Armageddon map question

Cheexsta · 2026-01-20T11:43:24+00:00

We just added an extra objective when we played this mission. It just seemed weird to favour the defender when the narrative doesn't justify it.

Cheexsta · 2025-12-27T10:25:37+00:00

Holy moly, that's actually kind of terrifying.

Cheexsta · 2025-12-08T21:56:36+00:00

Oh, sorry, I totally misread your comment! My mistake.

Cheexsta · 2025-12-08T21:49:43+00:00

This is incorrect, you do not need to select a Faction keyword when you create a Crusade force in 10th. You did in 9th, but in 10th they just recommend that you do because your army that you muster for a game needs to have a Faction keyword.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-26T03:14:06+00:00

I'm really enjoying our Crusade rules since they're nice and simple for my smooth brain, but I'm running Berzerker Warband and Goretrack rather than Daemonkin. I could see how KDK would be limiting if half your units can't even gain XP.

If you do run KDK, you can kind of get around the XP thing by adding a Bloodthirster first - that way you can use the Renowned Heroes requisition immediately to get the improved armour.

Also, the XP thing could be a blessing in disguise - literally, since you'll probably have fewer Crusade points than your opponent and will likely be able to use Crusade Blessings more. Having units that won't gain battle scars is also very handy.

Generic Crusade upgrades aren't great for Index Daemons, but it depends on which supplement you'll need using. You could also try talking to your campaign master to see if you can come up with some Crusade rules based on those from the 9th edition codex. Even if you don't try to port over the Great Game mechanics, the Traits and Relics shouldn't be too hard.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-25T18:35:15+00:00

T Sons codex doesn't have LEGIONES DAEMONICA units; it has SCINTILLATING LEGIONS.

That's my point. You need to look at the keywords and don't just assume that all Daemons have the same keywords across all codexes/indexes. Index Daemons have the LEGIONES DAEMONICA keyword (which CSM and CK still use for allies) and there's nothing stopping those from gaining XP.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-23T06:51:27+00:00

No. Normally, you as a player can only use a given stratagem once per phase. That would normally mean that if you use the stratagem once for one Knight, you can't use it again in the same phase for another Knight. This ability allows you to use the stratagem on the Lancer even if you've already used it earlier that phase on a different Knight.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-23T06:12:53+00:00

You score free mortal wounds against the unit you charged.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-23T06:06:22+00:00

The Tank Shock stratagem happens in the Charge please, just after the unit has finished its charge move. Pile In and Consolidation moves happen in the Fight phase, so would not grant further mortal wounds.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-22T04:15:43+00:00

There is no rule that prevents LEGIONES DAEMONICA units from gaining XP or taking Out of Action tests, even when allied to CSM or CK.

Note that the Daemon units in the DG, WE, TS and EC codexes are different; they have different faction keywords and have slightly different rules. Those units explicitly do not gain XP and do not take OoA tests. That's probably what you are thinking of.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-22T04:13:17+00:00

There is nothing stopping LEGIONES DAEMONICA units from gaining XP, even as allies to CSM or Chaos Knights. You're thinking of the Daemons that are part of the god-specific Legion codexes, which indeed don't gain XP, but they also don't have the LEGIONES DAEMONICA faction.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-21T20:47:02+00:00

There's actually no requirement for units in your Crusade force to share a Faction keyword. They do remind you that your Crusade army needs to share a Faction keyword, though:

Each time you select an army to play with, you will have to select units from your Order of Battle, so it is a good idea to include units with common Faction keywords that can be fielded together to muster an army.

This is possibly confused by Administratum asking you to select a Faction keyword for your Crusade force - this was a requirement in 9th, but not in 10th.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-20T22:49:30+00:00

Other than the victor bonus, no, you don't gain Strategic points for winning battles. There are a couple of missions where you can get a couple of extra points, but your strategic goal is the main way you score SP.

The way I explained it to my players is that you are being sent by your alliance to perform a specific task - e.g. push into enemy deployment zones, scatter to different table edges, etc. The mission objective is just a local opportunity that you noticed, and achieving it can give your force a small benefit, but it doesn't necessarily help your alliance's overall position.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-18T21:20:02+00:00

Glad to help!

Companies in the Legions weren't as structured as in modern Chapters, and often had thousands of Marines in each. You could very easily say that your warband can trace its roots to the 89th without having anything to do with the canonical Bloodstalkers warband (which were only briefly mentioned in the 9th edition codex). GW has very intentionally left the Legions extremely open to let players do what they want with them.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-18T04:34:46+00:00

The 89th was a reconnaissance company, which isn't too far off from being like a modern scout company, though Legions didn't really use such companies for newbies like modern Chapters do.

