Signals from the Frontline: Warhammer 40k and General Gaming News, Rumors, Tactics and Comedy!

signals from the Frontline

Show Notes

Date

Intro

  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube!  Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.

News

  • Only 3 40k Champs and 1 40k Friendly ticket left for the LVO!
  • Forgeworld shows off what looks like an absolutely bad ass new Contemptor chassis dread!

AVE432GERD_1HTGERW43_41A

 

AVE0HD3_14DRG4dg_41Blrg

  • Last Saga keeps knocking it out with slick minis.

last saga

  • Gamecraft shows off more awesome DzC scale buildings.

gamecraft

Upcoming ITC Events

  •  ITC Update! Thanks so much for the patience.
  • Next event is the TSFHT Open, January 10-11th in Seattle. http://www.tshftopen.com/

Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from  any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.

  •  Rumors of a new plastic Cryptek and new Destroyer Lord to come out with the rumored Necron release. Remember to get yoru pre-orders in tto Frontline Gaming as soon as you see anything, like the Necron Codex, go up on GW’s site!
  • Rumors of new plastic Cult Troops that are built to fit the new 32mm bases. Plague marines said to be quite bulky. They will come in 5 man boxes with extra bits to bling out the Champion.
  • The next campaign to come out is said to be Darkstorm, Dark Angels vs. Chaos. 2015 is rumored to be the year of campaigns and supplements.
  • BIG RUMOR, supposedly there is a Codex/Supplement for AdMech coming out? What that means we don’t know, but it sounds pretty awesome.
  • Images floating around the net of the new rumored Verminlord kit and holy crap, they look awesome.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

  • Recap on Detachments and Formations.
  • We should have an answer for the Knight question, soon!
  • New insight on the Blood Angels Formation we’ve been discussing for the past few episodes.
  • “When lightning strikes against heavily-defended xenos positions were called for, Dante looked to the most experienced warriors of the Blooded to lead the attack. Fully half of the 2nd Company’s Tactical squads were transported within the armoured hulls of Stormraven Gunships, where they would be delivered with practised efficiency into the heart of the Tyranid host to secure a beachhead. Once on the ground, the squad sergeants triangulated their teleport homers to call in additional support. With such logistical data at their disposal, inbound reinforcements could drop or teleport to their location with pinpoint precision, enabling them to respond to priority threats with immediate effect. On many occasions, a Spearhead Force would herald the arrival of an Angel’s Wrath Intervention Force dropping from on high to smash the xenos.” 
     
    And now the main rule that pertains to this question:
     
    Augur Triangulation: If a friendly unit with the Blood Angels Faction arrives from Deep Strike Reserve within 12” of at least two models from this Formation equipped with teleport homers, then it does not scatter, and can charge on the same turn it arrives.”
    And of course the Teleport Homer rules state:
     
    Teleport Homer
    Friendly units composed entirely of models in Terminator armour do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike Reserve, so long as the first model is placed within 6″ of the teleport homer’s bearer. For this to work, the bearer must have been on the battlefield at the start of the turn.”

Completed Commissions

  •  

List Review

First time LVO attendee! Awesome.

List name: ‘Alamo’
Tactics: Defend backfield objectives with fortification. Kill/Capture forward objectives with armor blitz. Vets reserve in and sit on any clear(ed) forward objects. If there are anti AV14 threats (tau with rails, etc) turtle at fort and basilisks go after enemy scoring units. If AV14 is fairly safe I blitz with 4 tanks and 2 Vendettas.
Fortifications (265 pts):
  • Imperial strongpoint (bastion & aegis) w/ void shield on bastion, 2x quad guns (anti air & MC), and ammo store to help platoon command squad snipers hit.

Troops (383 pts)

  • Infantry Platoon
    • Platoon command squad w/ 4x snipers in bastion
    • 20 guardsman blob w/ commissar
    • Heavy Weapons Squad w/ 3x auto-cannon heave weapons teams
  • Vets in Chimera w/ 2 meltas

HQ (420 pts)

  • Tank commander Russ Squadrom
    • Executioner (plasma) w/ Pask and heavy bolters on the sponsons
    • Second tank also an Executioner w/ heavy bolters on the sponsons.
    • Plays hard offense.

Heavy Support (590 pts)

  • 2x Leman Russ Battle tanks w/ heavy bolters on the sponsons. Plays hard offense.
  • 2x Basilisks. Sits behind Imperial strongpoint and blasts high priority targets.
Fast Attack
  • 2x Vandettas
Thanks in advance if this makes the ‘cut’ for the podcast! In any case… looking forward to LVO!
Cheers!

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

119 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline: Warhammer 40k and General Gaming News, Rumors, Tactics and Comedy!”

  1. David Gale December 30, 2014 2:57 am
    #

    Hey guys, I wanted to weigh in on the BA formation question. Why not enforce the rule that says it needs to be there at the start if the turn? That way I can stay inside them but no turn 1 drop pod shenanigans?

    To be fair though if you fly up 36″ you can deep strike out, ‘skies of fury’? The BA codex is far from amazing. Decent sure but no Eldar beater. Neutering this formation would seem overly harsh to me!

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:16 pm
      #

      No vote has been cast yet, right now we’re just discussing things. I can’t say which way it will go at this point.

    • Pascal Roggen December 31, 2014 4:37 am
      #

      it’s not a rule to be enforced. if you are using the teleport homer rule, sure, but angular triangulation is a completely different rule and covers exactly what it needs to.
      If you were using the teleport homer rule, you couldn’t guide anything except terminators and you certainly couldn’t assault after you land.

      then again you also aren’t spending 1020 points minimum to use the teleport homer rule are you?

  2. Andrew December 30, 2014 8:21 am
    #

    Quick clarification about the LVO (this will be my first time attending): Frankie mentioned that the ITC has best in faction prizes to be announced at the LVO, but will there be prizes for best in each faction based solely on the LVO2014 tournament standings? as this is my first ITC event I can’t compete for top in my faction, but I like the idea of competing to place highest of my fellow players.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:17 pm
      #

      Good question! Yes, we will have Best of awards specific only to the LVO in addition to the ITC Best Of wards. See you in Vegas!

