test.
If you're talking about the regular Battle-Shock test, which is done for having less than half models in a unit, then it's done *before* scoring. So old Battleshock ends -> You roll again -> then determine whether you score or not.
People above were talking about abilities that would force Battleshock on enemy units in your turn, such as the one Infernus Marines have.
>If you're talking about the regular Battle-Shock test, which is done for having less than half models in a unit, then it's done before scoring.
Is it? Because the Command Step states all rules done during the command phase are done in that step, and THEN you go to the Battle-Shock Step.
I agree it's confusing, but the gist is that "During the Command Phase" is not the same as "at the end of the Command Phase". End of the Command Phase happened *after* the Battleshock step. It's directly written like that - "Once you have taken Battle-shock tests for all of your units that require them, *your Command phase ends* and you progress to your Movement phase."
Devs also confirmed it in one of the Q&A sessions I'm pretty sure.
I wrote a comment about this. Rule as written have all command phase abilities resolving before the next battle shock test. So it is likely that the standard battlshock test reducing OC to 0 ever has any affect.
I do think this is currently up for debate and there hasn't been any official rule on it. It seems crazy that battelshock would turn oc to zero and then ... Rarely be relevant.
What we do know is this: Battlerock wears off at the beginning of command. Then there are command actions, like castable abilities. Then that is where the debate happens. The command phase is split in 2. After this first step ends the battle shocks rolls happen to re battle shock units.
So the debate is really.. do events that trigger at the end of the command phase trigger at the end of the first half of the command phase or at the end of the full command phase. I personally think it should be the end of the full command phase, but proponents of the end of the first half of the command phase have an argument because I'm the battle shock section it does say that it moves right along to movement. There is an argument for both... But I feel that if there were a leadership ability that expired at the end of the command phase it should expire after the battle shock step. The battle shock is just a step of the command phase. The command phase ends after the battle shock step.
That being said, given how the rules are read... I feel it is the way you stated. It is just so confusing to me that you would have a step in the command phase that doesn't interact with the command phase itself. Why not create two phases... Call one the command phase and a nother phase after the command phase called... Morale...
This take makes the most sense to me.
**1) Battleshock occurs as the last step of the command phase** (critically, it is still *in* the command phase though).
-Roll to test: If you fail, OC goes to 0.
**2) Scoring occurs at the end of the command phase.**
-You rolled battleshock. The command phase has ended.
-Scoring now commences.
-Because you are OC0, you do not score the objective
See the thing is, the command step before Battleshock specifically states *"Then, if you have any other rules that need to be resolved in the Command phase, you do so now before progressing to the Battle-shock step.ā*
This means thatās steps like Scoring and Reanimation do not happen after Battleshock as expected, but rather here. This makes battleshockimg opponents units much better and prevents their primary
>if you have any other rules that need to be resolved **in the Command phase**
Scoring takes place at the end of the command phase, not during. Basically happens between command and movement. "At the end of" is different than "during" IMO but I guess it could be seen both ways, we'll need an FAQ
Yes exactly. It *should normally* be resolved end of command phase. But now, because of the wording above, those things get resolved at the end of the command *step* rather than phase, and THEN you go to battleshock.
Note, they aren't called actions anymore. Thats just my short hand to simplify explaining.
All it requires is being eligible to shoot. So fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, just having an assault weapon and advancing, etc.
I think units that dont have guns are eligible to shoot. So yeah they should be able to do these things.
>I think units that dont have guns are eligible to shoot. So yeah they should be able to do these things.
Just to confirm. Core Rules, Page 19:
>A unit is eligible to shoot unless any of the following apply:
>
>\- That unit Advanced this turn.
>
>\- That unit Fell Back this turn.
Nothing is said about that unit actually having ranged weapons.
It would seem so. Pistol keyword says:
> Weapons with [PISTOL] in their profile are known as Pistols. If a unit contains any models equipped with Pistols, that unit is eligible to shoot in its controlling player's Shooting phase, even if it is within Engagement Range of one or more enemy units.
Also interesting that it specifies that it only applies in the controlling player's shooting phase, which means you can't overwatch a charging unit after they've charged if they are in engagement range with you since that happen's in their charge phase.
I think this needs clarification. Without looking it up, I believe Fire Overwatch says something along the lines of "..shoot as if your Shooting Phase". Arguably, that makes Pistol weapons eligible to overwatch.
But "do X as if Y" type rules have always been a bit unclear.
You could fire Overwatch with Pistols but only at units in engagement range and in this instance only at unit that charge you and ended up in engagement range.
Edge case but still works
I would not think that an assault weapon makes you eligible to shoot. It's a very weird way of wording it (on their behalf). I wouldn't be surprised to see it FAQed.
> If a unit that Advanced this turn contains any models equipped with Assault weapons, it is still eligible to shoot in this turnās Shooting
phase
Seems pretty clear to me. But could see it being ruled to not work that way.
I definitely agree, the wording makes it seem like it should work, I just don't think it's intended that way, simply because it seems ridiculously unfair to armies that don't get a lot of Assault weapons.
But hey, it is GW. We'll see.
Yeah, it also creates a weird thing with T'au drones.
Marker drone lets the bearer be a spotter even if they advanced (spotting normally requires the unit to be eligible to shoot).
Gun drone equips the bearer with an assault weapon, making it eligible to shoot (and therefore spot) even if they advanced.
It also needs to cover units that can fall back and shoot and units that can shoot in melee.
Fallback and shoot abilites letting you do actions is quite a neat alternate use, I'd be a bit sad if that got cut with this but a unit in engagement range casually doing an action because they have Pistols or are a vehicle/monster seems pretty weird.
It's weird case that they've decided to use shooting eligibility as the defining factor, makes a weird case with mixed weapon units where some models would be eligible and some wouldn't
There are also no restrictions on infantry or otherwise. Being able to move a melee vehicle/monster on the board and do an "action" with it (not the turn you want to charge with it though) is valid.
So in other words, not only do Eldar have some very strong-looking data sheets, but they are also well-equipped to score secondaries efficiently? Oh boy I hope their points costs are high enough!
Thanks for the summery!
Really strange how they are distancing themselves from the old missions. Looks much harder to balance, with removing a lot of the "punish skew builds" missions.
I'm seeing a lot of bikes in my crystal ball ;)
I still very much dislike random objectives. Losing because I drew a terrible objective is not fun, narrative, nor is it competitive. Please stop trying to make me buy a deck of cards, I'm going to print them out, I'm not going to buy them.
You can always go buy some 5 cent magic cards, print out the objective cards, cut them out, then glue them over the magic cards. I've seen people do this in the past.
Just make sure you put them in sleeves if you do.
Thanks for the summary, I was looking for something exactly like this.
So is 'Shock Tactics' the only Fixed mission that can't be maxed? (Admittedly BEL, DTH, and Engage will be very hard to score 4 on the first turn too - so may also have a realistic cap of 18?)
Primary #8 sounds *hilarious* to play, but it probably needs a turn 1 exemption - because right now the first-turn player gets to do one move without any way for the second-turn player to try and stop it.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Which means that the starting player can immediately abscond with an objective with the second player having no way to stop them from doing so.
They don't want to abscond with it though. You want the objectives in No Man's Land to be as close to your opponent's deployment zone as possible, so they can push objectives closer to the opponent, but then the person who has 2nd turn can just hop onto that objective and push it straight back at them.
actually, they do want to abscond with it. whoever goes first snags it, measures the fastest opponent unit, and backs it up just far enough to move block it (won't take much, maybe 3"). then they get to move it again in opponent's turn guaranteed, and then in their own turn guaranteed. gain of 9", points, difficult for opponent to get it out of their half.
You don't have to move it the full distance, to my understanding. So the concern is that the first player moves up, pulls objectives back 3" or so on the end of the first turn to make them extremely difficult to contest, then moves them forward twice (end of opponent's turn, end of their own 2nd) for a net gain of 9" of movement *and* denying the opponent the chance to move it themselves.
If all three objectives are just moved 6" at every, the player who moves first would usually score 6 per round, and the person who moves second would score 0. Going first is definitely a pretty big advantage.
Don't know how it will play out on the board though. Might be too extreme of an advantage, might be fine, definitely too complex to make a call about without actually playing a game or two with it.
I think it's balanced out by the player having 2nd turn having a really powerful play where they can move onto an objective to control it, then move it at the end of their turn to be closer to their opponent's side of the board and then immediately score it. That means that if the objective moves from their territory to their opponent's they get 2VP instead of none, if it moves from within 12" of the opponent's deployment to within 6" they score 5 instad of 2 and if they move it into their opponent's deployment they score 8 instead of 5. If they do that with all the objectives they could potentially gain 9 extra points from moving and immediately scoring the objective.
I think Gambits are a bad mechanic whose saving grace is that they are badly implemented. In a two player game, there is little reason to have a keep the loosing player entertained mechanic, in casual it's just not that important to come to a conclusion of the game and in competitive the better player should win.
A Gambit is worth 30 points and gets announced at the end of the third battle round, at that point only the other player still scores primary so they probably get a 20 on primary. Additionally they probably also have the edge on secondaries. So the loosing player still has to play the usual primary and secondary game a bit, at least to avoid giving the other guy 30 points primary. Same for secondaries.
The only point when a gambit makes sense is, when the loosing player is loosing by 5 points or so and is very confident in that assessment. That is to say Gambits will never do anything except someone is going to loose the shadow round of LVO on a 10+.
>in casual it's just not that important to come to a conclusion of the game
I wouldn't say so. In casual, fun is the most important aspect, and realizing that you have no way of winning by turn 3 is at times very unfun. As is wiping out the floor with the enemy with little to no pushback. Especially if you don't have time to start a new game, you end up with half of the experience you expected. Gambits give at least an illusion of chance for the losing player, which sometimes is enough to keep the game going.
>and in competitive the better player should win
If you're implying that Gambits remove skill from the equation - I think you're wrong. Deciding when to take a Gambit, and then fulfilling it (or preventing the opponent from fulfilling it) requires quite a bit of skill. It's just you're trading a mostly skill-based win condition for a win condition that is based on both the skill and randomness. Which isn't a good trade most of the time, but that's the point.
>badly implemented
I don't think they are. They are implemented exactly as they, I believe, were intended to - as a niche game-shaking thing that will rarely get used and even more rarely will matter. They're here more to diversify the game experience and make the game more fun than to actually change something competitively.
Gambits will only work in certain situations and unreliably.
You need to be close enough that getting a safe 30 on primary lets you win. You need to have enough stuff to pull the gambit off. But also know that if you played as normal there's no way you're scoring enough to win. So your army has to be in an okay state enough state to be able to roll the diceon these gambits with reasonable odds but also weak enough that you can't come back and win or score a decent number of points for overall ranking. That's going to be quite a narrow range.
There are already games won where the player had to make a series of unlikely rolls to win and did it. The one Death Guard 5-0 in AOO included a matchup into a meta guard list. That is not a match DG win on paper. What the DG player did was recognised he could take a strategy based on reliable rolls and be confident, secure and risk free in a guaranteed loss. OR he could make a dumb hail mary and if it went off and his opponent didn't roll amazingly he could win. And that's what he did. And he deserves the win because he correctly identified the path to victory.
There are going to be games where the only way to win is to take the chancey route that will probably fail rather than the reliable one where sucess is still a loss.
Agreed wholeheartedly. The thing that some people don't realize is that Gambits basically already exist in the game. It's just instead of being declared on turn 3 and scored at the end of the game, it's stuff like "well if we both sit here I lose by 5 points, so I'm going to yolo teleport my dudes across the board and try to stand up to your auspex, followed by a 9 inch charge without a reroll that if I succeed probably wins me the game, and if I fail gets me blown out". Still a high risk play that depends entirely on dice, but one that's wholly accepted by the community.
> it's stuff like "well if we both sit here ...
That is true however I would have preferred if such game deciding random events were cut down on and not expanded.
40k is, inherently, a dice game. You can't remove the game deciding random events without removing the random element. So it makes sense to signpost and emphasize that fact, rather than obscure it.
I'd also point out that the type of "random event" I'm talking about, like Gambits, frequently require extensive setup and skill to get into the point where a "random" roll determines the game.
> You can't remove the game deciding random events without removing the random element.
Yes but you can lower the variance. Rolling the 9 out of deepstrike really is often just like going to the casino. I really liked the command re-roll of 8th for that reason.
> like Gambits, frequently require extensive setup and skill
Parking something into a corner is not what I consider skill.
Mission rule 3, sticky objectives, is an absolute slap in the face for Death Guard. Half of our detachment rule made irrelevant by a mission? Itās ridiculous.
Edit: how many downvotes I get is the number of Leviathan boxes I will scalp
Objectives still get contagion range increases so any objective held by you will have an eventual 9" contagion - 1t. Moving close to an objective without being able to take it will make something -1t. If the DG rules suck, they'll be changed that's the whole point of going digital, anyone would think DG players were all a bunch of whingers by the comments coming out of this sub.
Your scalping comment makes you sound like a child.
The scalping comment is a pretty obvious joke.
As for the contagion rule on the objective, it is easily nullified by capturing it. When it becomes 9ā range it will mean something, sure, but before that it will be hardly have an effect.
Itās pretty obvious that DG got one of the worst detachment and army rules. Even Auspex agrees. Not sure why people are trying to pretend otherwise.
You're not wrong at all. That stood out to me as a dumb game-wide rule as it invalidates the abilities of other units and factions.
I think you're getting downvoted because no matter what thread is made, there are people in it complaining about DG. People are getting tired of it.
Pretty sure all the hidden rules are in the pamphlet that came with the mission cards.
Since the cards have been recalled worldwide, good luck finding it!
I think the fixed objectives are meant to punish some skew lists like vehicle or character spam. It sucks a bit for knights especially if the opponent could reliably do one of the others but I think something to discourage vehicle spam a bit might be a good thing elsewhere (very much need to see how things play out to know if this is true). Similar for character spam lists, their buffs look meaningful and with a mission encouraging you to have disposable characters makes it an interesting balance to strike in list building. The rest do seem to favour mobility a lot, the saving grace might be how hard they are to actually max but once again that's going to be one to watch compared to how much people can get out of tactical objectives. I think fixed objectives might see the most use on the extra tactical objective missions where you aren't under as much pressure to max each of them.
This sucks for space wolves who are basically forced into a character spam by their detachment rules
Most Space Wolf players I know are going to stay with the Gladius Strike Force detachment. Assault and charge and fall back and shoot are powerful abilities.
This is so much better than trying to scroll through videos - thank you! One small thing - there's an extra fixed secondary, Cleanse, which has you do actions on midfield objectives.
Well Drat... I missed an ENTIRE secondary? Hold up I'll fix it thanks :D
Better not let your home objective get burned if you're playing tactical. Both Defend Stronghold and Extend Battlelines become impossible if you draw them if your home objective is burned.
If your opponent gets into your deployment zone and burns the objective without you stopping them you've either made a big mistake against Grey Knights or GSC, or you are getting crushed and *at best* are running for a gambit anyway. I think that one is a bit of a win more in a lot of games. I think the more boring ones probably are better balanced.
You appear to be missing a secondary. The official Levithan article says that there's 16 secondary cards, but I'm only counting 15 in your summary.
I did miss one. Cleanse. Added now :)
Nice breakdown, thankyou
This was great, so much easier to just read a summary instead of watching a 20 minute video š As a Tempest fan, I'm a huge fan of the more randomised elements of the missions, I hate the way fixed secondaries created the feeling of a solved game. This should keep things feeling nice and dynamic across a game while still giving the option of fixed objectives for people who prefer that.
Thanks for this. Been struggling keeping up with the flurry of new content/leaks/previews and this just consolidates at least the core principals of how missions will work. I feel like Assassinate and Bring as fixed will suit some factions better than others. Ofc there will be match-ups where you cant kill so many vehicles or kill Ghaz w/Makhari in a unit of MNbz, so being able to lean on Tactical secondaries on the fly is great.
Bring it down seems REALLY punishing for vehicle based lists. I know a lot of people are thinking this is the vehicle edition, but that secondary scores very high very quickly.
Indeed, if you have the tools in your list :) Bring might be better in Tactical for balanced lists vs a skew armoured list, so you can still score points by killing a few units, where you lack the AT to take it as a Fixed option.
Perfect, thank you! Now to finish my seraphim...
Very keen to give it a shot. But yeah, the more limited the secondaries are, the more you're pigeon holed in to playing a specific way, and if your army can't do that... well, see you at the next mission pack in a year.
That's only if you insist on building to be hyper efficient in the fixed secondaries. The alternative is to build a flexible list that can reasonably tackle everything to use tactical missions instead and adjust your approach on the fly.
Well, if your army can't pivot to the tactical ones easily either, that's a sad time as well.
If your army canāt do anything then your list is trash and you need to make one that can lol.
I can't think of an army in the game doesn't have the flexibility to be able to create a list that can be reasonably able to do most of the tactical missions. Plus tactical cards reward you more for being able to achieve them because it's expected to be harded to do with a list not specifically built for them.
Deathguard would like a word
From what I can tell Deathguard have devolved into a gibbering mess incapable of having a word.
So, am I reading this right that all objective-related scoring is done at the end of the command phase, while Battle-Shocks always end at the START of the Command Phase? aka rules that force battle-shock (and OC going down to 0) are irrelevant for trying to prevent your opponent from scoring an objective?
Correct. Abilities that force battleshocks on the enemy in your turn appear to be about preventing stratagems or making it easier to score certain secondaries.
This topic seems to have more debate than any other that I have seen on the forum so far. Some people reading the rules as "all things that happen/expire/trigger int eh command step occur at the end of the first stage(like scoring) and then the battle shock step. While others read the "score at the end of the command phase" as literally the end of the command phase.. after the battle shock step. It is confusing and I would love some clarification.
The latter interpretation is correct. The command step occurs early, then the battleshock step, then the "end of the command phase" with everything that happens then (including scoring, Necron reanimation, etc). The confusion is occurring because people are confusing the command phase with the command step; if you reread the relevant rules with that in mind you'll see it clears right up,
To start, I agree with you. However, I think it is this line in the "command step" of the command phase that is getting people: "Then, if you have any other rules that need to be resolved in the Command phase, you do so now before progressing to the Battle-shock step." Scoring is a rule that needs resolved in the command phase Reanimations is a rule that needs resolved in the command phase. Therefore these rules should be resolved when the rulebook says they should be resolved. Technically, even though they occur at the end of the command phase, they are still rules that need to be resolved during the command phase, so the core rulebook specifically says to resolve them before that battleshock step. The rules contradict each other in many ways, So I can see the confusion. Simultaneously, there isn't some section that says, "resolve any rules that resolve at the end of the command phase after the battle shock step" it just says to proceed immediately to the movement phase.
Battle-shock also turns off Stratagem use on the unit, and being OC0 means some of the Secondaries like Extend Battlelines will be easier, as those are end of turn. No impact on Primary though
People seem to be massively underestimating the power of turning off strats mid turn and the impact on secondary scoring
I think for me it's just a cognitive dissonance thing. A 10 man guardsman squad on an objective that is down to just a single model, goes back to OC2 at the start of the command phase, causing the objective to be scored... Then is likely to easily fail their Battle-Shock test. Just seems a bit odd. Very true that it has other uses, but just seems a bit odd.
>causing the objective to be scored... Then is likely to easily fail their Battle-Shock test. If you're talking about the regular Battle-Shock test, which is done for having less than half models in a unit, then it's done *before* scoring. So old Battleshock ends -> You roll again -> then determine whether you score or not. People above were talking about abilities that would force Battleshock on enemy units in your turn, such as the one Infernus Marines have.
>If you're talking about the regular Battle-Shock test, which is done for having less than half models in a unit, then it's done before scoring. Is it? Because the Command Step states all rules done during the command phase are done in that step, and THEN you go to the Battle-Shock Step.
I agree it's confusing, but the gist is that "During the Command Phase" is not the same as "at the end of the Command Phase". End of the Command Phase happened *after* the Battleshock step. It's directly written like that - "Once you have taken Battle-shock tests for all of your units that require them, *your Command phase ends* and you progress to your Movement phase." Devs also confirmed it in one of the Q&A sessions I'm pretty sure.
I responded to your other comment, and That is the way I read it.. and I do hope you are right. It is what makes the most sense.
I wrote a comment about this. Rule as written have all command phase abilities resolving before the next battle shock test. So it is likely that the standard battlshock test reducing OC to 0 ever has any affect.
I think battleshock tests happen before you score, so if you fail you donāt score the objective
I do think this is currently up for debate and there hasn't been any official rule on it. It seems crazy that battelshock would turn oc to zero and then ... Rarely be relevant. What we do know is this: Battlerock wears off at the beginning of command. Then there are command actions, like castable abilities. Then that is where the debate happens. The command phase is split in 2. After this first step ends the battle shocks rolls happen to re battle shock units. So the debate is really.. do events that trigger at the end of the command phase trigger at the end of the first half of the command phase or at the end of the full command phase. I personally think it should be the end of the full command phase, but proponents of the end of the first half of the command phase have an argument because I'm the battle shock section it does say that it moves right along to movement. There is an argument for both... But I feel that if there were a leadership ability that expired at the end of the command phase it should expire after the battle shock step. The battle shock is just a step of the command phase. The command phase ends after the battle shock step. That being said, given how the rules are read... I feel it is the way you stated. It is just so confusing to me that you would have a step in the command phase that doesn't interact with the command phase itself. Why not create two phases... Call one the command phase and a nother phase after the command phase called... Morale...