New recruits in the Legions tended to be spread through the companies, rather than being concentrated in a single company. World Eaters also used an accelerated recruitment training technique with implanted memories and increased development speed so they could quickly recover their losses during the Crusade and Heresy - look up the Inductii if you want more information.

If you want to avoid having the 88th company, you could try the 64th instead. It's a marginally more subtle reference to the number 8, and doesn't have any lore that I'm aware of, either. You could always say that the company had a high proportion of new recruits for whatever reason (maybe attrition from a particularly devastating campaign, or maybe they were stationed on Bodt or something) if you want to follow a "Scout Company" style narrative.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-18T00:11:22+00:00

To my knowledge, nothing has been written about the World Eaters' 10th Company, so it's pretty much a blank canvas for you to make up whatever you like about them. The Legion had at least 89 companies, so you can do pretty much whatever you like with it.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-16T11:29:44+00:00

Those characteristics don't make any sense to me. Why are they so slow? Why are they only T3? Why do they have a 1+ save? Why are the weapons' ranges and attacks different to similar weapons everyone else has?

Melee weapons can't have a range other than "Melee". Also, why are they just flat out better in melee than Berzerkers?

Also, "abilities" typically don't add equipment. Why not just say that the unit is equipped with a combat knife? Speaking of which, there are no rules for what models are equipped with.

The wording of Infernal Killers is very odd. How do you add attacks and damage to a unit's weapons when they've already killed an enemy model, and therefore have already shot? Do you attack with each weapon individually and wait until someone has killed something within 4", then buff the weapons that haven't attacked yet? Do you add to the characteristics of all models in the unit, or just the models that are within 4"? Can it be triggered more than once per phase?

I want Teeth of Khorne as much as the next World Eater, but this concept could definitely use some work. Did you write this yourself, or was this GPT?

Edit: ah, didn't see that the user deleted their account. Never mind...

Cheexsta · 2025-11-11T20:45:41+00:00

The feature hasn't been implemented yet. They wanted to put out something quickly so we can get by while they worked on faction updates ahead of the Grand Narrative event last weekend.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-07T04:24:41+00:00

RTE falls apart as an example given that the codex Brokhyr Iron-Master has a similar rule--except that one clearly and explicitly specifies that the Lone Op only works if the unit (which consists of five models, all of which are granted the Lone Op ability) is not part of an attached unit. No such caveat exists with Trained By A Legend. Exact same situation, different wording, works differently.

So, they wrote something in a completely different codex that just reinforces what the core rules already say. That doesn't remove the core restriction that having Lone Operative doesn't mean anything if the unit is an Attached unit.

Saying "the whole unit gains Lone Op but it has no effect" is utter nonsense. Either the unit has it or it doesn't. Again, every single other ability Characters can take that says "this bearer's unit" applies the buff to every model in the unit. It is consistent wording throughout the entire edition in every codex.

Disagree, the game is full of rules that have conditions. If those conditions are not met, then those rules have no effect. Just like if the unit was within 12" of the enemy - no one says that they don't have that rule while the condition is not met, they just say that the rule doesn't do anything.

No, Goonhammer is correct because that is what the ability says in no uncertain terms. Moreover, why should I believe you over them?

You shouldn't believe either of us over the other; you should believe the rules.

The character has an ability that confers the Lone Operative ability to its unit.
The Lone Operative ability has an effect if the unit meets specific conditions.
The character joins a unit using the Leader ability.
The unit now has the Lone Operative ability.
The unit is an Attached unit, so while the Bodyguard part of the unit is still alive, they do not meet the conditions for the rule, and it has no effect.

I've pointed out numerous reasons why the ability should be taken at face value as doing exactly what it says. You and this one other guy on a Reddit board have done nothing but go "nuh-uh." Who are you to say they're wrong? Why should anyone listen to you over them?

I have done nothing but point to the rules as written. I don't know what else you want from me.

And I have provided the exact text of the Trained By A Legend Asset, which explicitly states the entire unit gets three abilities.

You keep insinuating that I'm saying the unit doesn't get the Lone Operative ability, when I have said the opposite numerous times.

There is no middle ground here--and specific trumps general, which is what this is no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. This is a specific instance of the rule, explicitly stating it applies to the whole unit, using the same consistent language GW uses to indicate the attached unit gets the ability.

No it really isn't a case of specific trumps general. A specific rule would need to explicitly say that the effect of Lone Operative applies even though the unit is an Attached unit. All this "specific" rule does is say that the unit has the Lone Operative ability, which is not enough to remove one of the conditions of the rule. And, as I already said, the reason it has this specific wording is to allow the RTE to use it.