  3. War Corgi December 30, 2014 8:28 am
    #

    I was not expecting the new line of argument regarding the new Blood Angels formation, Angels Fury Spearhead Force. Last week, the complaint from Reese and Raw Dawger was not that the rules were unclear, but rather that the rules were unfair to unsuspecting opponents. Raw Dawger (love him and his opinions, seems quite the character) went so far to refer to a rule that prohibits turn one assaults, which I still haven’t found anywhere in my rule book, to make his argument.

    As far as GW not being aware of drop pods or their ability to drop in the first turn, an argument Raw Dawger made last week and Reese echoed this week, I think that you don’t give the rule writers enough credit. Keep in mind they released the Exterminatus campaign book which allows for first turn entry of assault troops with the Archangels formation (Elite Strike Force rule). This formation even goes so far as to require the Blood Angel player to take 4 Furioso Dreadnoughts. I remind you that this campaign book was released the same week as the White Dwarf containing the Angels Fury formation. I know it is popular to characterize GW’s rule writers as inept, but I’m not sure this level of ineptitude is even possible and I have seem some things in my life.

    Anyways, keep up the good work gentlemen. I would love to see a Blood Angels first round assault list introduced to the meta. As a player who runs a Raven Guard successor chapter, more space marine assault oriented armies is in my interests even though I will never personally use the BA rules. Strike fear into the all shooting lists and make them adjust to the new danger; it will only help my flying corgis get into combat in the second round without being shot to pieces on their way there.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:23 pm
      #

      I think that any call on this one will upset people. It is a shitty situation to be in, honestly, haha. It sometimes is no fun, at all, to have to rule on these things.

      I am voting with what I believe to be RAI, that the Tactical Marines were not meant to stay inside their Storm Ravens and combo in Drop Pods on the first turn. Who knows how the vote will go, though.

      • War Corgi December 31, 2014 2:39 am
        #

        Well I appreciate your efforts to promote the hobby and understand the difficult position that you are often put in. I respect your position, but am still curious how you reconcile the fact that GW released not one but two formations that allow assault units to arrive from deep strike reserve on turn one the same week that they released the Angels Fury Spearhead Formation. Even if you believe that they “forgot” about drop pods when they made the rules for this formation, it is too much to think that they also “forgot” about the two formations they released the same week and enables this formation to work in the first turn.

        Apologies to Rawdogger for misspelling your name earlier. No offense meant brother. Keep up the great work!

  4. Ghost Valley December 30, 2014 8:40 am
    #

    I like the rules as intended take on the triangulation formation. If you want to keep your ravens zooming you can still get out via the skies of fury rule – riskier for keeping within 12 – but I think GW intended that some risk would be involved for a formation that breaks a main rule. Assaulting from reserves is pretty powerful.

    I think your change to it, should the council vote for it, still keeps this formation viable but not an automatic take.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:23 pm
      #

      That’s my opinion, too. Thanks for sharing you point of view.

  5. Lang Nelson December 30, 2014 11:20 am
    #

    I think I’d be okay with the Rules as Intended solution mentioned in the show (If only to avoid any awkward encounters with Raw Dogger if nothing else!) I’ll have to go back to the drawing board on how best to use this formation.

    Any idea on when the rules council will make a decision?

    Also, would the teleport homers have to be deployed on the ground (on turn 1) or could they still fuction while in the ravens and measure from their hulls on turn 2?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:24 pm
      #

      We’re voting this week, should have an answer by the next podcast.

      As for the last part of your question, I don’t know, yet. I think the intent was that they get out, personally.

  6. Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 11:20 am
    #

    In regards to the BA formation, I think needing to be out of the stormraven and on the table at the start of turn is harsh. I feel like needing the beacon on the table at the start of the turn is enough and makes sense as these types of wargear already have that rule. Going this route would negate the T1 charge issue that seems to be the biggest hang up without neutering the formation.

    Using the flavor text to add a RAI argument that was not there before does not sit well with me.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:26 pm
      #

      Normally I disregard the flavor text, but in this instance it really does seem to shed light on the intent of the rule. I know not everyone will agree with that, and that is fine, but I just try to be honest about why I come tot he decisions I do. Sometimes I feel like it isn’t worth the effort, lol!

      We’ll see how the other guys vote.

      • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 7:40 pm
        #

        It just seems random to apply flavor text to needing the tacs out of the stormraven. There are very clear rules on how things like teleport homers work in transports.

        Are they also not going to work in rhinos now if I want to use them for termies?

        I get going with RAI on the t1 drop but not the disembark.

        There are other strong things that could be changed with flavor text, but they won’t. This feels very targeted due to some people bitching about something new and different that no one else has.

        Either way, I have a lot of respect for the work you guys do for the community. Keep it up. 🙂

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 30, 2014 7:55 pm
          #

          No one is debating if Teleport Homers work inside a vehicle or not (well, no one on the council is, anyway, I think that part is fairly clear), but they don’t normally work on turn 1. However, as others have pointed out, this is an entirely different rule that appears to have been a beefed up version of the regular Teleport Homer which is why you can read it as doing something totally different. I get that.

          I can assure you, I am not using the flavor text as a straw-man argument. In this case, it really did sway me as I felt it clearly indicated RAI. That is why I will vote to go that route. How the vote will go down remains to be seen, how the wording is put down too, can vary, if anything at all changes, it may not.

          But thanks for the kind words, this can be a crappy, thankless task at times, haha!

          • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 8:51 pm
            #

            Is it because the rule is so different that flavor text is being used to go with the disembark part of the proposes changes?

            There are two changes being proposed. #1; needing to disembark, #2; needing to be on the table. #2 as a RAI is backed up by the teleport homer rule. #1 by flavor text.

            I just really want to understand why needing to disembark is being proposed because if the council rules for both my gaming group will go that way and we don’t use fluff justifications on rule disputes. If there is a RAI argument not based on flavor text, for specifically the disembark, it would be nice to be able to speak to it with them against how I would like to see it played.

            Not trying to beat a dead grot or anything. I just would like to understand.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 9:45 am
            #

            I do not know yet how the options will be worded for the vote, so I can’t give you an answer there. We’re meeting this week assuming we don’t have to reschedule. I will be sure to share it with you all once I know.

            But, to give you a brief outline of my view on it: teleport homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn to function. I understand that this formation has a different rule, but based on the flavor text, precedent set by other rules (teleport homers, homing beacons, etc.), leads me to go with my gut and vote as to what the intent of the rule (as I see it) was, which is that at least, the models with the homers have to be on the table at the start of the turn to work.