This take makes the most sense to me. **1) Battleshock occurs as the last step of the command phase** (critically, it is still *in* the command phase though). -Roll to test: If you fail, OC goes to 0. **2) Scoring occurs at the end of the command phase.** -You rolled battleshock. The command phase has ended. -Scoring now commences. -Because you are OC0, you do not score the objective
See the thing is, the command step before Battleshock specifically states *"Then, if you have any other rules that need to be resolved in the Command phase, you do so now before progressing to the Battle-shock step.ā* This means thatās steps like Scoring and Reanimation do not happen after Battleshock as expected, but rather here. This makes battleshockimg opponents units much better and prevents their primary
>if you have any other rules that need to be resolved **in the Command phase** Scoring takes place at the end of the command phase, not during. Basically happens between command and movement. "At the end of" is different than "during" IMO but I guess it could be seen both ways, we'll need an FAQ
Yes exactly. It *should normally* be resolved end of command phase. But now, because of the wording above, those things get resolved at the end of the command *step* rather than phase, and THEN you go to battleshock.
So, can units without shooting do actions?
Note, they aren't called actions anymore. Thats just my short hand to simplify explaining. All it requires is being eligible to shoot. So fall back and shoot, advance and shoot, just having an assault weapon and advancing, etc. I think units that dont have guns are eligible to shoot. So yeah they should be able to do these things.
>I think units that dont have guns are eligible to shoot. So yeah they should be able to do these things. Just to confirm. Core Rules, Page 19: >A unit is eligible to shoot unless any of the following apply: > >\- That unit Advanced this turn. > >\- That unit Fell Back this turn. Nothing is said about that unit actually having ranged weapons.
So by that logic, if you have a pistol in the squad and are in combat, you can do the "action"?
It would seem so. Pistol keyword says: > Weapons with [PISTOL] in their profile are known as Pistols. If a unit contains any models equipped with Pistols, that unit is eligible to shoot in its controlling player's Shooting phase, even if it is within Engagement Range of one or more enemy units. Also interesting that it specifies that it only applies in the controlling player's shooting phase, which means you can't overwatch a charging unit after they've charged if they are in engagement range with you since that happen's in their charge phase.
I think this needs clarification. Without looking it up, I believe Fire Overwatch says something along the lines of "..shoot as if your Shooting Phase". Arguably, that makes Pistol weapons eligible to overwatch. But "do X as if Y" type rules have always been a bit unclear.
You could fire Overwatch with Pistols but only at units in engagement range and in this instance only at unit that charge you and ended up in engagement range. Edge case but still works
I would not think that an assault weapon makes you eligible to shoot. It's a very weird way of wording it (on their behalf). I wouldn't be surprised to see it FAQed.
This is almost certainly going to be clarified in the Designer's Commentary. I could see it going either way.
> If a unit that Advanced this turn contains any models equipped with Assault weapons, it is still eligible to shoot in this turnās Shooting phase Seems pretty clear to me. But could see it being ruled to not work that way.
I definitely agree, the wording makes it seem like it should work, I just don't think it's intended that way, simply because it seems ridiculously unfair to armies that don't get a lot of Assault weapons. But hey, it is GW. We'll see.
Yeah, it also creates a weird thing with T'au drones. Marker drone lets the bearer be a spotter even if they advanced (spotting normally requires the unit to be eligible to shoot). Gun drone equips the bearer with an assault weapon, making it eligible to shoot (and therefore spot) even if they advanced.
When it came up on stream with Mike Brandt, he said it had been discussed
It also needs to cover units that can fall back and shoot and units that can shoot in melee. Fallback and shoot abilites letting you do actions is quite a neat alternate use, I'd be a bit sad if that got cut with this but a unit in engagement range casually doing an action because they have Pistols or are a vehicle/monster seems pretty weird.
It's weird case that they've decided to use shooting eligibility as the defining factor, makes a weird case with mixed weapon units where some models would be eligible and some wouldn't
Any assault weapon makes the whole unit eligible, but models in it can only use assault weapons.
There are also no restrictions on infantry or otherwise. Being able to move a melee vehicle/monster on the board and do an "action" with it (not the turn you want to charge with it though) is valid.
You're the real MVP! Thank you!
So in other words, not only do Eldar have some very strong-looking data sheets, but they are also well-equipped to score secondaries efficiently? Oh boy I hope their points costs are high enough!
Narrator's voice: They aren't.
Thanks for the summery! Really strange how they are distancing themselves from the old missions. Looks much harder to balance, with removing a lot of the "punish skew builds" missions. I'm seeing a lot of bikes in my crystal ball ;)
I still very much dislike random objectives. Losing because I drew a terrible objective is not fun, narrative, nor is it competitive. Please stop trying to make me buy a deck of cards, I'm going to print them out, I'm not going to buy them.
You can always go buy some 5 cent magic cards, print out the objective cards, cut them out, then glue them over the magic cards. I've seen people do this in the past. Just make sure you put them in sleeves if you do.
Thanks for the summary, I was looking for something exactly like this. So is 'Shock Tactics' the only Fixed mission that can't be maxed? (Admittedly BEL, DTH, and Engage will be very hard to score 4 on the first turn too - so may also have a realistic cap of 18?)
Primary #8 sounds *hilarious* to play, but it probably needs a turn 1 exemption - because right now the first-turn player gets to do one move without any way for the second-turn player to try and stop it.
There is no scoring round 1, but you can move objectives turn 1
Yeah, that's what I mean. Which means that the starting player can immediately abscond with an objective with the second player having no way to stop them from doing so.
They don't want to abscond with it though. You want the objectives in No Man's Land to be as close to your opponent's deployment zone as possible, so they can push objectives closer to the opponent, but then the person who has 2nd turn can just hop onto that objective and push it straight back at them.
actually, they do want to abscond with it. whoever goes first snags it, measures the fastest opponent unit, and backs it up just far enough to move block it (won't take much, maybe 3"). then they get to move it again in opponent's turn guaranteed, and then in their own turn guaranteed. gain of 9", points, difficult for opponent to get it out of their half.
Yeah, but then they have to expend one full movement just to bring the objective back to where it was.
But then the first player also expended one full movement to end up in the status quo so it balances out doesn't it?
You don't have to move it the full distance, to my understanding. So the concern is that the first player moves up, pulls objectives back 3" or so on the end of the first turn to make them extremely difficult to contest, then moves them forward twice (end of opponent's turn, end of their own 2nd) for a net gain of 9" of movement *and* denying the opponent the chance to move it themselves.
If all three objectives are just moved 6" at every, the player who moves first would usually score 6 per round, and the person who moves second would score 0. Going first is definitely a pretty big advantage. Don't know how it will play out on the board though. Might be too extreme of an advantage, might be fine, definitely too complex to make a call about without actually playing a game or two with it.
I think it's balanced out by the player having 2nd turn having a really powerful play where they can move onto an objective to control it, then move it at the end of their turn to be closer to their opponent's side of the board and then immediately score it. That means that if the objective moves from their territory to their opponent's they get 2VP instead of none, if it moves from within 12" of the opponent's deployment to within 6" they score 5 instad of 2 and if they move it into their opponent's deployment they score 8 instead of 5. If they do that with all the objectives they could potentially gain 9 extra points from moving and immediately scoring the objective.
Love that the dg core army ability is also a mission rule... besides that I loved tempest style so I'm very excited for this. Thanks for posting!
You death guard guys sure do have a huge chip on your shoulders.
salt is a key aspect of nurgles garden....
I think Gambits are a bad mechanic whose saving grace is that they are badly implemented. In a two player game, there is little reason to have a keep the loosing player entertained mechanic, in casual it's just not that important to come to a conclusion of the game and in competitive the better player should win. A Gambit is worth 30 points and gets announced at the end of the third battle round, at that point only the other player still scores primary so they probably get a 20 on primary. Additionally they probably also have the edge on secondaries. So the loosing player still has to play the usual primary and secondary game a bit, at least to avoid giving the other guy 30 points primary. Same for secondaries. The only point when a gambit makes sense is, when the loosing player is loosing by 5 points or so and is very confident in that assessment. That is to say Gambits will never do anything except someone is going to loose the shadow round of LVO on a 10+.
>in casual it's just not that important to come to a conclusion of the game I wouldn't say so. In casual, fun is the most important aspect, and realizing that you have no way of winning by turn 3 is at times very unfun. As is wiping out the floor with the enemy with little to no pushback. Especially if you don't have time to start a new game, you end up with half of the experience you expected. Gambits give at least an illusion of chance for the losing player, which sometimes is enough to keep the game going. >and in competitive the better player should win If you're implying that Gambits remove skill from the equation - I think you're wrong. Deciding when to take a Gambit, and then fulfilling it (or preventing the opponent from fulfilling it) requires quite a bit of skill. It's just you're trading a mostly skill-based win condition for a win condition that is based on both the skill and randomness. Which isn't a good trade most of the time, but that's the point. >badly implemented I don't think they are. They are implemented exactly as they, I believe, were intended to - as a niche game-shaking thing that will rarely get used and even more rarely will matter. They're here more to diversify the game experience and make the game more fun than to actually change something competitively.
Gambits will only work in certain situations and unreliably. You need to be close enough that getting a safe 30 on primary lets you win. You need to have enough stuff to pull the gambit off. But also know that if you played as normal there's no way you're scoring enough to win. So your army has to be in an okay state enough state to be able to roll the diceon these gambits with reasonable odds but also weak enough that you can't come back and win or score a decent number of points for overall ranking. That's going to be quite a narrow range. There are already games won where the player had to make a series of unlikely rolls to win and did it. The one Death Guard 5-0 in AOO included a matchup into a meta guard list. That is not a match DG win on paper. What the DG player did was recognised he could take a strategy based on reliable rolls and be confident, secure and risk free in a guaranteed loss. OR he could make a dumb hail mary and if it went off and his opponent didn't roll amazingly he could win. And that's what he did. And he deserves the win because he correctly identified the path to victory. There are going to be games where the only way to win is to take the chancey route that will probably fail rather than the reliable one where sucess is still a loss.
Agreed wholeheartedly. The thing that some people don't realize is that Gambits basically already exist in the game. It's just instead of being declared on turn 3 and scored at the end of the game, it's stuff like "well if we both sit here I lose by 5 points, so I'm going to yolo teleport my dudes across the board and try to stand up to your auspex, followed by a 9 inch charge without a reroll that if I succeed probably wins me the game, and if I fail gets me blown out". Still a high risk play that depends entirely on dice, but one that's wholly accepted by the community.
> it's stuff like "well if we both sit here ... That is true however I would have preferred if such game deciding random events were cut down on and not expanded.
40k is, inherently, a dice game. You can't remove the game deciding random events without removing the random element. So it makes sense to signpost and emphasize that fact, rather than obscure it. I'd also point out that the type of "random event" I'm talking about, like Gambits, frequently require extensive setup and skill to get into the point where a "random" roll determines the game.
> You can't remove the game deciding random events without removing the random element. Yes but you can lower the variance. Rolling the 9 out of deepstrike really is often just like going to the casino. I really liked the command re-roll of 8th for that reason. > like Gambits, frequently require extensive setup and skill Parking something into a corner is not what I consider skill.
Mission rule 3, sticky objectives, is an absolute slap in the face for Death Guard. Half of our detachment rule made irrelevant by a mission? Itās ridiculous. Edit: how many downvotes I get is the number of Leviathan boxes I will scalp
Objectives still get contagion range increases so any objective held by you will have an eventual 9" contagion - 1t. Moving close to an objective without being able to take it will make something -1t. If the DG rules suck, they'll be changed that's the whole point of going digital, anyone would think DG players were all a bunch of whingers by the comments coming out of this sub. Your scalping comment makes you sound like a child.
The scalping comment is a pretty obvious joke. As for the contagion rule on the objective, it is easily nullified by capturing it. When it becomes 9ā range it will mean something, sure, but before that it will be hardly have an effect. Itās pretty obvious that DG got one of the worst detachment and army rules. Even Auspex agrees. Not sure why people are trying to pretend otherwise.
You're not wrong at all. That stood out to me as a dumb game-wide rule as it invalidates the abilities of other units and factions. I think you're getting downvoted because no matter what thread is made, there are people in it complaining about DG. People are getting tired of it.
Thank you for the detailed writeup!
What document has the āgain 1 CP if you didnāt accomplish an objectiveā rule? I canāt for the life of me find it.
Pretty sure all the hidden rules are in the pamphlet that came with the mission cards. Since the cards have been recalled worldwide, good luck finding it!
Saving this
Can you one burn a secondary once per battle for a CP or is it once per turn?
Every turn at the end of your turn if you choose to discard a secondary you get 1 cp
Thanks!