Quick post with Twitch clips for my Silver entry into the "Best of the Rest" Category for Armies on Parade 2022!
The Astra Militarum Imperial Guard Codex is about to drop in the Cadia Stands Box Set. I for one am super excited. I have not seen a leak or received a copy, but I did notice something off of Warhammer Community this week and it left me wondering if the design studio intentionally left a janky rules interaction OR if they just didn't fully think through their own game design.
I am referring to the Godspear Warhead for the Deathstrike Missile as found in this linked Warhammer Community Article.
Now here I have included the excerpt from Warhammer Community where they talk about using the Godspear as a form of objective denial. Problem is... it isn't big enough. See, the Godspear is measuring from an infinitesimally small point. Since you put down a target marker and measure from the center, the size of the marker doesn't matter (although is is a GREAT excuse to get a 6" template!).
But that's not how objectives work
See, Objectives are a 40mm round marker and then you measure to the EDGE of the marker closest to you.
Now it isn't ever specified as a rule for objective, but I am yet unaware of a scenario, at least in matched play or the GT pack, that does not specify that to score an objective, you must be within 3" horizontally and/or 5" vertically. Now, the vertical doesn't matter here, so lets talk about the horizontal.
Because the Objective Marker is 40mm, this means the scoring diameter for a marker is 6"+40mm (about 7.58", radius 3"+20mm, or about 3.79"). Below is a diagram of what this interaction looks like. The yellow is the Objective Marker, the Blue is the Godspear footprint, and the Red is the area to score an objective.
To me, this seems kinda loop holely and not really lined up with how the design studio tends to make the game in my opinion.
Now before I go on though, THIS IS EXACTLY HOW I WILL PLAY IT until it is changed (IF it ever is). I do not play Rules as Intended (RAI), I play Rules as Written (RAW). RAW is the only fair way to play IMO as it is a singular baseline from which everyone can play the game. However RAI is important to discuss because it opens the door for us, the players, to submit questions for FAQs and Errata.
With that in mind the way I see this is
1- The studio intentionally did this thereby limiting the utility of a 16 MW weapon. Their RAI matches the RAW. I believe this is possible, but it also makes the Godspear just so underwhelming. The only way to have the missile be fully effective is to lock a unit in combat by surrounding them entirely... and then they could still use the desperate breakout stratagem to get out of the way. IMO if this is the way it was meant to be designed, something needs to be changed about it because anyone can dodge this missile as is if they want to, and not even have to give up an objective to do it. If this is the way it is meant to be, don't waste your Godspear on objectives, but use it to block off routes of movement, or place it right in front of your most important shooting unit to discourage them being charged. But this is why I don't like this even more- its using what is supposed to be a super offensive weapon lore wise in a wholly defensive manner in game.
2- The studio meant for this to entirely cover an objective and has been playing something wrong (measuring from the center of an objective or only holding objective only if wholly within 3"). In this case their RAI do not match the RAW, but their intention is based off a flaw in their understanding of core rules. I HIGHLY doubt this one, but you never know. Sometimes the way the studio is playing the game and the way we are are two completely different things.
3- The studio intended it to entirely cover an objective, but is playing the Godspear wrong in playtesting, placing a token and measuring from the edge. Here the RAI do not match the RAW either, and their intention is just lost to design mistake. Also doubt this, but it is possible. If they were using a 40mm token for objectives and markers, and then placing a Godspear Marker on the objective, maybe the playtesters just defaulted to measuring the same way as they do for objectives, playing the Godspear wrong.
4- The studio intended it to entirely cover an objective, but didn't extensively playtest the Godspear and don't really understand how the RAW interaction works. Here their RAI do not match their RAW due to a missed detail in design. Highly likely IMO. Not the first time GW released something undertested. In this case just no one ever noticed the 20mm loophole for exploitation.
SO if RAI and RAW are in alignment (#1), I guess there is nothing to change... just don't expect the Godspear to see a lot of table time outside of very narrative gaming, apocalypse battles, etc. Sure there are times where someone will forget to move their unit, or the unit is too big or just has no where to go, but those will be few and far in between. I mean, it would be great for catching vehicles on their last bracket... but if so, the 16 Mortal Wounds are completely wasted overkill.
HOWEVER if RAI and RAW aren't in alignment, and the Godspear is supposed to fully cover an objective how should the studio fix it? Well two ways I see are
1- Just make it 4" instead of 3". This makes it an 8 inch bubble, fully covering any objective. Problem starts being though is it is just a really BIG bubble now, and can completely alter how stuff moves around the battlefield, especially vehicles.
2- Make the Godspear marker a 40mm token as well and measure to the closest edge, just like objectives. This increases the size as well, but not as much, and also will make it MUCH easier to play IMO. Measuring consistently to the center of a marker is harder than the edge. I prefer this method. And if GW wanted to, they could throw a 40mm base into the box with the Deathstrike/Manticore kit and easily enough ensure EVERYONE then has a 40mm marker provided.
So what do you think? Is the Godspear working as designed, and you can sidestep a falling Nuke and still hold the objective OR is it NOT working as intended, it should be able to shut down an objective entirely. And if so, which solution do you prefer? Do you have a different one?