            The funny thing is that it may honestly be MORE powerful to have it work on turn 2, as the other player has less options to counter-deploy or use reserves. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

          • dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 8:56 pm
            #

            Reecius your argument about Teleport hommers not working on turn one is totally false. Where are you getting this from. I could have a scout squad or a scout bike squad right next to you turn 1 and use ther Teleport Hommer turn 1

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 9:31 am
            #

            Yes, you are correct. I misspoke. I was thinking of it in terms of this Formation where you are coming on from reserves. Teleport Homers and Locator Beacons have to be on the board at the start of the turn to work, not that they don’t work turn 1.

          • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 9:07 pm
            #

            @dr.

            It is in the teleport homer rule that it has to be on the table. Reecius s not saying they don’t work turn one if they are already on the board.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 9:46 am
            #

            Exactly, thank you for clarifying.

          • War Corgi December 31, 2014 2:58 am
            #

            @Red

            Except in Reecius’ post above yours where he states “No one is debating if Teleport Homers work inside a vehicle or not (well, no one on the council is, anyway, I think that part is fairly clear), but they don’t normally work on turn 1.” He might not have meant it, but it does strongly suggest that he believes teleport homers do not work on turn one. The Dr. Makes a valid point here with his examples of scouts and scout bikers, two clear cases that work very well on turn one.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 10:17 am
            #

            I misspoke on that. I was referring to them in the context of this formation, not in general terms. However, that said, the way I presented it was incorrect, you are right.

  7. Dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 11:23 am
    #

    The rules are not in anyway ambiguous. They are just not the way that you want them to be. You will have to straight up change rules to make it that way. If you’re going to base your ruling off of the fluff then you better damn well change the wave serpent only be able fire once per game

    • Eldarain December 30, 2014 11:46 am
      #

      I agree. Slippery slope bringing fluff pieces into the decision making process too.

      • Japatoes December 30, 2014 12:49 pm
        #

        Lets also make sure to ban CTA since thats a fluff violation

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 30, 2014 7:32 pm
          #

          Lol, I hate CTA allies and tried to make a case for exactly what you proposed, but I was voted down. People in general like CTA allies, but I cringe every time I see Nids with a Knight, or a Marine formation with Eldar or whatever. I understand what you’re trying to say here, though, but I found it ironic that you used that example to illustrate your sarcasm, haha.

          • Japatoes December 30, 2014 9:34 pm
            #

            What caused the change in perception towards the formation? When the formation was first discussed last week it was said that the formation wasn’t that great since it required a 1200 pt investment and that everyone would be complaing about the free upgrade formation instead. Granted I havent listened to the last to podcast discussing the issue so this may explain what made you change your mind.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 9:59 am
            #

            It’s not a power debate but more of what I believe based on all the factors, what the formation was meant to do. After getting some new information it caused me to believe that while RAW does indicate the combos in this Formation can be pulled off, I do no believe that is what the rules writers meant for it to do.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 30, 2014 7:28 pm
        #

        Normally I would agree with you, but in this instance, as the order of operations was in question, the fluff appears to indicate the rule writer’s intent.

        And, please bear in mind, this is not an exact science. GW takes this far less seriously than we do.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:27 pm
      #

      Ben, buddy, you always overreact when rules issues come up you disagree with. Yes, this is ambiguous (perhaps not to you). I have been getting asked this question a ton by folks not clear on how it works. And we’re not talking about anything other this this one Formation. That is the issue on the table.

  8. Chris Hadden December 30, 2014 12:24 pm
    #

    I for one am all for the new BA formation (i’m biased however). I was chuckling to myself during the episode when Rawdogger was commenting on how its unfair that you would basically be able to remove the opponents ability to play the game. All I could think about is that I’m sure he wouldn’t flinch at shooting an assault unit off the table on turn one from across the board. I don’t see the difference really.

    Also a minor error in the broadcast. You said it was Mugu Games that hosted the Harvester. As much as I would LOVE to take credit for it…. it wasn’t us lol

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:30 pm
      #

      Thank you for the correction, I will amend the ITC notes.

      I am not against the Formation at all, personally. I do worry that it will spoil some folks’ fun at an event when they get blindsided by it, but, that does happen in other cases as you mentioned. For me, it’s more about trying to determine what the rules are trying to say.

  9. Hotsauceman1 December 30, 2014 12:36 pm
    #

    Wait, I thought the rule said that if you are in a transport, you are not considered on the board, so the storm ravens would not have the teleport homers

    • Dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 12:38 pm
      #

      Nope

  10. Ming December 30, 2014 1:13 pm
    #

    As GW has said in their own words, nothing is perfect, but they intend for the game to regularly follow established game mechanics, especially when in doubt. In this case, both types of existing marine homers have to be “on the table at the start of the turn to work”, and this formation just uses three homers, and requires for two of them “to work” in order for the special rule to kick in. It remains unmurky to me that the formation has to be on the table before you can benefit from the special rule, thus it won’t work on turn 1. The benefit remains that although these are defacto teleport homers, you can apply the effect to other deep striking units (rather than having the sergeants carry beacons). Because of this, units like terminators would not need drop pods (allowing for other, better list/formation upgrades). As stated above (by fluff/intention), if the sergeants must be on the table to operate, in fact the Stormraven allows units to drop out of them per their own rules beyond the 6-inch movement range. The extra 27 marines act as a wound pool to beat down the nearby enemy and provide a wound pool to protect the homers. The most important thing you’d need is a list mechanic to allow re-rolls for reserves. As a reminder, there are other units in the BA codex that can reduce or eliminate unit scatter, but few allow assault on deep strike. If you were the BA player, it would be interesting whether you think you’d go first or second with this formation plus the follow on reserves, and what you might hide on deployment on the table just to make sure you don’t lose on a really bad day due to a horrible Turn 1 reserve roll. Something cheap like a Whirlwind or scouts?

    • Eldarain December 30, 2014 1:30 pm
      #

      Except none of that is based in how the rules are written. The game is already a bit of a convoluted mess. Adding everyone’s fluff interpretations is not a way to improve the experience.

      • Dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 1:47 pm
        #

        Exactly the real rules are 100% clear. You have to make up rules or try and apply something else’s rules to the formation to make it unclear

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 30, 2014 7:37 pm
          #

          Ben, lol, they really aren’t 100% clear. They may be to you, and I respect that, but this is not a 2+2=4 situation. I wish it were, then we wouldn’t have to have all these annoying arguments about it.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 30, 2014 7:36 pm
        #

        I would hardly call this a fluff interpretation, lol, but hey, YMMV. And what does or does nto improve the play experience is subjective. I don’t think many people playing against this will have a blast potentially getting assaulted turn 1, you know? It comes down to perspective.

        And, again, I am not opposed to this concept in principal. That’s not what is driving my reading of it, just to be clear.

        • Eldarain December 30, 2014 7:55 pm
          #

          I very much would say it is a fluff interpretation. We are told to measure from the hull of a vehicle when the position of an occupant is required.

          This is using a fluff quote to require disembarkation in this one instance. Because all the other bubble effects in the game don’t have a story about them they work RAW?

          And the Teleport Homer rules don’t matter as the rules don’t reference them aside from where the guy holding them is located.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:33 pm
      #

      Good points. And the whole effect would still apply turn 2+, so it really doesn’t change that much, anyway.

      • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 9:52 am
        #

        Only if they come in turn 1 and also it would stop it from working when they come in from on going reserve witch is also a very common thing for fliers

  11. TinBane December 30, 2014 2:30 pm
    #

    If the tacticals are in the flyer, then how are you within 12″ of a model equipped with teleport homers?

    • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 3:19 pm
      #

      The same way a KFF in a battlewagon is measured, from the hull of the transport.

      • TinBane December 30, 2014 3:28 pm
        #

        Is it? Where does it say that?

        Let’s put it another way. Are you always the same distance from the models in a vehicle, as the vehicle itself? Is that a rule in 40k?

        Can you use a teleport homer, from inside a rhino?

        • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 4:23 pm
          #

          That is a good question. I don’t have my book with me as I am at work. I will take a look when I get home.

          Everything I have seen or read about, people play aura abilities from the hull unless it is specified otherwise like the faqed DA PFG.

          That does not mean it is correct though.

          • TinBane December 30, 2014 6:01 pm
            #

            Yeah, and I can see why prople do that. But if we are looking at this rule for strict RAW, then are the drop pods arriving within 12″ of the models with the teleport homers, or just the models carrying them? The flavour text seems to suggest that when they referred to such models, theyv meant the tacticalsx not the storm ravens.

          • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 6:46 pm
            #

            Replying too my comment because it will not let me reply to yours for some reason.

            Strict RAW of this formation says a unit that arrives with in 12” of 2 teleport Homers can assault. Arrive is the key word here. Did the unit land with in 12”? If so it can assault. Using abusepuppy’s quote below we see that in cases where you need to measure from a model in a transport then you measure from the hull of the vehicle.

            From a strict RAW perspective there is no issue here.

            Personally I am not a fan of the T1 drop pod assault. And I plan on playing it that the stormravens have to be on the table at the start of the turn foe the assault rule to work. I am going to play it this way because every other beacon/ homer rule I can think of has that stipulation.

    • AbusePuppy December 30, 2014 4:06 pm
      #

      “If you need to measure range to the embarked models for any purpose, measure from the hull of the vehicle.” It’s in the transport rules.

      The KFF example below is wrong, however, because the KFF (and PFG along with it) has specific text noting that it works differently when embarked on a vehicle.

      • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 4:26 pm
        #

        That is good to know. Thanks abusepuppy.

      • TinBane December 30, 2014 6:03 pm
        #

        Thanks abusepuppy!

      • TinBane December 30, 2014 6:04 pm
        #

        Does that mean, RAW, you can’t assault a transport?

        • dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 6:12 pm
          #

          what are you talking about? What your saying doesn,t make any sense

          • TinBane December 30, 2014 8:01 pm
            #

            Well, if the transport is used to determine the distance to the squad, you can’t assault the transport.

            Rules as written,
            It has nothing to do with making sense, it’s simply the result of following the letter rather than the intent of the rules.

          • Eldarain December 30, 2014 8:14 pm
            #

            @Tinbane

            What does the distance to the squad have to do with declaring and completing a charge against the transport?

          • AbusePuppy December 30, 2014 11:04 pm
            #

            He’s talking about the 1″ rule. However, remember that during the assault phase you are allowed to come within 1″ of enemy models (that you aren’t assaulting) as long as you aren’t in base contact with them- and I think it’s a hard argument to make that being in base contact with a transport is the same as being in base with the models. (If it is, I’ll happily direct my attacks at those models, though!)

        • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 6:53 pm
          #

          I am confused as to how RAW you cannot assault a transport. A transport is a vehicle and you can assault them. There is a whole section in the vehicle rules about this.

          You cannot assault the unit inside the vehicle if that is what you are getting at. this really has nothing do to with the rule quoted above. You cannot assault the unit inside because you cannot see them and that is a requirement of charging.

          • TinBane December 30, 2014 8:36 pm
            #

            You also can’t place an assaulting model within 1″ of a unit you aren’t assaulting. Now, I agree it’s bonkers, but my point is nobody plays 100% RAW, so let’s not pretend anybody plays the game in it’s “purest” form.

          • dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 8:43 pm
            #

            Yes you can. The 1″ rule is suspended during the assualt

          • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 9:04 pm
            #

            @Tinbane

            I agree not everyone plays RAW. I don’t play RAW. The teleport homer / disembark issue is not really a RAW vs RAI. There is a strait forward rule to how to deal with that situation.

            The disembark is a flavor text vs. rule issue. I guess it can also be considered a balance if issue if you think the formation is too strong. Which I understand if people do, but it should be put that way. Not argued as a RAW issue.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 9:33 am
            #

            The only person trying to make this a RAW argument is Dr.Insanotron, haha, I certainly am not putting it in those terms. I agree 100% that there is a logical argument based on the rules in the Formation to allow it to function the way some of the folks here read it: as a turn 1 assault.

  12. dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 4:27 pm
    #

    I want to make this perfectly clear to everyone that listens to this podcast. If they decide to change how the rules for this formation work they are not FAQing it they are straight up changing the rules for it. There is literally not part of the rules for this formation that are questionable and are all very clearly spell out as to how they work. Stop trying totell everyone there is ambiguity where there is none.

    Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it wrong. Hell I don’t agree with AD lance, Wave Serpents, Summoning, Eldar using webway portals, str10 thunder wolves, 5 flying Hive Tyrants, But you don’t see me trying to make shit up so they aren’t allowed

    • Red Inquisition December 30, 2014 4:34 pm
      #

      Re-rollabe saves and invisibility are pretty clear too but they changed them. As tournament organizers they can do this if they feel it will make the games more fun at thier tournaments.

      I don’t like their proposed changes to this formation but if I to play at their events I play by their rules just like any other tournament. They all modify them to some degree.

      My gaming group also uses the BAO format and accompanying rules for easy pick up play.

      • Dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 4:43 pm
        #

        Of course they can. But they need to stop pretending it’s a FAQ to a questionable rule when it’s not. They would be changing a rule.

        • Dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 4:45 pm
          #

          And they put it to a vote of the community to change the rules you brought up

          • White925 December 30, 2014 8:01 pm
            #

            Yeah Ben you bring up good points we should just change our whole format to rulebook 40k. Best of luck playing in that tournament haha!!!

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 30, 2014 7:48 pm
          #

          Ben, who’s pretending anything? Lol, where are you getting that we’re trying to put lipstick on a pig and tell you it’s a girl? The Indy tournament FAQ does make rules changes or rules calls that deviate from the book at times. We try not to, I actually don’t even think that in this case that is absolutely true, but it isn’t just an FAQ as you may be thinking of an FAQ.

          The document exists to try and provide a common ground for people to come to our events and play by the same interpretations of the same rules. We have to make calls on things like this and then we get yelled at for our efforts, lol. But, we have to do this or the game is damn near unplayable in an organized setting. If you disagree with an interpretation that is fine, but throwing around accusations about the intent of the document or what you think an action actually represents doesn’t really do anything productive. If you view this as a rules change, fair enough, but that in and of itself isn’t either uncommon or inherently bad. I trust that you don’t want to play Unbound in every tournament, right? Well we “changed” that rule, too. You get what I am driving at?

          You are entitled to your opinion. I am just trying to be forthright in why I am going to vote the way I will. You can disagree with that if you choose to. But, would you prefer I not say anything at all and just announce what decision we came to? I could certainly do that and save myself some grief, lol.

          Who knows how the vote will go, I don’t. I certainly don’t always get my way, but regardless, we go with the council’s ruling, even when I personally disagree. So, we’ll see how it pans out.

          • War Corgi December 31, 2014 2:32 am
            #

            I think the difficulty people are having accepting your point of view lies in your argumentation to date. When the formation first came out, you were neutral on implementation but clearly uncomfortable with the effects of the rules. In the course of one week, the basis for your position changed considerably. Suddenly, the rules were ambiguous and a precedent (because fluff) that has never been invoked since I started playing this game in 2009 made a sudden and convenient appearance. I love what you have done for our hobby and how honest you have always been with the community. I believe you are being forthright and honest with us in your responses to our points; I am less sure you are being honest with yourself on why you intend to vote the way you do. Had you just stated that you didn’t like the formation or what is going to do to the competitive scene, I can’t help but feel that your position would have been more widely respected.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 10:15 am
            #

            Fair points, but, people do change their minds. As new information is presented to me (in this case the flavor test which I had not even read prior) it changed my perspective. The thing is, I DO like what this Formation does to the competitive meta, lol. Perhaps that wasn’t clear. And yes, I am uncomfortable with what it could turn a game into for a less skilled player (and trust me, I have seen new player show up to an event for the first time, get absolutely creamed by something unexpected, and then never come back).

            It always interests me how often people see plots or schemes in things, haha, I do my best to just present the truth and, at least with rules debates, I’ve been getting blasted with damn near conspiracy theories about all kinds of crazy stuff. I am not saying that is what you are doing, but when you suggest that I am using the fluff as an excuse I just shake my head and laugh. If I thought it was too good, I’d just say that directly. I don’t think I have shown myself to be shy about my opinions on anything, lol. I have no reason to be sneaky about this stuff, in fact, I hate this part of being a TO. The only thing I, or any TO can do is make the best call with the information at hand. It’s that simple, there’s no subplot going on here, I can assure you.

          • War Corgi December 31, 2014 12:04 pm
            #

            Didn’t mean to imply scheming or hidden agendas and I apologize for being unclear. It’s good to see such great discussion on this board; you asked for feedback during the podcast and you got plenty of it. I’m ready to drop this now. Thanks again for your reasoned responses, honesty, and commitment to the hobby.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 1:00 pm
            #

            Fair play, we did ask for feedback and we certainly got it, haha! Thanks for your input though, it is appreciated.

          • C@D January 1, 2015 11:12 pm
            #

            Given that your opinion on these kinds of rules is becoming a running joke in the community you should consider saying less, at least wait longer before op-ed’ing.

            War Corgi is exceptionally diplomatic below but, think real hard about what he’s saying (also Abuse Puppy). Everything you’ve said up to now has been exactly the opposite of ‘liking what this does to the competitive meta’. Listen to you podcast again, nothing you say there supports the stance you’re taking here.

            Also stop leaning on the new player getting blindsided, ITC lets WAY too much other stuff slide to pretend that’s an issue here (again all of Abuse Puppy’s reply).

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 30, 2014 7:41 pm
        #

        Exactly. Unbound are clearly in the rules, as are all LoW with no limitations, etc. I have never been to a 40k tournament, ever, that didn’t “change the rules.” The real issue here is that Ben (Dr.Insanotron) disagrees on how to apply this rule and is mad about it. I am not trying to attack him by saying that, either. I get this all the time when two parties read the same thing differently and they disagree.

        • dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 8:25 pm
          #

          What are you reading differently then me. So me by the rules how the formation isn’t clear in how it works with out making something up or applying rules from something else that has nothing to do with the rules of this formation

    • AbusePuppy December 30, 2014 11:05 pm
      #

      A lot of the stuff in the FAQ already changes the rules. This wouldn’t be anything new.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 31, 2014 10:01 am
        #

        Precisely. I have no idea where this purist ideology about the definition of our FAQ came from.

        • AbusePuppy December 31, 2014 11:54 am
          #

          I’ll be honest, though, Reece- I don’t _like_ the stuff that is changing the rules without a very good reason. There are obviously cases where it’s arguable (like firing multiple guns on Overwatch), but there’s also cases where there’s no inclarity at all and you guys still changed things. I think you need a really good reason to do that, and I think in a lot of cases there wasn’t one.

          I appreciate what the ITC FAQ is trying for, but I think outright-changing rules is a pretty iffy thing to start moving towards unless you have a strong rationale, and many of the alterations seem to have been made without any obvious reasoning.

          • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 12:06 pm
            #

            This is what i’m saying. but what is really getting me is they keep insisting the reason its going to the FAQ council is because the rules are unclear

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 1:03 pm
            #

            I totally understand your position. I fight with myself about it all the time. Part of me feels that without some changing of the rules like with the 2+ reroll, etc. the game will suffer and folks will not want to come out and play, so to speak. The other part of me hates changing rules because it causes shit storms like we’ve seen. It feels a bit like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Our events get really strong attendance and I like to think that at least part of that is due to the fact that we are willing to make a stand and alter things if we feel it must be done. It’s tough, I honestly don’t like being in the spokesman roll at times like this, it get really frustrating. But, it is part of the job.

            Anyway, truly unrestricted 40k would be a disaster, IMO. You literally can’t run a tournament out of the book, so we have to alter some things. The question becomes how far do we go?

          • AbusePuppy December 31, 2014 7:22 pm
            #

            >Part of me feels that without some changing of the rules like with the 2+ reroll, etc. the game will suffer and folks will not want to come out and play, so to speak

            I understand that, but as I said- in a lot of cases, I don’t think there’s any real arguable inclarity in the rules or balance problem that needed to be solved.

            Take the Catacomb Command Barge, for example- its Sweep Attack says it can hit any unit it moves over- no restrictions at all. And, while the CCB is certainly strong, I don’t think Necrons have a proven record of being game-disrupting, so you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it needs to be reigned in for balance reasons. However, the ITC FAQ has ruled that Sweep cannot be used against flyers or FMCs. Is there any rationale for this? Perhaps, but certainly not one that comes from a rules conflict that needs to be resolved or a balance issue.

            Similarly, you have ruled that Fateweaver can use his Staff’s ability while not on the table. The only other abilities that work while off the table specify that they do so either explicitly or implicitly by their text, but Fateweaver has no such text. It’s an outright change of the rules because… well, I don’t know why, but it’s not because the ability was unclear.

            You won’t ever be able to make everyone happy no matter how you rule things; I get that. And there will always be contentious cases, such as the change to Invisibility (or heck, even the 2+ rerollable change.) However, having a clear and distinct reason for each of your changes can mitigate the unhappiness people may feel. When you begin changing the rules arbitrarily, it can undo a lot of that reasoning- once it’s been shown you are willing to alter the rules simply because you think they should be different, people are less willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you have to make judgement calls on unclear rules or game balance. So while I may disagree with you on some of the other calls made in the FAQ, I can at least respect those decisions- but in the cases where the rules were simply changed for no reason, I have very little sympathy.

  13. col_impact December 30, 2014 5:15 pm
    #

    Guys, how about we test out the BA formation with a quite a few actual games a bit before bringing out the nerfhammer?

    The formation doesn’t look hard at all to defeat with bubble wrapping, counter-deployment, defensive assault units, etc.

    Players were able to handle demon summoning with no problem.

    And as I recall you all were quick to want to bring out the nerfhammer on that one.

    Maybe as a general rule you let a new thing have its day in the sun for a month of testing before nerfing. Otherwise its nerfing based mostly on theorycrafting.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:13 pm
      #

      We didn’t nerf summoning.

      The issue isn’t if it’s too good or not, it’s what the rules are trying to communicate. I don’t personally think it’s all that bad. I think it will really upset some folks, but that is the extent of my dislike for it. I think the intent of the rule was not to allow T1 assaults out of Pods, which is why I will vote to go with RAI on this one.

      Again, it’s not about power, but about how to read the rules.

      • Eldarain December 30, 2014 7:20 pm
        #

        There were talks of capping warp charge etc in this space after Frankie’s summoning spam battle report.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 30, 2014 7:50 pm
          #

          Yeah, that is true. A lot of the TOs batted around the idea of it. We all decided after debate and playing it to just let it ride.

      • dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 8:34 pm
        #

        This is my point. Your not trying to interpret a unclear rule, you are changing one you don’t like. Big difference, you can not show by the rules how its unclear. But I can show how it is

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 31, 2014 9:24 am
          #

          Ben, for crying out loud, this isn’t a fight, lol. Look,sometimes people have different opinions on things. Don’t let your ego make this into a contest of wills. You see it as being obviously one way. I get it loud and clear. Got it. Good lord, lol.

          • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 10:24 am
            #

            Don’t let your ego cloud what is a clear rule because you don’t want it to be that way because of the flavor text.

            The rule is as clearly written as the Wave Serpent Shield and the fluff counter these rules just as much

            Again you cant show anything unclear about the rule. If you can please do

            Also I have no problem if you just want to change a rule because you think its to powerful etc. But what I have a problem with is you shading peoples opinion of the rule who might not have the White Dwarf to read for them selves with the idea that the rules are so unclear has to how they work.

            You are trying to argue that you must use the rule of the Teleport hommer that say you must have been on the table at the start of the turn “witch it never says in the rules for the formation”

            The silly part that argument is that you are trying to say that it only uses half of the rule for the Teleport Hommer and not the other unless you are also trying to say the formation doesn’t work on anything but termies

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 10:47 am
            #

            This is the last time I am going to say this as I am getting tired of repeating myself. You keep putting words in my mouth or trying to say my intentions are not what I have been saying they are. So, to be bluntly clear:

            1.) I do not think the Formation is too powerful. I do, however, think it will cause some upset gamers at events which is always a concern of mine as a TO that wants to have fun events. That is not a factor in my decision making in this case, though. It is simply a concern.
            2.) Serpent Shields have nothing at all to do with this discussion.
            3.) You are the only one still banging the RAW drum. I agree there is a very strong case for RAW here.
            4.) I am NOT trying to influence people that don’t have the white dwarf…lol, wtf? What possibly gave you that idea? Haha, I simply read the flavor text to illustrate why it influenced me in this one case. These conspiracty theories kill me. Do you also think I am secretly Putin with a Harem of gamers that do my bidding like some other folks, lol?
            5.) My argument is not strictly about teleport homers, as I have said, you keep looking at little bits and pieces of this and then jumping to conclusions.

            Good lord, I am sick or arguing with you. See it however you want, color it with whatever brush you want, I am done with arguing with you. We will see how the vote goes and that is that. If it ends up going against you, and that upsets you, that stinks, but this is the sacrifice we make for having some conformity. I have to go with rulings I don’t agree with all the time.

            Happy New Year, Ben. I am going to kick you in the nuts when I see you at TSHFT for being such a pain in my ass, lol! =P

          • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 10:56 am
            #

            Kick me in the nut. You do realize i’m 3x your size right 🙂

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 11:30 am
            #

            I know karate, bro! lol

          • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 11:40 am
            #

            Im not doubting you have the skill to kick me in the nuts. I doubting you have the skills to survive doing it. 🙂

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 12:59 pm
            #

            Lol, fair enough! haha, but I also run pretty fast. I will resort to ye old “nut kick and dash,” tactic! haha

  14. Jeremy Veysseire
    MikhailLenin December 30, 2014 7:41 pm
    #

    Honestly the fact that everything has to be BA Faction limits its crazyness pretty much.

    OH NO HAMMERNATORS! Those are cool but have stopped being relevant a while back as “Hard Hitting broken Units”

    Not just that but the combination of evens happening to make it work seems to me it would only work on someone who was not prepared and deployed badly. Like my opponents who assume that I will scout my Deathstar Command Squad White Scars/Space Wolf unit when they infiltrate stuff for them to charge turn 1 and then are all up in arm when I choose not to Scout.

    Honestly this formation is neat but Broken is by far a long stretch to assert as a statement.

    There are so many more threatening combinations out there that a turn 1 charge by BA Faction models aka Adamantite Lance.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 30, 2014 7:58 pm
      #

      I don’t think anyone is arguing that it is Broken, Jeremy, at least I am not. I think there are a lot of failure points and honestly, I like what it does to shake up some of the top level meta lists. However, that is not what we try to do on the FAQ Council, we try to decide how best to interpret some of the rules that cause confusion. When we look to change “broken” things, Frontline Gaming does it with community vote as we feel that is the fair way to determine what is broken or not to our community of gamers.

      • Jeremy Veysseire
        MikhailLenin December 30, 2014 9:18 pm
        #

        I agree with with you are doing and how you are voicing your concern but when I read most of the gripe and concern here from the community, its driven by Balance concern over rules inconsistency.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 31, 2014 9:47 am
          #

          Fair enough. I honestly don’t think this formation is too powerful, but, I do think it will cause much butt hurt to those who are caught unawares by it. This is the kind of thing that a first time player at a tournament gets smacked by and thinks tournaments are lame. However, that in and of itself is not enough to say yes or no to something, it is just a concern I always have about these kinds of things.

      • col_impact December 30, 2014 9:32 pm
        #

        I think TOs should uphold RAW in cases like this one where the rules are actually exceedingly clear and only intervene if a OP situation is created that is game warping to the point of killing the fun.

        Resorting to using the fluff to prop up RAI is incredibly poor practice and a dangerous precedent. Are you planning on allowing fluff to stand as rules from now on?

        Also, it seems incredibly cynical for people to argue that GW is so grossly incompetent that they could accidentally overlook the patently obvious interaction with Drop Pods. You were claiming GW gross incompetence with Demon summoning back when it first came out. Well, guess what? Demon summoning is pretty nifty and good for the format.

        I think the community should be required to play out the BA formation as RAW for a little while before doing anything. If it proves to be something that the community cannot adjust to then that will be time to do something about it.

        As it is, from the looks of it and the way in which GW meticulously removed all the blockages for turn 1 assault for the BA in particular, the BA ability to assault from deep strike on turn 1 has been in the works for quite some time.

        The tax on this ability for the BA is quite high and all armies have access to tactics to defeat this. Turn 1 assault from deep strike is the rock to the Tau and Eldar gunline scissors. The BA formation will have an overall positive effect on the game. Give it a chance to prove that.

        I don’t even play BA, but I am sure lots of people are tired of a format that is dominated by static gunline armies. I don’t think you should worry at all about the BA formation making the game less fun. I think the opposite will happen. The BA formation will take the true joykills down a few notches (looking at you Tau and Eldar gunlines) and give the format a chance to become more tactically complex.

        At the very least just give it some time to see how it actually plays out at a competitive level.

        Seriously, there should be a moratorium for at least a month on taking any kind of nerfhammer on any new thing like this. There simply isn’t enough evidence to make a good vote at this point. You could be voting down something that will make the format more fun for fear of making it less fun.

        Give it time!

        • dr.insanotron December 30, 2014 9:40 pm
          #

          I have to agree. The sad part is they are trying to tell everyone the rules are unclear and need a FAQ when in reality the rules as you put it are “exceedingly clear”

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 9:57 am
            #

            Ben, change the record, dude, hahaha, YOU are the one trying to turn this into a RAW debate, no one else. I am not making that case at all. I am openly stating that in this instance, I am going with what I think the intent of the rule is. Holy smokes dude, you act like someone is trying to amend the constitution illegally. Tone it down to a 10, haha, you’re at like 12 right now.

        • Eldarain December 30, 2014 9:43 pm
          #

          I think given how fast things are coming out and how previous experiences have shown that some releases aren’t as disastrous as they seem, that a month to see how things land on the table would be a wise course of action.

        • War Corgi December 31, 2014 2:47 am
          #

          Completely concur with the one month moratorium before changing rules recommendation. It’s seems that we haven’t learned the lessons of the past: it is never as bad as it first appears and the community will adjust. Overall an excellent post which succinctly articulates the issues I have with Reese’s position. I will respect whatever he decides, but urge further consideration at this point.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 31, 2014 9:55 am
          #

          Sigh, I love how folks jump to conclusions so quickly as to intentions especially when they are clearly stated, haha. If I thought the formation was too powerful on its own and that that was my justification for my poistion, I would be totally forthright about it as I have in the past. I don’t try to hide my intentions. But, even when I am honest about them, people still see it how they want, I guess, lol. For the umpteenth time: I do not think this formation is too powerful. I DO think the formation was not meant to allow a turn 1 assault combo out of reserves. It really is that simple. I voting with my instincts on this, not to try and alter the game for some nefarious purpose. I actually agree with you that I like what it does for the meta in many ways. I personally have no issue with the concept other than that it will most likely cause some really upset players who lose the game top of turn 1.

          The month moratorium sounds good on paper, I agree. However, for one, this isn’t an argument about power level so the point in this instance is moot. However, I understand what you are trying to say, so for two, this is the problem with allowing everyone to try it out: people buy the models for whatever thing it is that is in question, paint them, get used to using them and then if the community DOES decide the unit/formation/whatever in question needs to get axed/altered/whatever, you get the nerd rage expressed here times 10. The you really are taking away someone’s toys and people lose their shit over that.

          It is a no win situation. Anytime something like this comes up, you piss someone off with making a call. It sucks.

          • col_impact December 31, 2014 11:09 am
            #

            I don’t understand how you can take fluff as the basis for RAI to override exceedingly clear RAW.

            The fluff has absolutely no rule bearing weight.

            And if you apply fluff as having rule bearing weight in this case then why aren’t you applying it across the board?

            Can I read the necron fluff and adjust the rules so that it matches the fluff?

            If not, then why are you making the special exception in the case of this BA formation.

            If you whimsically decide to consult the fluff in some cases and not others then you are being inconsistent.

            Using fluff to override rules is just a really really bad judgement precedent to make.

            The fluff should never be looked at for anything rules related ever.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 31, 2014 11:39 am
            #

            I understand your argument very well. The slippery slope argument. Under normal circumstances I would never use the fluff as a justification, but in this instance with all of the factors combined, I am making the choice to go with what I believe RAI to be. This is out of the norm, and it is not done on a whimsy. I do understand your concerns though, and they are valid. But, in this case I do think the flavor text helps to illustrate what the rules writers were trying to communicate. YMMV.

          • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 11:23 am
            #

            Because they are saying the rule isn’t clear

  15. bigpig December 31, 2014 1:14 am
    #

    I’m trying guys. Volume beats skill every time 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 31, 2014 10:01 am
      #

      Welcome to my world, haha!

  16. bigpig December 31, 2014 1:25 am
    #

    The fluff as you pointed it out seems to suggest that have to be boots on the ground for it to work. RAW clearly allows you to do the assault as long as within range of the Raven with the guys in it (they don’t need to get out as the Teleport homer rules only specify being on the board to allow termninators to port in). I don’t believe the rule is ambiguous at all, but it is in conflict with the flavor text.

    n this one I tend to support the RAW as it is such an expensive formation that it is reasonable and not overpowering. Honestly, what can you bring once you’ve spent 1200+ on It gives BA a trick which is defining but not overpowering. Let em do it. It is also very rock paper scissor as going first against a drop list leaves you hanging.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 31, 2014 10:03 am
      #

      I agree with your assessment on this one, but, I differ in that in this case, I see it as the intent not as RAW. We’ll see how the other guys on the council feel.

      • bigpig December 31, 2014 10:14 am
        #

        Have them decide on the Sporocysts firing arcs while they are at it 🙂

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 31, 2014 10:25 am
          #

          Ah yes, good point. I will be sure to bring that up on the call.

  17. Ming December 31, 2014 8:00 am
    #

    I’m reading all this, and still, teleport homers have to be on the table before the turn starts in order for them to work. All I’m saying is that the special rule cannot work turn 1 because of that precedent already in the BA codex (and all other codexi that have beacons and homers). The unit gains the special rule because they “bi-angulate” off two teleport homers. If the teleport homers are non-functional, as per their own written rules, then the argument for first turn use fails. You may not like it, but it is RAW. Both homers and beacons in the BA codex state clearly they have to be on the table before the turn starts in order to be used. I understand the basic psychological need some people may have to desire and want to use them turn 1, but both RAW for the wargear, and RAI in the storyline for the formation both point to how the formation special rule works. As for the discussion on whether the homer has to be dismounted for use, there seems to be nothing RAW/FAQ for that that I’ve seen so far, so the 12-inch distance would have to come from the flyer hulls on their stands then RAW. That may take a few inches off the distance available and further constrain where reinforcing units could actually be deployed before the movement phase/assault.

    Similarly, I’d still state that the RAW do not support use of drop pods to deliver units to use the special rule. Drop pods have their own special rules and are not assault vehicles. RAW you cannot dismount from a non-assault vehicle and then charge, and there is nothing RAW or RAI in this case to change that. RAI seems to point to BA terminators and assault (jump) troops to be the “second wave”. Its pretty simple and a great mechanic.

    • Eldarain December 31, 2014 9:11 am
      #

      Auger Triangulation tells us exactly how to complete the rules interaction. At no time does it tell you to use the Teleport Homer rules it is only concerned with the location of the bearers. So the “Must be on the table” clause of the Teleport Homer is a red herring.

      RAW very much supports Drop Pod contents charging using Auger Triangulation as the only stipulation is that you have to have arrived from Deep Strike Reserves. Drop Pods are Open Topped vehicles which grants the ability to assault from them. (Normally you can’t because of the rule which prevents assaulting from reserves which in this case is overruled by Auger Triangulation)

      I honestly don’t see the ambiguity.

      • dr.insanotron December 31, 2014 10:01 am
        #

        This is my point. The only thing that makes this formation unclear is when people try to apply the rules from the Teleport Hommer to the formation witch by the clearly spelled out rules have nothing to do with the formation

    • bigpig December 31, 2014 10:17 am
      #

      “Must be on the table” applies specifically to terminators not deviating. It has no stated bearing on other effects which involve a Teleport Homer. RAI seems to suggest it does in this case, but the rules as written does not require it.

  18. jy2
    jy2 December 31, 2014 5:10 pm
    #

    I feel like I am missing out by not owning the BA codex/supplement yet.

    Oh well, I guess I’ll just be one of those noobs who get blindsided by this new formation and quit the tournament scene altogether. Haha….NOT!

  19. col_impact January 2, 2015 2:47 am
    #

    One of the main problems with this whole venture of using fluff to form a RAI argument against the exceedingly clear RAW is that it seems to proceed on the premise of GW incompetence.

    If you really think GW is grossly incompetent then why are you playing (and promoting) their game?

    We have to assume some core integrity to the rules of the game or else there is no point to coming together and playing that game.

    Cynical lines of argumentation that assume GW incompetence until proven otherwise simply cannot be tolerated. If you want to be cynical like that, find another game to play or promote.

    The only rational and fair way to come together and play this game is to assume that GW is competent until proven otherwise.

    So you really need to give this formation time to prove itself one way or another and not jump in assuming its bad design before its had time to prove itself.

    You were completely wrong in your predictions about demon summoning, and I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that you are completely wrong in your predictions about this formation.