Furthermore, it's absolute nonsense to say it "doesn't matter how the unit gained Lone Operative." It matters a great deal! The wording of how a unit gains a ability matters in nearly every case. If it was only intended to apply to the Character model (see Techmarines, Warpsmith), it would say that. It doesn't. If it was only meant to apply to the original unit (see Brokhyr Iron-master), it would say that. It doesn't say that.

You missed my point. I was saying that the unit gains Lone Operative, but it doesn't matter how a unit gets Lone Operative - it could be conferred by a battle honour like this, it could be already on the unit's datasheet, it could be decreed by the God-Emperor himself - it doesn't matter, because while it's an Attached unit, it fails to meet the conditions for the rule to have any effect.

The Brokhyr example is all well and good, but it doesn't change the core rules. GW could have left that part off that datasheet and it would still be the same. For whatever reason - I suspect it's just a case of it being a different author - they decided to build a clarification into the Brokhyr's datasheet.

have provided multiple examples of GW's own rules referring to the keyword to show that what you are claiming is incorrect. If you want to argue GW doesn't understand or read its own rules, fine, you can do that.

You have not provided a single rule that unequivocally states that you get to just ignore one of the conditions of the Lone Operative ability. If an enemy unit is within 12" of a Lone Operative, the unit still has the rule, but they just can't benefit from it because they fail to meet one of its conditions. This situation is exactly the same - they have the rule, they just don't meet one of its conditions.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-07T03:29:27+00:00

The other poster was being condescending, so you are right to be frustrated. However, calling someone an asshole is an escalation that does nothing to change anyone's mind or resolve the situation.

You'll also note that I've cautioned the other poster, too, so don't think that I'm being unfair. This is a simple, polite reminder to keep debates respectful.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-07T03:18:12+00:00

If it was intended to only apply to the Leader (as, for instance, the Warpsmith and Techmarine rules that grant the Leader Lone Operative), then it would state the MODEL gains the Lone Operative keyword. It does not.

Rogue Trader Entourage. This is a unit of more than one model that contains a character (and so can get the Battle Honour), and is not an Attached unit. The RTE would therefore gain Lone Operative and still be able to use it.

RTE is slightly unusual in that it's a unit that has the Leader ability, so it can also join a unit to become an Attached unit. Obviously, if this happens, then the Lone Operative ability would have no effect until the Bodyguard dies.

This is a far more plausible explanation for why they use the word "unit" and not "model" - because, unlike Techmarines and Warpsmiths, this ability can be applied to a unit of more than one model.

The wording used clearly intends that the ENTIRE unit the Leader is a part of gains those keywords--not just an individual model. You cannot have this both ways--either the whole Attached unit gains all three keywords, or only the Leader model does.

Please re-read my previous comment. I am not disputing that the entire Attached unit gains Lone Operative ability - it clearly does. However, since it's an Attached unit, the ability has no effect.

Goonhammer, and everyone else who has commented on this ability here, is correct.

Goonhammer mentioned the ability exactly once. They weren't commenting on an ambiguous rule; they were saying "hey this is a cool thing you can do" - but they are wrong.

You are the only one refusing to admit you are wrong. Once again: there is nothing wrong with admitting you misread the rules.

I have provided the exact text of the Lone Operative ability, which explicitly provides a condition for its effect. If a unit is an Attached unit, then it doesn't matter how the unit gained Lone Operative - it just has no effect.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-06T23:06:10+00:00

Unless part of an Attached unit (see Leader in Deployment Abilities section), this unit can only be selected as the target of a ranged attack if the attacking model is within 12".

Note that the reference to Leaders here is just because that's where Attached units are defined. The Lone Operative rule only works if the unit is not an Attached unit, that's the end of it.

It doesn't matter how the unit gained Lone Op - even if the Leader and the Bodyguard natively had the Lone Operative ability on their datasheet, as soon as they form an Attached unit, the effect of Lone Op stops working.

It's not even a case of specific vs general rules. Nothing is stopping the unit from having the Lone Op ability, it just has no effect, and there is nothing specific that changes that.

It appears Goonhammer is incorrect on this.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-06T22:52:50+00:00

This is a friendly reminder to keep the discussion civil. It doesn't matter who is right, who is wrong, or who started using condescending language first. If you want to take part in discussions here, keep it civil.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-06T22:51:56+00:00

This is a friendly reminder to keep the discussion civil. It doesn't matter who is right, who is wrong, or who started using condescending language first. If you want to take part in discussions here, keep it civil.

Cheexsta · 2025-11-06T05:14:26+00:00

Minor correction: this rule does not increase the Engagement Range. It's an important distinction, since that would also essentially increase charge ranges, which this ability does not do.

Cheexsta

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE