It's already being discussed and there's already people trying to make it confusing just to discredit the FAQs as a whole
Just another day on Dakka.
Also I don't think they'll ever get to Chaos Space Marines. That book is just such a trainwreck that it might be altogether easier to wait for the release that Atia talked about and FAQ that instead of this.
Jackal wrote: Why should all walkers get +2 attacks?
Currently its only dreadnoughts.
So I'd expect the helbrute to get it, but no other walker.
Actually, it would be fair to give ALL the basic 'Dreadnought equivalents' the +2A bonus, especially for the dedicated 'close combat only' variants which are badly hurting right now...
2-3A base is simply not enough for 120-140+pts solo models. Look at Maulerfiends as a perfect example... supposedly a nightmarish close combat death machine, and yet, the only thing it's actually "good" at is being an expensive tarpit.
Dreadnoughts (both Imperial & Orky), Hellbrutes, 'Fiends, Defilers, Soul Grinders, Wraithlords, Talos, Carnifexes... these are large single models with very similar roles, either being expensive generalists, or else dedicated close combat monsters. Unfortunately, they're all (outside of the updated IoM Dreads) really, really awful at the close combat part, since they lack enough basic attacks to make even 10 Grots think twice about getting stuck in.
4A base at least allows these guys to reliably kill at least 1-2 enemies per turn, thus ensuring that an opponent will need an honest fething tarpit, and not just 5 Scouts to tie these models up for half or more of the game!
However, this is a change that really should be given out to everyone. If GW just gives to Marines, then non-Marine players will have a good reason to *****.
Of course, just giving the +2A to Hellbrutes will not in any way make them remotely playable, since it's their obnoxious stupid 'crazy chart' that is keeping them firmly in the "expensive shelf decoration" category!
+2A would at least mean however that Maulerfiends could finally a solid unit that no longer needs either 2-3 hitting the same target, or else another more expensive dedicated close combat squad to babysit them...
DarknessEternal wrote: Well now I'm back to not knowing what order they want multiplication and addition to be done in, since Space Wolves and Blood Angels apparently do it differently.
It continues to work as normal unless a rule says otherwise.
Yes, it is a bad idea to start fixing units like this. Doesnt make sense to give boni to different kits and/or units. Next is upgrading Morkanauts to Superheavy via the faq like they should always have been? Once you start that, there will be no ending :(
Better they spend that energy on new codex books and a better ruleset imo.
Warhams-77 wrote: Yes, it is a bad idea to start fixing units like this. Doesnt make sense to give boni to different kits and/or units. Next is upgrading Morkanauts to Superheavy via the faq like they should always have been? Once you start that, there will be no ending :(
That might be true if they were just randomly updating units. They're not... They're updating previously identical units that have been left behind by the latest SM update to be identical again. Ultimately, that's far less confusing for players than having scouts from different books having different stats for no reason other than the date the codex was printed.
I posted it in a response to updating other units like the CSM Helbrute. There is nothing wrong with fixing a few units. But what about Loyal and Traitor Land Raiders? Were do you draw the line?
Warhams-77 wrote: Yes, it is a bad idea to start fixing units like this. Doesnt make sense to give boni to different kits and/or units. Next is upgrading Morkanauts to Superheavy via the faq like they should always have been? Once you start that, there will be no ending :(
Better they spend that energy on new codex books and a better ruleset imo.
A Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. Whether it's a Loyalist one, Chaos, Orky or the 'living' versions of the Eldar & Tyranids, they all function in an incredibly similar manner.
No one is suggesting we suddenly start expecting (or outright demanding) entire unit type changes, rather, simply pointing out that a specific class of unit is now widely varying.
Do I expect GW to give the +2A to all the other Dread equivalents? Hell no. We all know that Marines get special treatment, and that there's also really 0 difference between their Dreads besides the colour they're painted in.
Mind you, giving the +2A to the likes of Ironclads, Furiosos & SW specialist Dreads has certainly made them likely a bit too cheap for what they can now unleash, but again, they're Marines so being bonkers vs. their closest NPC army equivalents is fine.
All I was mainly pointing however, is that since GW have decided that Loyalist Dreadnoughts apparently needed +2A to become a more viable & capable unit, it is only fair & right that every other similar equivalent SHOULD be given the same treatment at some point.
If we all have to wait for a campaign/codex update fine. But if/when those come and say the Hellbrute and/or Ork Dreadnought stay with their current cripplingly low number of basic attacks? That'd be an insult on GW's part to non-Marine players.
Warhams-77 wrote: I posted it in a response to updating other units like the CSM Helbrute. There is nothing wrong with fixing a few units. But what about Loyal and Traitor Land Raiders? Were do you draw the line?
Chaos Land Raiders actually need to have our old Infernal Device rule given back... right now, our Land Raiders are completely unplayable since they lack the one basic special rule that GW even admitted to being a necessary requirement back in the day, as the core rules have *never* supported the idea of a heavy transport that's also a main battle tank.
Chaos of course lost out because Jervis is a god damned moron who wanted there to be an obvious difference between the Loyalist vs. Chaos versions, hence, the removal of the Infernal device rule.
Who cares if means we ended up going back to the very reason why no-one would ever consider taking a Land Raider.
Even when they were all called Dreadnoughts in first edition (excluding the Screamer Killer Carnifex), White Dwarf 146 comes to mind with its large Dreadnought rules update for the vehicle template system, they were very different stats- and gameplay-wise.
Chaos of course lost out because Jervis is a god damned moron who wanted there to be an obvious difference between the Loyalist vs. Chaos versions, hence, the removal of the Infernal device rule.
Warhams-77 wrote: Even when they were all called Dreadnoughts in first edition (excluding the Screamer Killer Carnifex), White Dwarf 146 comes to mind with its large Dreadnought rules update for the vehicle template system, they were very different stats- and gameplay-wise.
They may have small differences, but really, a Dreadnought/Hellbrute/Wraithlord/Carnifex all basically fulfill the exact same role of being a big stampy generalist death machine. Hence, if Loyalist Dreads were seen to be 'suffering' because of a lack of attacks in close combat making them obnoxiously easy to lock down forever, then it's 99.9% certain that the other various very similar units are almost certainly in the exact same boat.
And if 2-3A made a generalist Dreadnought too easy to tarpit with only 5-6 models, how in hell is it in any way remotely fair that a dedicated close combat only machine (ie: Maulerfiend), is perfectly fine with 3-4 WS3 attacks?
Clearly all Walkers in general need some help to make them less prone to being tied down by a tiny number of enemies... Some, such as Sentinels, Killa Kans, Riptides, etc... which are dedicated shooters of course should be easier to tie up with only a few models.
But it's clear by GW's own boosting of the Loyalist Dread that Walkers and their closest MC equivalents need a boost.
Chaos of course lost out because Jervis is a god damned moron who wanted there to be an obvious difference between the Loyalist vs. Chaos versions, hence, the removal of the Infernal device rule.
True
Every single rules issue that CSM's currently suffer from is because of Jervis... apparently being Marines -10 is our punishment for making his son cry non-stop for an entire year because we won the EoT campaign when we weren't supposed to?!
tneva82 wrote: And there's no reason to expect chaos dreadnoughts don't get +2 when CHAOS FAQ comes out.
Except like, every single thing they've done to Chaos since 4th edition. But other than that, no reason to expect they don't get +2. No reason to expect that at all.
DarknessEternal wrote: What exactly were you expecting out of a FAQ? It already provided buffs for 6 units.
Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.
I've already lowered my expectations for the orkies. I'm assuming mob rule 7 & 8 will be just more "squabble" (i.e. kill yourself D6 times at ST+1) and cybork will be "no, it doesn't stack, so it's effectively useless" and Green Tide will be "ask your opponent to if you can use the old book" without providing any link to a pdf (even though they promised one.) All other change requests will just simply be "no." At this point I don't even think we'll get anything for walkers because they were never 2 attacks. Ork units don't need to "punch their weight" like the imperium do.
DarknessEternal wrote: Well now I'm back to not knowing what order they want multiplication and addition to be done in, since Space Wolves and Blood Angels apparently do it differently.
Well, those aren't quite the same situation. Furious Charge is +1S on the charge, Thunder Wolf is +1S all the time. In other words, TW changes the unit's profile, FC does not. Thusly, in the case of the TW, you add the +1 before you multiply, but after multiplying for FC. This may be a better discussion for YMDC, though.
That's only because they decided to change how that's counted to avoid having to explain how to calculate TWC strenght properly or have IC's with S9 and TWC with 10.
DarknessEternal wrote: What exactly were you expecting out of a FAQ? It already provided buffs for 6 units.
Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.
We have the some of the nicest sculpted torsos, legs, heads, vehicle parts, dreadnought chests, librarians, tank bits, not to mention by far the best-looking jump pack units. ^.^
If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.
Unlike the other non-loyalist marines (Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels), the Blood Angels parts benefit from being highly interchangeable with all of the standard kits.
Back on topic, the Scouts and Dreadnought buffs are great.
The rest of the questions were pretty much what I expected, with some nice clarification on the 3-stomraven turn 1 charge that hardly anyone uses (too high points).
Talys wrote: If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.
You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?
'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.
Talys wrote: If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.
You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?
'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.
This is exactly my opinion. I have the ability through my C:SM stuff to run my Blood Angels using the Raven Guard rules and get better results, but I don't want to. I want to run Blood Angels as Blood Angels and not have them suck. I want to run my Baal Predators and not have them suck. I want to be able to use my Tactical Squads and their Heavy Flamers. I want my Fast Rhinos.
Every single rules issue that CSM's currently suffer from is because of Jervis... apparently being Marines -10 is our punishment for making his son cry non-stop for an entire year because we won the EoT campaign when we weren't supposed to?!
The EoT campaign was actually quite funny.
Chaos did not win due to being OP or broken or anything like that. Chaos won because their playerbase was actually more organised and co-ordinated their results to seize key objective sectors while the Imperium ran around like headless chickens and fought amongst themselves. The differences in the two forums for the campaign were unreal. One side had posts urging results to be turned in for X, Y and Z and the other was too busy talking smack or complaining that they didn't want to do X, Y or Z.
The end result was that Chaos won because they co-ordinated their efforts. They knew the fights they couldn't win due to army percentages (i.e. everyone knew the DA players were going to throw in for Caliban, everyone knew certain sectors of the Cadian gate were going to be where Imperials threw everything) and resorted to taking all the sectors around them to build an advantage.
GW acted shocked at the result...to be fair, it was the fault of the playerbase rather than the rules and it amazes me that GW had such a kneejerk reaction in the editions following. There are quite simply too many personal vendettas and self-serving interests in the design team and it shows.
Cruddace with IG, Phil Kelly with Eldar ... furthermore it seems that rules are playtested in a vacuum - they abolished the playtester pool after the GK and Daemon leaks in 5th. The result was instead of tournament level players being able to provide feedback and show what shenanigans they could do we got people like Cruddace and JJ who believe that armies can only be played in a certain way and are determined to hammer that point across.
Talys wrote: If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.
You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?
'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.
The DAFAQ disgusted me with their stance on the Deathwing detachment autolosing on Turn 1 because of that damn rule.
And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?
Use Unbound. Use Unbound.
When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'
That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?
Well, Chaos lost the BFG side of things, but yeah.
I think the punishment thing is a myth, Jervis was at our local GW the other week, and everyone who I've talked to (I couldn't attend, work) said he's a really nice guy. I can't imagine him or the company purposefully smiting Chaos, especially since Daemons of Chaos wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is (for played right) if this were the case.
Crazyterran wrote: Now I want to make the Ultra Dark Blood Wolf Scars, the ultimate chapter that can use anyone's rules!
Well that's what tournament marine armies do anyway. Paint in whatever, use whatever rules happen to be most powerful. Bringing lots of bikes? Scars. Lots of infantry? UM or imperial fists.
Talys wrote: If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.
You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?
'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.
This is exactly my opinion. I have the ability through my C:SM stuff to run my Blood Angels using the Raven Guard rules and get better results, but I don't want to. I want to run Blood Angels as Blood Angels and not have them suck. I want to run my Baal Predators and not have them suck. I want to be able to use my Tactical Squads and their Heavy Flamers. I want my Fast Rhinos.
@HBMC & Cas - Yeah, I do, and sure, I would prefer to have more powerful Blood Angels. But sometimes we can't have everything we want I would also like better Dark Eldar, and I'm sure that a lot of people would like better Imperial Guard, Tyranid, CSM, etc. etc. Playing 40k since 1989, I'm simply resigned to the reality that these egregious balancing disparities have existed for nearly 30 years and will for the foreseeable future continue. The 4 options are to play another game, play another faction, play them as intended, or use/mix the models with other kits to effectively play them as another faction.
My point was that what the Blood Angels players have that other non-loyalist factions Astartes don't have is the ability to use the models (which I genuinely think are superior) as a custom successor chapter -- not a Counts As -- and I mean, it's not like you have to paint them red. Whether they're purple, blue, yellow, or black, I think they're just awesome sculpts. They also share many vehicle frames that are similar/identical to standard models. In contrast, if you like the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Grey Knights sculpts, and you don't like their rules, adapting those models are pretty rough. But I mean, there's nothing wrong with making White Scars out of Ravenwing kits, if that's your thing, right?
The great thing about Blood Angels, and really, why I decided to model them currently, is that I can use a lot of the models as both red-painted vanilla marines, or as true Blood Angels. I would actually say that 90% of the time, I play them as Blood Angels, and don't really mind the reduced power level, because the people I play with are pretty reasonable people, and don't try to play the absolute most powerful army that they can possibly bring to crush me. On the other hand, I DO want to play a bike army as white scars, sometimes, Iron Hands other times, Black Templars, etc. -- and I don't have the time to paint 100 basic space marines and a half dozen Rhino chassis models in 6 different colors, especially not at the quality that I would find acceptable to play with. I'd rather just add the bikes, centurions, death company, furiosos, stalkers, etc. as I go along, and be able to play them as whatever makes me happy at the time.
And by the way, I get that Baal Predators suck. But, let's be real, all Predators suck
I think Baal Predators are cool, but then I'm talking about the aesthetic value. The twin-Assault Cannons are great. Only thing better is the "Predator Decimator" we made that has the turret, but Hurricane Bolter sponsons.
Talys wrote:But sometimes we can't have everything we want...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think Baal Predators are cool, but then I'm talking about the aesthetic value. The twin-Assault Cannons are great. Only thing better is the "Predator Decimator" we made that has the turret, but Hurricane Bolter sponsons.
Talys wrote:But sometimes we can't have everything we want...
So... just lie back and think of Sanguinius?
I would love an actual Predator Decimator! The models even exist, it just needs rules.
And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?
Use Unbound. Use Unbound.
When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'
That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?
What?
Well, yes, if the solytion is to use Unbound armies, and your sole reason for not doing that is that the people running games you want to play in won't let you, then suggesting that you try to get those people to change the way they run their games isn't actually that unreasonable.
Of course, that's if you accept that may using Unbound is the solution to the problem, which it isn't. It's potentially a fun alternate way to create armies, but it doesn't address the balance issues for people wanting to use Battle Forged lists.
Pretty much. I am shelving mine completely. 100% will not buy any more. They even made sure to make our Start Collecting formation absolutely garbage.
I'm not shelving the boys in red just yet - I've spent too much time and money to let them languish in a 'shelf crusade'. They'll continue to see battle, and I'll keep trying to make the codex work, I'll fail I imagine - but I refuse to be beaten by GW's blatant disregard for common sense rules.
And no, I won't 'just use the C:SM book', because I didn't BUY the C:SM book, I bought the BLOOD ANGELS book and collected a BLOOD ANGELS army. If I wanted to be a power gamer I wouldn't have chosen them in the first place.
I'm not shelving the boys in red just yet - I've spent too much time and money to let them languish in a 'shelf crusade'. They'll continue to see battle, and I'll keep trying to make the codex work, I'll fail I imagine - but I refuse to be beaten by GW's blatant disregard for common sense rules.
And no, I won't 'just use the C:SM book', because I didn't BUY the C:SM book, I bought the BLOOD ANGELS book and collected a BLOOD ANGELS army. If I wanted to be a power gamer I wouldn't have chosen them in the first place.
Ditto. I don't have Codex : Space Marine because I am not into smurf marine.. I am more Angel marine like Dark Angel and Blood Angel
Pretty much. I am shelving mine completely. 100% will not buy any more. They even made sure to make our Start Collecting formation absolutely garbage.
I'm not shelving the boys in red just yet - I've spent too much time and money to let them languish in a 'shelf crusade'. They'll continue to see battle, and I'll keep trying to make the codex work, I'll fail I imagine - but I refuse to be beaten by GW's blatant disregard for common sense rules.
And no, I won't 'just use the C:SM book', because I didn't BUY the C:SM book, I bought the BLOOD ANGELS book and collected a BLOOD ANGELS army. If I wanted to be a power gamer I wouldn't have chosen them in the first place.
You can still use them as castually markers, damsil in distress or body sheilds.
Too bad the looted wagon does nothing for us. If you are going to run things alternate to trukks and wagons, the forgeworld ones are far far better than this last minute abomination of a thought.
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
The five point skorcha is a pretty good option for it...and you can take 3. It's one more "distraction carnifex" in a codex filled with distraction units, but at 52 points is pretty cheap for something that will draw fire from more expensive units.
You can only fire the Skorcha if you move 6" though, and can't fire all 3 at once if you move at all.
I just wish that it had more options that allowed you to do things like improve its armour or give it the fast or heavy type to represent many more different types of looted vehicles.
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.
I don't see a problem with a codex being fluffy, fun, AND competitive. But, apparently that is too much to ask, and anyone who wants that is a fool. Seriously, this game needs some serious balancing and the recent blood angels faq is a complete joke. And no, I do not play orks or blood angels. I just want my opponents to be able to give me a good game without me having to comp them points or me having to dumb down my list for them (especially when I also have to deal with a bunch of other very competitive armies).
jreilly89 wrote: So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.
Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).
This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.
I don't see a problem with a codex being fluffy, fun, AND competitive. But, apparently that is too much to ask, and anyone who wants that is a fool. Seriously, this game needs some serious balancing and the recent blood angels faq is a complete joke. And no, I do not play orks or blood angels. I just want my opponents to be able to give me a good game without me having to comp them points or me having to dumb down my list for them (especially when I also have to deal with a bunch of other very competitive armies).
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
EnTyme wrote: Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
This exactly. If people keep thinking these FAQs are for balance it actually hurts their cause. They need to be pushing GW as hard as they can for a rebalancing after these FAQ are done, not during.
I don't know how many of us it will be required to make that happen, but it will only do so if we make a convincing case to GW. Keep advocating for a balancing pass before 8th drops and it just might happen. Not likely, but anything is possible. Just don't waste your effort expecting it on these FAQs.
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
No, I wasn't expecting points updates in faqs. That would be silly. I was expecting them to at least clarify the rules for the formations they made to make the formation usable. Which it was crazy to hope for that I know.
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
No, I wasn't expecting points updates in faqs. That would be silly. I was expecting them to at least clarify the rules for the formations they made to make the formation usable. Which it was crazy to hope for that I know.
So what UNCLEAR WORDING cleared up would help formation? You know job of FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions(hint is kinda at the name). Not really to change the rules.
So expecting formation rules to be changed...Yeah that's crazy. Not job of a FAQ.
I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
EnTyme wrote: Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
This exactly. If people keep thinking these FAQs are for balance it actually hurts their cause. They need to be pushing GW as hard as they can for a rebalancing after these FAQ are done, not during.
I don't know how many of us it will be required to make that happen, but it will only do so if we make a convincing case to GW. Keep advocating for a balancing pass before 8th drops and it just might happen. Not likely, but anything is possible. Just don't waste your effort expecting it on these FAQs.
We definitely need to encourage a rebalance after the FAQ, but people need to remember that calm, well-articulated arguments will be much better received than venomous, vitriolic screaming about how one faction or the other is OP/UP. Be adults, people. More flies with honey and all that.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
I don't 'hate on BA' and neither do any of the other collectors as far as I know - and the Dreadnought attacks and Scout WS/BS stats are not the major issue with the book (although, I will admit it's nice to be included with the rest of the Space Marines in this update), a discrepancy that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Blood Angels pay the premium SM price for sub-standard units throughout the codex - with no options like the formations present for the other chapters to make up for it. The one formation that was ANY good (and I'm being rather loose with the term 'good' here) that BA had access to, got a nerf with the FAQ - it's hard to remain objective when even something as simple as that gakky formation gets the nerfhammer.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
The DAFAQ disgusted me with their stance on the Deathwing detachment autolosing on Turn 1 because of that damn rule.
And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?
Use Unbound. Use Unbound.
When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'
That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?
What?
Uhm. Why is this GW fault? GWclearly states that Unbound is legal choice. When store events and tournaments don't allow Unbound those are "house rules", so why is it up to GW to do anything about it when people are changing the rules?
It's the stores and the people who are changing GW rules. So you either accept it or you don't. Unbound is perfectly legal. It gives us the way to play how we want. It's other people who say you can't play as you want. So again why are you ranting on GW and not other people?
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
I don't 'hate on BA' and neither do any of the other collectors as far as I know - and the Dreadnought attacks and Scout WS/BS stats are not the major issue with the book (although, I will admit it's nice to be included with the rest of the Space Marines in this update), a discrepancy that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Blood Angels pay the premium SM price for sub-standard units throughout the codex - with no options like the formations present for the other chapters to make up for it. The one formation that was ANY good (and I'm being rather loose with the term 'good' here) that BA had access to, got a nerf with the FAQ - it's hard to remain objective when even something as simple as that gakky formation gets the nerfhammer.
Dude, it's a FAQ. It's not a new codex, so expecting sub par units to be on the level with SM is silly. Also, join the club of Orks, IG, all other amies who aren't Eldar, Tau, SM, and Necrons.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
Better than S10 with nothing, that's like EVERY Dreadnought, MTC means you don't get stuck on terrain or fail easy charges like everyone else, if FA is so irrelevant then the SW shield is useless then, it isn't like we can take multiple CADs or anything like that.
You say you'll trade it for the shield in a heartbeat but also say that the shield is "comically avoidable".
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
I hope GW makes this FAQ unofficial and BA go back to having crappy Scouts and Dreads with less attacks.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
Better than S10 with nothing, that's like EVERY Dreadnought, MTC means you don't get stuck on terrain or fail easy charges like everyone else, if FA is so irrelevant then the SW shield is useless then, it isn't like we can take multiple CADs or anything like that.
You say you'll trade it for the shield in a heartbeat but also say that the shield is "comically avoidable".
Oh look I made a typo. The horror.
There's a difference between positioning so that your stubby frag cannon arm actually lays a good template, and positioning so that your front arc is not easily avoided by nearby anti-vehicle threats. I don't like bringing up l2p, but c'mon man.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
Better than S10 with nothing, that's like EVERY Dreadnought, MTC means you don't get stuck on terrain or fail easy charges like everyone else, if FA is so irrelevant then the SW shield is useless then, it isn't like we can take multiple CADs or anything like that.
You say you'll trade it for the shield in a heartbeat but also say that the shield is "comically avoidable".
Oh look I made a typo. The horror.
There's a difference between positioning so that your stubby frag cannon arm actually lays a good template, and positioning so that your front arc is not easily avoided by nearby anti-vehicle threats. I don't like bringing up l2p, but c'mon man.
Really there isn't much difference. Both of them need to get pretty close, both get flanked more and more easily the closer they get and they both only move 6"+D6.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
Better than S10 with nothing, that's like EVERY Dreadnought, MTC means you don't get stuck on terrain or fail easy charges like everyone else, if FA is so irrelevant then the SW shield is useless then, it isn't like we can take multiple CADs or anything like that.
You say you'll trade it for the shield in a heartbeat but also say that the shield is "comically avoidable".
Oh look I made a typo. The horror.
There's a difference between positioning so that your stubby frag cannon arm actually lays a good template, and positioning so that your front arc is not easily avoided by nearby anti-vehicle threats. I don't like bringing up l2p, but c'mon man.
Really there isn't much difference. Both of them need to get pretty close, both get flanked more and more easily the closer they get and they both only move 6"+D6.
"As they get closer..."
You aren't podding them? O.o I don't know if you and I are playing the same game then. In my game, dreads pod in and choose to either face a juicy target (such as a pair of ghost arks close enough to both be under a frag template) or face front armor towards something deadly to the dread. Only against opponents who deploy badly do I get to do both.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
Better than S10 with nothing, that's like EVERY Dreadnought, MTC means you don't get stuck on terrain or fail easy charges like everyone else, if FA is so irrelevant then the SW shield is useless then, it isn't like we can take multiple CADs or anything like that.
You say you'll trade it for the shield in a heartbeat but also say that the shield is "comically avoidable".
Oh look I made a typo. The horror.
There's a difference between positioning so that your stubby frag cannon arm actually lays a good template, and positioning so that your front arc is not easily avoided by nearby anti-vehicle threats. I don't like bringing up l2p, but c'mon man.
Really there isn't much difference. Both of them need to get pretty close, both get flanked more and more easily the closer they get and they both only move 6"+D6.
"As they get closer..."
You aren't podding them? O.o I don't know if you and I are playing the same game then. In my game, dreads pod in and choose to either face a juicy target (such as a pair of ghost arks close enough to both be under a frag template) or face front armor towards something deadly to the dread. Only against opponents who deploy badly do I get to do both.
If you pod them it's just even easier to go to the side, Being closer to the enemy and all. You get a S6 template to kill things with. Shield Dreads get a storm bolter.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
No they don't, BA dreads are 100 points same as SM
I thought they were the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
I seem to have missed my Shred Power Fists. And my psychic Dreadnought. And my wargear giving Move Through Cover. And my 13 Front armour Elite. And my Rending S6 Template.
You're dreadnoughts are just as good.
Shred on s10 is a waste of points, the Libby-nought is hilariously expensive for a unit that a stun or immobilize result leaves stranded, MTC means no smoke launchers which is our only save after podding in, because we sure aren't crossing the table, FA on the dread is comically avoidable, 2 steps to the side and you're hitting AV12 instead, our elite slot is the most contested slot we have, as our best non-HQ unit, jump DC, is in there. The only thing furi's really have going for them is that the frag cannon is pretty nice, but I would trade it for a 3++ in a heartbeat. 2 s6 ap- rending templates are not worth 165 points when the dread insta-dies with no saves after its first shot. I would rather have a credible threat that takes a decent amount of firepower to remove thanks to a good save.
And lastly, *YOUR
I hope GW makes this FAQ unofficial and BA go back to having crappy Scouts and Dreads with less attacks.
So much for a continued dialogue. I refuse to argue with children.
If your front armor of 13 can be negated by simply moving to the side, then so can the 3++ on our dreads.
And let's not pretend that the 3++ is free. Hell, isn't it more expensive than the av13? Don't your furioso dreads also have ws5 meaning they hit on 3s in melee against most opponents?
Your dreads have different options, and now have the same number of attacks. Stop pretending they are weaker when they are very much not. The ONLY thing missing is the ability to take squadrons, and the wolves don't get that either.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If your front armor of 13 can be negated by simply moving to the side, then so can the 3++ on our dreads.
But the 3++ is on SW! BA dreads are easier to flank because they are BA and BA whiners can't accept anything that might make BA look less crappy as they make it sound.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
I don't 'hate on BA' and neither do any of the other collectors as far as I know - and the Dreadnought attacks and Scout WS/BS stats are not the major issue with the book (although, I will admit it's nice to be included with the rest of the Space Marines in this update), a discrepancy that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Blood Angels pay the premium SM price for sub-standard units throughout the codex - with no options like the formations present for the other chapters to make up for it. The one formation that was ANY good (and I'm being rather loose with the term 'good' here) that BA had access to, got a nerf with the FAQ - it's hard to remain objective when even something as simple as that gakky formation gets the nerfhammer.
chalkobob wrote: I don't play Blood Angels and was wondering if someone who does can explain why they are upset with the FAQ? They buffed dreads and scouts. Everything else was just rule clarifications that seemed to be the generally used rule interpretations anyway. This wasn't meant to be a new codex or a chance to re-balance everything. Is that what people expected?
Exagerated expectations. From my point of view the Errata was good, the BA Dreads and scouts are now just as good as the SM ones (I don't play BA).
So, you don't play the army, and are answering a question why those that play the army are bothered by the FAQ - nicely done.
He's got a point. Why did people use to hate on BA? Cuz their Scouts and Dreads weren't up to par with SM. Well, now they are, and people are still bitter.
Technically the Dreads are a little better.
The SW Dreads are better, as they get the 3++ with the axe, but they all have the same basic profile now.
BA pay 5pts less for the same thing. I'd say that's better than SM.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the entry in the BA codex where I'm allowed to give my Dreadnoughts 3++, could you site the page number where that wargear entry is please?
The issues you listed can't be fixed by a single errata. Adding a decurion, lowering point costs, chaging profiles and rules could help, but that means rewriting their entire codex.GW just did thouse amendmends that could have been done without redoing their entire army. It's the same with orks, people have high hopes, but in the end the codex will remain a bad one. Only way to fix crapy armies is to give them a nex codex, not an FAQ.
The issues you listed can't be fixed by a single errata. Adding a decurion, lowering point costs, chaging profiles and rules could help, but that means rewriting their entire codex.GW just did thouse amendmends that could have been done without redoing their entire army. It's the same with orks, people have high hopes, but in the end the codex will remain a bad one. Only way to fix crapy armies is to give them a nex codex, not an FAQ.
I agree! It is not possible to "fix" pre-Decurion factions with FAQs; on the other hand, the mini buffs that just make dreadnoughts and scouts equivalent to their vanilla Space Marine counterparts simply make sense.
Incidentally, I saw on faeit that BA battleforce and BA Codex are no longer available on GWUK site. Maybe it just means softcover, and of course, the BA Start Collecting! But, you never know. Maybe there will be a new codex where BA get a Decurion with a free Baal predator for every troop, double distance jump packs and Grav for Sanguinary Guard, an extra attack in melee for every unit, Centurions, and a new plastic Mephiston who can pick any 5 spells he wants. Just so people can start saying, "Nerf BA!!" for a change
And then 8th edition, 6 months later, that mixes it all up again!
The history behind why BA players are bit touchy these days are because of all the nerfs when the new codex came out.
The old codex wasn't super competitive by any means but:
Baal preds lost scout
Mephiston was nerfed from being a monstrous creature (equivalent)
Land raiders lost deep strike (not useful but still)
They killed razor back spam (then gave it to regular marines)
They gave a ton of formations in shield of baal (and all of them not very useful) then gave regular marines a ton of great formations (skyhammer etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And they thought that furious charge marines was a good 'chapter tactic' which isn't
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and now space wolves have wulfen which are way better than death company for elite assault troops
chaosmarauder wrote: The history behind why BA players are bit touchy these days are because of all the nerfs when the new codex came out.
The old codex wasn't super competitive by any means but:
Baal preds lost scout
Mephiston was nerfed from being a monstrous creature (equivalent)
Land raiders lost deep strike (not useful but still)
They killed razor back spam (then gave it to regular marines)
They gave a ton of formations in shield of baal (and all of them not very useful) then gave regular marines a ton of great formations (skyhammer etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And they thought that furious charge marines was a good 'chapter tactic' which isn't
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and now space wolves have wulfen which are way better than death company for elite assault troops
Least you got something rules wise from Shield of Baal.
Sisters got new artwork, loads of cool fluff and some great characters - any of them or their formations translate into rules - nope.
Mephiston can now go in a unit which is handy for him I thought.......
I think people have been expected alto from these FAQs - to be honest they are a lot more than anything I had thought would come given GW's ignoring any of the issues. However it was pretty clear they were not going to re-write the codexes (sadly) at this point. Pleasantly surprised we got the errata we did.
chaosmarauder wrote: The history behind why BA players are bit touchy these days are because of all the nerfs when the new codex came out.
The old codex wasn't super competitive by any means but:
Baal preds lost scout
Mephiston was nerfed from being a monstrous creature (equivalent)
Land raiders lost deep strike (not useful but still)
They killed razor back spam (then gave it to regular marines)
They gave a ton of formations in shield of baal (and all of them not very useful) then gave regular marines a ton of great formations (skyhammer etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And they thought that furious charge marines was a good 'chapter tactic' which isn't
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and now space wolves have wulfen which are way better than death company for elite assault troops
Least you got something rules wise from Shield of Baal.
Sisters got new artwork, loads of cool fluff and some great characters - any of them or their formations translate into rules - nope.
Mephiston can now go in a unit which is handy for him I thought.......
I think people have been expected alto from these FAQs - to be honest they are a lot more than anything I had thought would come given GW's ignoring any of the issues. However it was pretty clear they were not going to re-write the codexes (sadly) at this point. Pleasantly surprised we got the errata we did.
agreed. people can't expect a codex rewrite from a FAQ/Errata. the FAQs and Errata will provide polish,but the dreadnought and scout updates are all we should expect. they're not going to Eratta in a "blood strike task force" decurion or something
I am not expecting a codex rewrite. I would really like to see something on the order of the War zone Fenris stuff for Tau and Space Wolves. But that is something I will need to buy. I don't expect GW to give that away for free.
What they could do is redo the Shield of Baal stuff in the way they did Mont'Ka and Kanyon. Put Formations for BA and Tyranids in one book, Sisters and Tyranids in the other. Or BA and Sisters. Or all three in one book. I just want updates to make BA halfways viable. An FAQ is hardly the right place for that.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am not expecting a codex rewrite. I would really like to see something on the order of the War zone Fenris stuff for Tau and Space Wolves. But that is something I will need to buy. I don't expect GW to give that away for free.
What they could do is redo the Shield of Baal stuff in the way they did Mont'Ka and Kanyon. Put Formations for BA and Tyranids in one book, Sisters and Tyranids in the other. Or BA and Sisters. Or all three in one book. I just want updates to make BA halfways viable. An FAQ is hardly the right place for that.
Yes, a Shield of Baal 2nd Edition would be cool -- and presumably quite easy
But, of course, if they moved the story forward and gave us a new campaign... RAWR!
casvalremdeikun wrote: I am not expecting a codex rewrite. I would really like to see something on the order of the War zone Fenris stuff for Tau and Space Wolves. But that is something I will need to buy. I don't expect GW to give that away for free.
What they could do is redo the Shield of Baal stuff in the way they did Mont'Ka and Kanyon. Put Formations for BA and Tyranids in one book, Sisters and Tyranids in the other. Or BA and Sisters. Or all three in one book. I just want updates to make BA halfways viable. An FAQ is hardly the right place for that.
Yes, a Shield of Baal 2nd Edition would be cool -- and presumably quite easy
But, of course, if they moved the story forward and gave us a new campaign... RAWR!
It would be cool if they redid them the way they did the Chaos supplements, Ghaz, and Farsight Enclaves. Just with better rules. But no need to move beyond where we already are.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Important things - Warp Siders can warp jump only once per turn and their Str D artillery counts as being S4 for ID.
Distortion Scythe is only a rule for the D-Scythes (Flamer Weapons) and the Hemlock. Artillery Batteries, Wraithcannons, and Lynx are all still full D.
Nothing big in here that I think affects competitive play. ITC was already playing only one Flicker Jump per turn and with the changes to Battle Brothers and Jinking Transports, few people are playing DE allies anymore.
The biggest thing that jumped out to me was that they said Iyanden is still legit, even though they stopped selling it altogether. I bet events still won't allow it.
I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.
NorseSig wrote: I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.
I'm glad they didn't. I don't feel this is the place to alter points values. Next codex though, I fully expect it.
NorseSig wrote: I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.
I'm glad they didn't. I don't feel this is the place to alter points values. Next codex though, I fully expect it.
I've said it before and I feel now's a good time to say it again. Points increases are a bad idea for GW and the players. It means the players don't get to field as many models and that sells less for GW. What we should hope for instead are Stat Decreases. Make the WK only have 5 wounds and come stock with the shoulder weapons for a total 330pts. Make Windriders only have 4+ armour. Stuff like that.
Glad to see Flicker jump fixed. It never made sense to me that suck a mediocre unit was so tournament worth.
NorseSig wrote: I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.
I'm glad they didn't. I don't feel this is the place to alter points values. Next codex though, I fully expect it.
I've said it before and I feel now's a good time to say it again. Points increases are a bad idea for GW and the players. It means the players don't get to field as many models and that sells less for GW.
What we should hope for instead are Stat Decreases. Make the WK only have 5 wounds and come stock with the shoulder weapons for a total 330pts. Make Windriders only have 4+ armour. Stuff like that.
NorseSig wrote: I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.
I'm glad they didn't. I don't feel this is the place to alter points values. Next codex though, I fully expect it.
I've said it before and I feel now's a good time to say it again. Points increases are a bad idea for GW and the players. It means the players don't get to field as many models and that sells less for GW.
What we should hope for instead are Stat Decreases. Make the WK only have 5 wounds and come stock with the shoulder weapons for a total 330pts. Make Windriders only have 4+ armour. Stuff like that.
Glad to see Flicker jump fixed. It never made sense to me that suck a mediocre unit was so tournament worth.
--
It might be bad for GW financially but good for games. There's big problem in that while army size has gone up board sizes haven't. Standard size is still 6'x4' same as in 2nd ed. Model count is how much bigger?
Same board, more models=less room for manouvering=less tactics.
NorseSig wrote: I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.
I'm glad they didn't. I don't feel this is the place to alter points values. Next codex though, I fully expect it.
I've said it before and I feel now's a good time to say it again. Points increases are a bad idea for GW and the players. It means the players don't get to field as many models and that sells less for GW.
What we should hope for instead are Stat Decreases. Make the WK only have 5 wounds and come stock with the shoulder weapons for a total 330pts. Make Windriders only have 4+ armour. Stuff like that.
Glad to see Flicker jump fixed. It never made sense to me that suck a mediocre unit was so tournament worth.
--
It might be bad for GW financially but good for games. There's big problem in that while army size has gone up board sizes haven't. Standard size is still 6'x4' same as in 2nd ed. Model count is how much bigger?
Same board, more models=less room for manouvering=less tactics.
Isn't one of the most common complaints about 7th the inclusion of superheavies leading to less models = less decisions = less tactics?
A bit annoying that though I've noticed that more often than not it's things like the Mask of Secrets and Armour of Misery that people want the Freakish Spectacle to stack with.
Imateria wrote: Glad to see the Trueborn clarification, but does that errata mean that Freakish spectacle from mutliple detachments doesn't stack anymore?
Hold the phone though. RAW, Covenite Coterie detachments don't stack Freakish Spectacle. The various formations are *not* Covenite Coterie detachments, so those should still stack Freakish Spectacle. Right? I know that may not be RAI, but GW has nerfed DE enough in these stupid FAQs, so forgive me if I stick with the interpretation more charitable to a marginal army.
Nightlord1987 wrote: So who is left for updates? Grey Knights, Tau, AM, Necrons, Sisters, Orks, daemons, and then finally Chaos?
*sigh....* Two months?
Sisters have already been FAQed.
And depending on the size of the FAQs, Daemons and CSM may be rolled into one release as well, since all the Eldar came out today as one. Given the amount of time they've had to work through these, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a couple more 2 army releases.
The biggest Tyranid thing I feel needs to be FAQed is the instinctive fire rule on the Tyrannocyte and Sporocyst. The White Drawf leads you to believe it works like shooting the nearest target in line of sight of each gun, like a Space Marine Drop Pod would, but being a monstrous creature and not a vehicle it has 360 degree line of sight.
Well... the DEFAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!
angelofvengeance wrote: Well... the DEFAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!
Honestly there wasn't much to FAQ. A codex needs nuance and detail in order for it to be complex enough for much of a FAQ
angelofvengeance wrote: Well... the DEFAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!
Honestly there wasn't much to FAQ. A codex needs nuance and detail in order for it to be complex enough for much of a FAQ
I still dream of a Reaver Archon... Alas, I've got to rely upon dirty Eldar allies to stay competitive.
My guess also. It seems they are doing these updates in approximately reverse order of latest release date, except for the small fry who got to go first.
adamsouza wrote: The biggest Tyranid thing I feel needs to be FAQed is the instinctive fire rule on the Tyrannocyte and Sporocyst. The White Drawf leads you to believe it works like shooting the nearest target in line of sight of each gun, like a Space Marine Drop Pod would, but being a monstrous creature and not a vehicle it has 360 degree line of sight.
I would say the biggest one was the Leviathan detachments rule that lets you re-roll the Instinctive Behaviour, is that for the leadership test or the roll on the table?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
angelofvengeance wrote: Well... the DEFAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!
The only disappointing thing is that after 2 months of FAQ's there are still people complaining every week that the codex(es) in question aren't being completely re-written by the FAQ. Seriously people, gett a grip.
In all seriousness the real disappointment is that there's no ruling for the retainer special rule regarding formations and whether the Archon can draw line of sight from a vehicle for for Prefered Enemy in the Purge Cotorie, but given how new the Start Collecting box is thats not really a big surprise.
adamsouza wrote: The biggest Tyranid thing I feel needs to be FAQed is the instinctive fire rule on the Tyrannocyte and Sporocyst. The White Drawf leads you to believe it works like shooting the nearest target in line of sight of each gun, like a Space Marine Drop Pod would, but being a monstrous creature and not a vehicle it has 360 degree line of sight.
I would say the biggest one was the Leviathan detachments rule that lets you re-roll the Instinctive Behaviour, is that for the leadership test or the roll on the table?
I don't have it in front of me but the way you've worded it seems obvious. One is a Leadership test and the other is a roll on the Instinctive Behavior table.
Requizen wrote: No FAQs have had point changes so far, I don't know why anyone would imagine there would be some in this FAQ.
I was not refering to the faq but the included ERRATA. As something like changing points cost of things would be errata.
The only disappointing thing is that after 2 months of FAQ's there are still people complaining every week that the codex(es) in question aren't being completely re-written by the FAQ. Seriously people, gett a grip.
In all seriousness the real disappointment is that there's no ruling for the retainer special rule regarding formations and whether the Archon can draw line of sight from a vehicle for for Prefered Enemy in the Purge Cotorie, but given how new the Start Collecting box is thats not really a big surprise.
With as fethed up as some of the codexes and armies are they NEED a complete re-write.
Requizen wrote: No FAQs have had point changes so far, I don't know why anyone would imagine there would be some in this FAQ.
I was not refering to the faq but the included ERRATA. As something like changing points cost of things would be errata.
The only disappointing thing is that after 2 months of FAQ's there are still people complaining every week that the codex(es) in question aren't being completely re-written by the FAQ. Seriously people, gett a grip.
In all seriousness the real disappointment is that there's no ruling for the retainer special rule regarding formations and whether the Archon can draw line of sight from a vehicle for for Prefered Enemy in the Purge Cotorie, but given how new the Start Collecting box is thats not really a big surprise.
With as fethed up as some of the codexes and armies are they NEED a complete re-write.
And no Errata so far has changed point costs, at least in these 7e updates. I don't know why one would imagine there would be.
And no Errata so far has changed point costs, at least in these 7e updates. I don't know why one would imagine there would be.
Not expecting one, but hoping they might do one in the interest of the good of the game (crazy thought I know). And it isn't like they have never done it so it isn't exactly something impossible to wish for.
angelofvengeance wrote: Well... the DEFAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!
What hard to understand archon entry has?
You weren't seriously expecting major changes to rules in a faq?
Requizen wrote: No FAQs have had point changes so far, I don't know why anyone would imagine there would be some in this FAQ.
I was not refering to the faq but the included ERRATA. As something like changing points cost of things would be errata.
Which have so far been fairly trivial standardization of stats of same units between multiple codex. Only major change has been the warpspider jump thingie.
Seriously people are expecting way too much if they are expecting big changes with these things. Be thankful they nerfed warp spiders with this. Guess it was too broken even for GW to not do something about it.
angelofvengeance wrote: Well... the DEFAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!
What hard to understand archon entry has?
You weren't seriously expecting major changes to rules in a faq?
I was hoping they'd buggered up the listing for the Archon. In the previous codex they had more than one option for power weapons...and ghostplate armour that wasn't a relic.
Crazyterran wrote: At least it's confirmed 100% that De just need to take a lamean and can just ignore their HQ slot.
I'm not sure why that was ever a question. There is nothing in the Court of the Archon's dataslate that remotely suggests you have to have an Archon to bring a Court.
Crazyterran wrote: At least it's confirmed 100% that De just need to take a lamean and can just ignore their HQ slot.
I'm not sure why that was ever a question. There is nothing in the Court of the Archon's dataslate that remotely suggests you have to have an Archon to bring a Court.
it just wasn't intuitive and different from previous codex. but fortunately the community came to the correct consensus.
Crazyterran wrote: At least it's confirmed 100% that De just need to take a lamean and can just ignore their HQ slot.
I'm not sure why that was ever a question. There is nothing in the Court of the Archon's dataslate that remotely suggests you have to have an Archon to bring a Court.
Nothing to say the venom cannons aren't pintle mantle or Freakish Spectacle not stacking... at this point I'm weeping tears of happiness for anything in the F&Q which isn't a direct nerf to DE.
Crazyterran wrote: At least it's confirmed 100% that De just need to take a lamean and can just ignore their HQ slot.
I'm not sure why that was ever a question. There is nothing in the Court of the Archon's dataslate that remotely suggests you have to have an Archon to bring a Court.
Nothing to say the venom cannons aren't pintle mantle or Freakish Spectacle not stacking... at this point I'm weeping tears of happiness for anything in the F&Q which isn't a direct nerf to DE.
Whilst the Venom change seems stupid, it doesn't actually matter much to me, I always make sure I've got my Venoms pointe at their intended targets so I can get both guns to fire at it anyway, this wont change that. As for the Freakish Spectacle change, no one runs a Covenite Coterie to begin with.
Gorkanaught and Morkanught: Super-Heavy Assault Transport.
Tankbustas: each model may use up to one grenade per phase
Leadership: you may substitute a model's Ld for the number of Ere We Go models in the unit (including Meks and IC's) 11+ models = Fearless
I hate to be pessimistic but GW isn't going to throw Orks a bone. The Ork codex needs major changes to fix its many problems and that won't fit in an Errata. Only things I could see being changed is Stikkbomb Chukkas and Deffrollas to not be 99.99% useless and at best make Cybork add +1 to FNP instead of the abysmal 6+ that doesn't stack with a painboy's FNP.
Edit: Maybe Flash Gitz having only 6+ armor was a mistake when they naturally had 4+ back in 5th edtion so they might correct that (also why do they all have bosspoles?). Honestly I just hope they just don't nerf our stuff because it wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Gorkanaught and Morkanught: Super-Heavy Assault Transport.
Tankbustas: each model may use up to one grenade per phase
Leadership: you may substitute a model's Ld for the number of Ere We Go models in the unit (including Meks and IC's) 11+ models = Fearless
Lol dream on. They won't do that big rule changes. And why tank bustas would somehow be better grenade throwers than others? They just clarified it was meant to be 1 per guy from get go. they won't invent new exceptions for old codexes.
Tankbustas: each model may use up to one grenade per phase
Hmm. Actually .... I know that's half in jest, but that COULD be a good way of marking dedicated "storm trooper" units, like Tankbustas, Fire Dragons, Assault Marines etc. Allow THOSE units to use one bomb per model, certainly at least in an Assault.
Sorry to go slightly OT, just a thought that popped into my head.
Tankbustas: each model may use up to one grenade per phase
Hmm. Actually .... I know that's half in jest, but that COULD be a good way of marking dedicated "storm trooper" units, like Tankbustas, Fire Dragons, Assault Marines etc. Allow THOSE units to use one bomb per model, certainly at least in an Assault.
Sorry to go slightly OT, just a thought that popped into my head.
If they really wanted that, it would just be put into the statline. Screamers of Tzeentch have an ability that lets any or all of the Screamers trade their attacks for a single mini-Meltabomb attack (S5 AP2 Armorbane), so if they wanted other units to do the same thing, they would just let them.
And no Errata so far has changed point costs, at least in these 7e updates. I don't know why one would imagine there would be.
Not expecting one, but hoping they might do one in the interest of the good of the game (crazy thought I know). And it isn't like they have never done it so it isn't exactly something impossible to wish for.
I can't recall a single example of GW updating a points cost in an FAQ, other than to correct a typo.
Thachng wrote: they made the helbrute cheaper in the CSMfaq
True, but that was a case of inconsistencies. Some languages had the points cost correct, other language codices had it at 5 points higher. So they used an FAQ to indicate which one was correct.
strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
The trend in these faq's has been to answer questions and if necessary, errata a rule that has been raised by community questions that needed clarification or re-writing.
We can only guess at their intentions but my guess is that big rules changes and points cost adjustment will not happen in the remaining FAQ's
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
The trend in these faq's has been to answer questions and if necessary, errata a rule that has been raised by community questions that needed clarification or re-writing.
We can only guess at their intentions but my guess is that big rules changes and points cost adjustment will not happen in the remaining FAQ's
Usually they tend to post on the 40k facebook closer to noon Eastern Time Zone.
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
No its not, it's still too early for the FAQ (last week was an exception).
Vankraken wrote:
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
The trend in these faq's has been to answer questions and if necessary, errata a rule that has been raised by community questions that needed clarification or re-writing.
We can only guess at their intentions but my guess is that big rules changes and points cost adjustment will not happen in the remaining FAQ's
Usually they tend to post on the 40k facebook closer to noon Eastern Time Zone.
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
No its not, it's still too early for the FAQ (last week was an exception).
Vankraken wrote:
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
The trend in these faq's has been to answer questions and if necessary, errata a rule that has been raised by community questions that needed clarification or re-writing.
We can only guess at their intentions but my guess is that big rules changes and points cost adjustment will not happen in the remaining FAQ's
Usually they tend to post on the 40k facebook closer to noon Eastern Time Zone.
I can only hope it's Orks today.
Come on, GW. WAAAAGH!!!!!
I'm betting we'll get either Tau or Necrons this week, followed by the other next week.
Odds are Tyranids/Orks/Daemons/CSM's will be the final ones to get a release, since we're the NPC armies.
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
No its not, it's still too early for the FAQ (last week was an exception).
Vankraken wrote:
Nithaniel wrote: strange that there hasn't been an faq released this week. Normally released on Wednesday mornings.
The trend in these faq's has been to answer questions and if necessary, errata a rule that has been raised by community questions that needed clarification or re-writing.
We can only guess at their intentions but my guess is that big rules changes and points cost adjustment will not happen in the remaining FAQ's
Usually they tend to post on the 40k facebook closer to noon Eastern Time Zone.
I can only hope it's Orks today.
Come on, GW. WAAAAGH!!!!!
I'm betting we'll get either Tau or Necrons this week, followed by the other next week.
Odds are Tyranids/Orks/Daemons/CSM's will be the final ones to get a release, since we're the NPC armies.
About half way through it. It's good to see they clarified the Firestream Wing formation. I think this is their way to give Tau a summoning style unit and the ITC didn't like that. Poor guy who took that list and then had it nerfed the day he showed up to the tournament must be feeling pretty vindicated right now.
Edit
More implied language we can stack our signature systems on a single guy, but not explicitly stated.
The coordinated Firepower ruling has improves slightly and I think the way they worded it means that special rules conferred on a to unit basis don't share. So for example squad one has monster hunter and then squad b and c attack a monsterous creature. In the old rules it was muddled enough to say they combine their firepower and thus b and c would gain monster hunter. Now it seems to say they just make shooting attacks and gain benefits from the ML expended.
The "bad guy" armies like Nids/Orks/CSM all have terrible rules and are often referred to as "NPC" armies (using video game slang) to point out that all of the "protagonist" armies like SM, Eldar, and Tau will just shred them on the table. In order to "Forge a Narrative" all of the good guy armies will beat the tar out of faceless, NPC armies, while the three traditional bad guy armies are possibly the three worst armies in 40k.
Desubot wrote: Awesome you can now totally kneecap a storm surge with a tank shock and just straight kill it if its anchored (edit)
Does it? I didn't see that in the FAQ.
Edit
Oh I see it now. Welp never anchoring them ever again. Didn't usually anyways since it wasn't the optimal way to use them. Now expect your average Tau to be even cheesier as they are forced to move up a pair for stomping times.
Riptides can take ECPA again. So if I have a FSE list and the Riptide Wing they can reroll their nova reactors twice.
buddha wrote: The priahna ruling makes no sense with the BRBFAQ that you cannot leave the turn you arrive from reserves.
It's their way of giving the Tau a summoning unit. Tau ignore cover as well that's not being faq'ed away either that ML's exist. It's a faction specific rule.
Oh look... Holophoton Countermeasures, on units of Ghost Keels work exactly the way 90% of people figured they would... and directly opposite that ridiculous ITC ruling from last year. :-p
Markers seem to have gotten a huge boost to me. Ignoring Void Shields and being assessed after jink decision is very very good. Ghostkeels got clarified as expected, no biggie there.
Overall slight nerf to Surges, who will now just not be anchored near tanks. Not a big deal.
buddha wrote: The priahna ruling makes no sense with the BRBFAQ that you cannot leave the turn you arrive from reserves.
It's their way of giving the Tau a summoning unit. Tau ignore cover as well that's not being faq'ed away either that ML's exist. It's a faction specific rule.
No it's not saying the unit can enter reserves each turn IF they are already on the table.
Is not the same thing as saying they can enter and leave reserves in the same turn.
jifel wrote: Markers seem to have gotten a huge boost to me. Ignoring Void Shields and being assessed after jink decision is very very good. Ghostkeels got clarified as expected, no biggie there.
Overall slight nerf to Surges, who will now just not be anchored near tanks. Not a big deal.
Or not anchored at all if you play the bash bros style of play.
jifel wrote: Markers seem to have gotten a huge boost to me. Ignoring Void Shields and being assessed after jink decision is very very good. Ghostkeels got clarified as expected, no biggie there.
Overall slight nerf to Surges, who will now just not be anchored near tanks. Not a big deal.
Or not anchored at all if you play the bash bros style of play.
Yeah double stomping Surges are scary. Darn Tau...
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Oh look... Holophoton Countermeasures, on units of Ghost Keels work exactly the way 90% of people figured they would... and directly opposite that ridiculous ITC ruling from last year. :-p
ITC changed it after like 2 months Hardly a gotcha. Considering hunter contingent is exactly how ITC ruled it compared to the ridiculousness of tfg tau players.
The only one the ITC has gotten right is the Hunter Contingent. Otherwise they were so wrong in their rulings. Especially the Firesteam Wing! As well as the Ghostkeel one being really bad.
Gamgee wrote: The only one the ITC has gotten right is the Hunter Contingent. Otherwise they were so wrong in their rulings. Especially the Firesteam Wing!
No they weren't you still can't choose to leave and enter reseEve's the same turn. However you can respawn lost units.
The faq is also still not clear on immobilised results. The faq only says of all the units including be immobilised unit is within 6in of the board edge they can respawn at full strength. However this doesn't say anything about a piranha that's immobilised in the center of the board and abandoned.
Does this unit that is not within 6in of the board edge just magically disappear?
Is this unit just ignored and left on the board and a new piranha come on the board giving you 5 piranhas on the board?
Nothing in the faq clarified this!
Desubot wrote: Awesome you can now totally kneecap a storm surge with a tank shock and just straight kill it if its anchored (edit)
Wait, this is after the BRBFAQ specifically mentions that tank shocking is not intended as a means to remove models? That's kinda weird.
You always could remove models with tank shock that can't move.
The brbfaq only stated that if a model could move but not in the shortest path or not in unit coherency that it can still move out of a tank shock.
Gamgee wrote: The only one the ITC has gotten right is the Hunter Contingent. Otherwise they were so wrong in their rulings. Especially the Firesteam Wing!
No they weren't you still can't choose to leave and enter reseEve's the same turn. However you can respawn lost units.
The faq is also still not clear on immobilised results. The faq only says of all the units including be immobilised unit is within 6in of the board edge they can respawn at full strength. However this doesn't say anything about a piranha that's immobilised in the center of the board and abandoned.
Does this unit that is not within 6in of the board edge just magically disappear?
Is this unit just ignored and left on the board and a new piranha come on the board giving you 5 piranhas on the board?
Nothing in the faq clarified this!
They ruled that the Firestream Wing could not enter the table and go back into the reserves on the same turn and it clearly states here they can. That is the main ruling I'm refering to. The player who brought it even used it to summon drones, drop them off ect. As well as block units off with the drones or even the Firestream Wing.
Question - I believe in the BRBFAQ, it stated that models that can fire two weapons 'in the shooting phase' are allowed to shoot two weapons in overwatch. Is that contradicted anywhere in this FAQ for multi-trackers? I don't think it was.
Also, it says that MCs firing ordnance weapons cannot fire anything further. That is a completely new rule to me - I know that vehicles have limitations when firing ordnance, but I never knew MCs did.
Has the MC limitation always been the case, or is that new?
Gamgee wrote: The only one the ITC has gotten right is the Hunter Contingent. Otherwise they were so wrong in their rulings. Especially the Firesteam Wing!
No they weren't you still can't choose to leave and enter reseEve's the same turn. However you can respawn lost units.
The faq is also still not clear on immobilised results. The faq only says of all the units including be immobilised unit is within 6in of the board edge they can respawn at full strength. However this doesn't say anything about a piranha that's immobilised in the center of the board and abandoned.
Does this unit that is not within 6in of the board edge just magically disappear?
Is this unit just ignored and left on the board and a new piranha come on the board giving you 5 piranhas on the board?
Nothing in the faq clarified this!
They ruled that the Firestream Wing could not enter the table and go back into the reserves on the same turn and it clearly states here they can. That is the main ruling I'm refering to. The player who brought it even used it to summon drones, drop them off ect. As well as block units off with the drones or even the Firestream Wing.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Also, kind of interesting that crisis suits have the choice of taking one twin-linked weapon or two non twin linked weapons for the same points cost.
They're not the same points cost. For example a twin-linked Burst Cannon cost 15 points, while two Burst Cannons would cost 20 points.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Question - I believe in the BRBFAQ, it stated that models that can fire two weapons 'in the shooting phase' are allowed to shoot two weapons in overwatch. Is that contradicted anywhere in this FAQ for multi-trackers? I don't think it was.
Also, it says that MCs firing ordnance weapons cannot fire anything further. That is a completely new rule to me - I know that vehicles have limitations when firing ordnance, but I never knew MCs did.
Has the MC limitation always been the case, or is that new?
It's clearly stated in the rules. The limitation is for all "non-vehicle models". They can't charge either. Vehicles on the other hand can shoot other weapons but only as snap shots.
So here's a question: Monstrous Creatures can't fire an Ordinance weapon and then shoot any other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures shoot as Monstrous Creatures, but can fire all of their weapons at different targets. So if a Surge shoots its Pulse Driver Cannon, can it shoot the rest of its guns?
jifel wrote: So here's a question: Monstrous Creatures can't fire an Ordinance weapon and then shoot any other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures shoot as Monstrous Creatures, but can fire all of their weapons at different targets. So if a Surge shoots its Pulse Driver Cannon, can it shoot the rest of its guns?
The Gargantuan rules specifically state that firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on them.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
Unfortunately it currently states "every", not "each". So as written I would read that as saying that they can come and go without having to spend the turn on the board. I don't like it, but I do think it's clear that they can leave the same turn they come in.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
Unfortunately it currently states "every", not "each". So as written I would read that as saying that they can come and go without having to spend the turn on the board. I don't like it, but I do think it's clear that they can leave the same turn they come in.
Each or every still doesn't mean they can choose to go in and out of reserves the same turn. That's not what that sentence says. It only states they can go into reserves every turn. There are other abilities in game that forces a unit into ongoing reserves.
jifel wrote: So here's a question: Monstrous Creatures can't fire an Ordinance weapon and then shoot any other weapons. Gargantuan Creatures shoot as Monstrous Creatures, but can fire all of their weapons at different targets. So if a Surge shoots its Pulse Driver Cannon, can it shoot the rest of its guns?
The Gargantuan rules specifically state that firing Ordnance weapons has no effect on them.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
Unfortunately it currently states "every", not "each". So as written I would read that as saying that they can come and go without having to spend the turn on the board. I don't like it, but I do think it's clear that they can leave the same turn they come in.
Each or every still doesn't mean they can choose to go in and out of reserves the same turn. That's not what that sentence says. It only states they can go into reserves every turn. There are other abilities in game that forces a unit into ongoing reserves.
I would say that "every" covers "the same turn". The problem is that they chose a bad question as the basis of that clarification. The question needed to be "can the formation enter reserves the same turn that it arrived from reserves" or something along those lines.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
Unfortunately it currently states "every", not "each". So as written I would read that as saying that they can come and go without having to spend the turn on the board. I don't like it, but I do think it's clear that they can leave the same turn they come in.
Each or every still doesn't mean they can choose to go in and out of reserves the same turn. That's not what that sentence says. It only states they can go into reserves every turn. There are other abilities in game that forces a unit into ongoing reserves.
I would say that "every" covers "the same turn". The problem is that they chose a bad question as the basis of that clarification. The question needed to be "can the formation enter reserves the same turn that it arrived from reserves" or something along those lines.
I would say no simply because we already have a faq that says you can't do that and nothing in this faq changes that even if people try to twist the interpretation to imply that.
gungo wrote: I would say no simply because we already have a faq that says you can't do that and nothing in this faq changes that even if people try to twist the interpretation to imply that.
Codex trumps BRB, so the rulings are not actually conflicting.
Edit: At the very least this does nothing to settle the debate.
gungo wrote: I would say no simply because we already have a faq that says you can't do that and nothing in this faq changes that even if people try to twist the interpretation to imply that.
Codex trumps BRB, so the rulings are not actually conflicting.
Good thing these are both faqs and not codex or brb entries
Glad to see some of the nonsense ITC rulings were confirmed as incorrect interpretations and that the rules were intended to work as most Tau players interpreted them.
Lord Blackscale wrote: I love that they made immobilized vehicles able to drive off the board. And then come back repaired! Feth this gak.
Again this faq is horribly written.
It states a unit within 6in of the table edge can go into reserves and come back at full strength even if one of them is immobilised however
It states nothing about an immobilised piranha that is not within 6in of the board edge and abandoned.
Do we just assume it magically disappears and the unit comes back at full strength Even though it's no longer part of the unit?
Or do we just assume it's a new unit and now the tau player gets a free piranha on the board going from 4 to 5 piranhas?
Heck if that's the case feel free to go over some dangerous terrain so you can spawn multiple free piranhas!!!
The point is the faq doesn't clarify these questions!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Glad to see some of the nonsense ITC rulings were confirmed as incorrect interpretations and that the rules were intended to work as most Tau players interpreted them.
The only ITC ruling changed was rearm and refuel spawns the unit back at full strength if the entire remaining unit is within 6in of the board edge.
Stormsurge ruling is the same
Coordinated fire is the same
Halo measures is the same
Drone factory is still the same (unless GW states this formation overrides the brbfaq)
In other words tau players were mostly wrong
Lord Blackscale wrote: I love that they made immobilized vehicles able to drive off the board. And then come back repaired! Feth this gak.
Again this faq is horribly written.
It states a unit within 6in of the table edge can go into reserves and come back at full strength even if one of them is immobilised however
It states nothing about an immobilised piranha that is not within 6in of the board edge and abandoned.
Do we just assume it magically disappears and the unit comes back at full strength Even though it's no longer part of the unit?
Or do we just assume it's a new unit and now the tau player gets a free piranha on the board going from 4 to 5 piranhas?
Heck if that's the case feel free to go over some dangerous terrain so you can spawn multiple free piranhas!!!
The point is the faq doesn't clarify these questions!
The question is definitely bad. It's ambiguous. It references "the unit", but we don't know if that means the original unit before being split apart by an immobilization or the resulting 3 Piranha unit after being split. I'm inclined to say the latter as the former no longer exists when we're moving off the board. That would mean that yes, you could go from 4 to 5-7 Piranhas (depending on how many were immobilized). Probably needs a clarification.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Question - I believe in the BRBFAQ, it stated that models that can fire two weapons 'in the shooting phase' are allowed to shoot two weapons in overwatch. Is that contradicted anywhere in this FAQ for multi-trackers? I don't think it was.
Also, it says that MCs firing ordnance weapons cannot fire anything further. That is a completely new rule to me - I know that vehicles have limitations when firing ordnance, but I never knew MCs did.
Has the MC limitation always been the case, or is that new?
It's clearly stated in the rules. The limitation is for all "non-vehicle models". They can't charge either. Vehicles on the other hand can shoot other weapons but only as snap shots.
MCs (and vehicles, for that matter) can definitely charge after firing ordnance weapons, they both have relentless. I suppose that ordnance does disallow further shooting from a non-vehicle model, but I always thought that relentless canceled that part out too. I guess not.
Gamgee wrote: The only one the ITC has gotten right is the Hunter Contingent. Otherwise they were so wrong in their rulings. Especially the Firesteam Wing!
No they weren't you still can't choose to leave and enter reseEve's the same turn. However you can respawn lost units.
The faq is also still not clear on immobilised results. The faq only says of all the units including be immobilised unit is within 6in of the board edge they can respawn at full strength. However this doesn't say anything about a piranha that's immobilised in the center of the board and abandoned.
Does this unit that is not within 6in of the board edge just magically disappear?
Is this unit just ignored and left on the board and a new piranha come on the board giving you 5 piranhas on the board?
Nothing in the faq clarified this!
They ruled that the Firestream Wing could not enter the table and go back into the reserves on the same turn and it clearly states here they can. That is the main ruling I'm refering to. The player who brought it even used it to summon drones, drop them off ect. As well as block units off with the drones or even the Firestream Wing.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
It's still a turn the first turn or any turn it enters. I enter from reserves drop drones and then leave that turn. Nothing explicitly prevents it, but it's been a long time since I've played a game so I could be rusty. In the FAQ page 2 it specifically says may enter reserves on every turn. EVERY. As in all inclusive. Opposite of nothing. You won't find rules for markerlights in the BRB and yet we still use those rules as in our codex.
Of course it trumps the base rules. Or else formations would be useless.
Uh your Skyhammer isn't in the BRB and none of its rules are. Oh geez guess you can't use it then base rule book doesn't say it exists or provides those rules.
In this case it says it can return to reserves on ANY turn. It does not say you can't do that on the first.
Using your logic anything not in the BRB would be useless and non-existent. Rendering codices useless.
Gamgee wrote: The only one the ITC has gotten right is the Hunter Contingent. Otherwise they were so wrong in their rulings. Especially the Firesteam Wing!
No they weren't you still can't choose to leave and enter reseEve's the same turn. However you can respawn lost units.
The faq is also still not clear on immobilised results. The faq only says of all the units including be immobilised unit is within 6in of the board edge they can respawn at full strength. However this doesn't say anything about a piranha that's immobilised in the center of the board and abandoned.
Does this unit that is not within 6in of the board edge just magically disappear?
Is this unit just ignored and left on the board and a new piranha come on the board giving you 5 piranhas on the board?
Nothing in the faq clarified this!
They ruled that the Firestream Wing could not enter the table and go back into the reserves on the same turn and it clearly states here they can. That is the main ruling I'm refering to. The player who brought it even used it to summon drones, drop them off ect. As well as block units off with the drones or even the Firestream Wing.
No it doesn't saying you can go into reserves each turn is NOT the same as saying you can enter and leave reserves on the same turn.
You are making up new rules.
It's still a turn the first turn or any turn it enters. I enter from reserves drop drones and then leave that turn. Nothing explicitly prevents it, but it's been a long time since I've played a game so I could be rusty. In the FAQ page 2 it specifically says may enter reserves on every turn. EVERY. As in all inclusive. Opposite of nothing. You won't find rules for markerlights in the BRB and yet we still use those rules as in our codex.
Of course it trumps the base rules. Or else formations would be useless.
Uh your Skyhammer isn't in the BRB and none of its rules are. Oh geez guess you can't use it then base rule book doesn't say it exists or provides those rules.
In this case it says it can return to reserves on ANY turn. It does not say you can't do that on the first.
Using your logic anything not in the BRB would be useless and non-existent. Rendering codices useless.
The feth are you on about? Formations that override the BRB have specific rules that allow them to do so. They say things like "these units can charge even though they arrived from Deep Strike Reserve" and things like that.
Does the Firestream Wing have a rule that says "these units may leave the board on the same turn they arrived"? No? Then it doesn't override the rule. It's not hard if you think for 2 seconds.
Except it does now! It's been FAQ'ed to say EVERY turn. EVERY! Read it! Do I have to literally type it out verbatim?
It's modifying the formation rule that allows them to leave the turn they enter and still lets them do it the same turn.
"Q: Does the Rearm and Refuel special rule for the Piranha Firestream Formation from War Zone Damocles: Mont'ka allow the unit to into Ongoing Reserves every turn (As long as it is near the table edge as specified in the rules)?
A: Yes"
It quite clearly asks if it allows it every turn and it says yes. Crystal clear no room for interpretation. And it very clearly is clarifying the rule that allows this formation to work. Now normally your right a unit can't enter and exit in the same turn, but this formation allows it to do that. Now your wrong in your interpretation so badly it isn't funny. Your not going to disprove me wrong. At best if enough people feel it's a problem they can get GW to take a look at changing it if they feel its too overpowered. I personally don't think it's an issue with all the crazy summoning shenanigans other armies have.
Odds are Tyranids/Orks/Daemons/CSM's will be the final ones to get a release, since we're the NPC armies.
I'm not sure what you mean by NPC armies.
It refers to the tendency of game companies to turn the coolest armies (skaven, orcs, chaos, etc) into non playable hordes in video/tabletop games.
Think of Vermintide, Space Marine, Armageddon, etc.
He's saying Tyranids/Orks/Daemons/CSM are basically relegated to being like the skaven hordes in this game, meant for the good guys to slaughter by the dozens:
Gamgee wrote: Except it does now! It's been FAQ'ed to say EVERY turn. EVERY! Read it! Do I have to literally type it out verbatim?
It's modifying the formation rule that allows them to leave the turn they enter and still lets them do it the same turn.
"Q: Does the Rearm and Refuel special rule for the Piranha Firestream Formation from War Zone Damocles: Mont'ka allow the unit to into Ongoing Reserves every turn (As long as it is near the table edge as specified in the rules)?
A: Yes"
It quite clearly asks if it allows it every turn and it says yes. Crystal clear no room for interpretation. And it very clearly is clarifying the rule that allows this formation to work. Now normally your right a unit can't enter and exit in the same turn, but this formation allows it to do that. Now your wrong in your interpretation so badly it isn't funny. Your not going to disprove me wrong. At best if enough people feel it's a problem they can get GW to take a look at changing it if they feel its too overpowered. I personally don't think it's an issue with all the crazy summoning shenanigans other armies have.
Source if someone hasn't somehow seen it.
Spoiler:
You do realize there are other abilities in game that can put a unit into ongoing reserves and thus your piranhas can enter reserves every turn!!
However what this faq and formation does NOT allow is any verbiage that states you can ignore the brb or the recent brbfaq that states you can't enter and leave reserves the same turn.
Saying the piranhas unit can enter reserves every turn is a completely true statement
However that is no where near the same as saying the piranha unit can enter the leave reserves the same turn.
You are reaching here especially when the brbfaq is clear that this is NOT allowed.
And no where in this faq does it override the brbfaq even the word EVERY doesn't mean it overrides anything because the ability to enter reserves every turn is not restricted by the fact you CANT bypass the rule that prohibits you from entering and leaving reserves the same turn.
Then ask for further clarifications. Since it isn't saying it can't and it would have been easy to reference the FAQ in one line to just say no. I seen someone ask it, but it would be good to have more people asking for further clarifications.
I'm not arguing if it's balanced or right. I'm arguing the logic and the order of operations. As it is it could use further clarification. I personally feel the way it's worded implies it truly does mean any and all turns. Or else they would say they can reenter on your next turn like in the ITC. It's pretty obvious the FAQ crew are familiar with the ITC FAQ so its likely they seen the Tau one as well and chose this wording specifically.
The brbfaq does say you can't enter and leave reserves the same turn that's the point!!!
This faq doesn't say you can.
It only says you can enter reserves every turn.
However that is not giving you an ability to enter the reserves the same turn that you just left.
Just the ability to enter reserves every turn if you already are on the board (and haven't already left reserves that turn per the brbfaq)
Edit
The FAQ as written says you may enter reserves on EVERY turn. Read it again and again and again that is the operative word of that sentence. It could be them not choosing their words correctly but it does contradict the BRBfaq rule. Maybe it is an exception and they can enter reserves the same turn they arrive maybe they can't but the two rules are just contradictory enough to need to be questioned. Get on Facebook and ask.
As written it most certainly implies they can. As written the BRBfaq says they can't. So which one is right? Ask GW.
Frozocrone wrote: My friends and I were laughing at the Stormsurge ruling, since our friend who joined the bandwagon for Tau bought one not too long ago.
Overall it seems like Tau got some buffs and also some nerfs.
Calling the next one to be Necrons (as they are pretty popular). Orks probably after that, or the two switched around.
People are slightly over reacting to this
First the biggest example I hear is rhino tank shocking the Stormsurge.
I someone is dumb enough to tankshock a rhino into a Stormsurge
Just death or glory it into oblivion
A death or glory automatically hits with no cover save
A Stormsurge hits it at str10 ap1 or str d.
A roll of 1 is an auto glance but smash allows reroll so just take it and pen the rhino.
A pen result with +2 modifier is a stun or better on a roll of a 2+ and the tank shock is stopped
Or use the str d table instead for d3 hull or a 6 result in hopes you will outright kill the tank however you might get unlucky with a 1 result.
Either way the rhino is toast
Honestly I wouldn't take my chances using any tank model that's av12 or less.
And any tau player using anchors with an av13+ vehicle within 12inches deserves to lose thier Stormsurge to a lucky tankshock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Yep Necrons seem almost guaranteed to be next.
Edit
The FAQ as written says you may enter reserves on EVERY turn. Read it again and again and again that is the operative word of that sentence. It could be them not choosing their words correctly but it does contradict the BRBfaq rule. Maybe it is an exception and they can enter reserves the same turn they arrive maybe they can't but the two rules are just contradictory enough to need to be questioned. Get on Facebook and ask.
As written it most certainly implies they can. As written the BRBfaq says they can't. So which one is right? Ask GW.
The piranha wing always had the ability to enter reserves every turn that doesn't matter.
It had the ability to enter EVERY turn before this faq existed what it still doesn't have is the ability to enter reserves the turn it leaves reserves. Saying EVERY all in caps and repeating yourself doesn't automatically grant it permission to do so.
Nor does this faq allow it especially when we have a clear faq that still says you specifically can't do it.
+1 modifier from Smash. So you need either a 6, 5 or 3 to save the Stormsurge.
Factoring in the unlikely chance of a double 1, you're looking at 34% chance of stopping the Rhino, pretty good odds for a ~35 point model.
Don't think I've seen anyone use the Blast Cannon, everyone wants the driver cannon due to Large Blast S10 AP2 and 72" range. If it is the Blast Cannon variant, I'd probably avoid it like the plague and take it out the game.
Yes the base blast cannon varient is the str d ap1 weapon vs tank shock.
I'm not sure how you are avoiding a garagautuan with a 30in range weapon but whatever.
If you are using pulse driver or the normal smash atk that's just str 10 ap2 smash and 48.6% not 34%
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: It doesn't say it can't. I was right on about the Ghostkeel ruling when I argued it to death and back. I got a feeling I'm going to be right again.
We've each said out piece at this point. Can only wait for GW to further FAQ it.
The ghosting faq lasted all of 2 months in the ITC the majority agreed with you. And you argued a bunch of stuff that hasn't been correct I'd hardly call that a trend.
Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.
They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.
Davor wrote: Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.
They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.
It doesn't matter if he accepts it or not there is so much poorly worded faqs in this that I was literally arguing with a tau player who now believes he can not only enter and leave reserves with his piranha wing each turn but that the immobilised faq now allows piranhas to enter and leave reserves even if abandoned and immobilised.
And now he thinks he can take 4 piranha enter from reserves move over difficult terrain immobilise 1 piranha, abandon it to form a second unit, then have both units enter reserves at the end of the movement phase and come back next turn with 2 units of 4 piranhas because now they are seperate units. Heck turn 3 he thinks he can spawn 16 piranhas and drones, etc.
Since the newly created unit formed from the immobilised piranha doesn't form part of the formation, why on earth would he think that it gains those rules?
Not sure what the argument is about. They will make it clear in the final version. If each of us posts to the fb page with their interpretation, we just might sway them one way or the other.
Davor wrote: Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.
They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.
He's far too busy fighting a twitter war with Notorious RBG to respond right now. I'm sure he'll get back to you after his spray tan appointment tomorrow.
Gamgee wrote: It's still a turn the first turn or any turn it enters. I enter from reserves drop drones and then leave that turn. Nothing explicitly prevents it, but it's been a long time since I've played a game so I could be rusty. In the FAQ page 2 it specifically says may enter reserves on every turn. EVERY. As in all inclusive. Opposite of nothing. You won't find rules for markerlights in the BRB and yet we still use those rules as in our codex.
Question btw isn't does something explictly prevent it but explictly allows it. If it's not explictly allowed it's not possible. Even if there's nothing explictly preventing from doing it.
AndrewC wrote: Since the newly created unit formed from the immobilised piranha doesn't form part of the formation, why on earth would he think that it gains those rules?
Cheers
Andrew
The thing is, afaik, there is no concept of new, old or original units in 40k, not for this specific case anyway. BRB just says that you should count them as separate units after it was abandoned. Who is to say that the immobilised vehicle is the new unit and not the other piranhas? There is just no information about it, so technically to assume that that one immobilised piranhia can regenerate back to it's "original" unit size is just as good position as any. To do so would make you tfg, but hey, when was that a stopping factor in 40k?
Also, even if we don't count an immobilised piranha as part of the formation you can still regenerate it in another unit thus potentially fielding more of the damn things than you started with, which is still stupid beyond reason imo.
Interesting. The rulebook and FAQ also don't say that I can't reach over the table and break all of your models. Do you really wanna play that game? Permissive ruleset man. They tell you what you can do, not what you can't.
Interestingly, the Tau formation can go into reserves every turn (and comes back at full starting value if it lost any models), which isn't in line with the battle rulebook FAQ.
Frozocrone wrote: Interestingly, the Tau formation can go into reserves every turn (and comes back at full starting value if it lost any models), which isn't in line with the battle rulebook FAQ.
Looks like Firestream is back to stay.
Don't forget that they went out to specifically state that Supporting Fire is Overwatch for all intents and purposes....
And then stated it can be used against things immune to Overwatch.
They clarify a rule...
And then they go and complicate it right after.
I'm not going to be sad that it hits Eldar (because holy balls Banshee masks) but it does kind of feel like another kick in the teeth for CSM.
AndrewC wrote: Since the newly created unit formed from the immobilised piranha doesn't form part of the formation, why on earth would he think that it gains those rules?
Cheers
Andrew
The thing is, afaik, there is no concept of new, old or original units in 40k, not for this specific case anyway. BRB just says that you should count them as separate units after it was abandoned. Who is to say that the immobilised vehicle is the new unit and not the other piranhas? There is just no information about it, so technically to assume that that one immobilised piranhia can regenerate back to it's "original" unit size is just as good position as any. To do so would make you tfg, but hey, when was that a stopping factor in 40k?
Also, even if we don't count an immobilised piranha as part of the formation you can still regenerate it in another unit thus potentially fielding more of the damn things than you started with, which is still stupid beyond reason imo.
There is however the limitations created about the allocation of special rules which has been clarified to show that the rules only apply to the units were originally part of the formation.
The rules on P79 does actually provide guidance as to who is the original unit. Since the unit has to move away from the immobilised vehicle and that fundamental unit never changes it can be easily seen that that it is the original unit. The immobilised unit never exists as a unit until the rest has left.
As I alluded to above, the new unit was not purchased or organised into the Firestream formation so it can't access the formation rules.
Frozocrone wrote: My friends and I were laughing at the Stormsurge ruling, since our friend who joined the bandwagon for Tau bought one not too long ago.
Overall it seems like Tau got some buffs and also some nerfs.
Calling the next one to be Necrons (as they are pretty popular). Orks probably after that, or the two switched around.
I'm assuming Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, then Chaos (CSM and Daemons combined). That would cover everyone, right?
Vector Strike wrote: It's not a new unit, it's the old one remade. They're always part of the original unit.
Exactly detachment rules apply to all models purchased as part of that detachment.
The abandoned pirahna is still part of the detschment except being abandoned is the only way it can form a seperate unit.
So now you have two units that are part of the formation and both are able to enter reserves and come back as thier original size.
There is obviously mAssive intent issues with the way these rules are written and GW did a horrible job at answering and choosing which questions to answer.
No one really cares or questioned about immobilised models that are within 6in of the board edge and still part of the original unit.
The formation rules are specific that those models can enter reserves.
The question was immobilised and abandoned units that form a seperate unit? What happens in that situation?
Just like the reserve question is just horribly chosen and answered.
Can my unit enter reserves? Yes
Great who cares? I know my unit can enter reserves every turn. It literally says that in the formation rules.
The question is can it choose to enter and leave reserves in the same turn (aka movement phase).
These faqs are obviously a quickly done draft format for a reason
Someone mentioned a potential ork FAQ, and it made me wonder - what is there even to FAQ? I don't think there's a lot of questions about the codex.
I'd prefer an errata for mob rule to apply to fear tests, but that's probably not going to happen.
Maybe a clarification on double 5s on the SAG - does the big mek immediately charge, which causes the target unit unable to be shot at for the remainder of the shooting phase?
Past that, I can't think of much that is debatable or confusing.
Davor wrote: Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.
They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.
The counter point is that the FAQ addresses when the unit can leave the table, which is every turn. Since the unit is put into Ongoing Reserves, it must reenter the subsequent turn. Therefore permission to leave every turn, is also permission to enter and leave every turn.
But this is a YMDC issue and not a News and Rumors one.
@Kap'n: Lets hope for an unprecedented errata regarding Dorkanauts point cost, firepoints, transport capacity, and or super heavy. Oh man I got a wish list to beat the band.
@Tau Piranha Argument: So the main debate here is can the Piranha FSW come in from ongoing reserve, and leave the same turn?
@Tau Stormsurge Tactics: Some scouting/outflanking Battle Wagons tank shocking from the board edge might make the Tau player think twice about the "Corner Castle" strategy.
doktor_g wrote: @Kap'n: Lets hope for an unprecedented errata regarding Dorkanauts point cost, firepoints, transport capacity, and or super heavy. Oh man I got a wish list to beat the band.
Hell, I think every ork player has a wish list, but I'm not holding out any real hope of hotfixes, just curious about actual ork FAQs.
Mob rule doesn't have any results for a 7+ that you would get from using waaagh ghazkull.
Hope is that is just fearless until end of turn; actual faq probably just says use the result of the 6 on the die.
Gamgee wrote: It's still a turn the first turn or any turn it enters. I enter from reserves drop drones and then leave that turn. Nothing explicitly prevents it, but it's been a long time since I've played a game so I could be rusty. In the FAQ page 2 it specifically says may enter reserves on every turn. EVERY. As in all inclusive. Opposite of nothing. You won't find rules for markerlights in the BRB and yet we still use those rules as in our codex.
Question btw isn't does something explictly prevent it but explictly allows it. If it's not explictly allowed it's not possible. Even if there's nothing explictly preventing from doing it.
40k's rules are permissive, if it doesn't say it can, then it can't.
Refute these points please Gamgee.
Fragile wrote:
Davor wrote: Gamgee please acknowledge what other people are saying please. You are still ignoring what they are saying.
They have countered your point, but all you are doing is rehashing your point without acknowledging what they said, and not countering what they have said. This is a one sided debate now that is going no where because you will not acknowledge what other people are saying.
The counter point is that the FAQ addresses when the unit can leave the table, which is every turn. Since the unit is put into Ongoing Reserves, it must reenter the subsequent turn. Therefore permission to leave every turn, is also permission to enter and leave every turn.
But this is a YMDC issue and not a News and Rumors one.
The way I see it is yes the FAQ says he can leave the table any turn. Nobody is arguing that point. What it DOESN't say is it can leave the turn it arrives. You still have to follow the rule "when a unit arrives it can't go back into reserve.. Where is the rule that says this part is over ridden? It doesn't. It just clearly says it can leave but you still have to follow the rules that lets it leave. So what are the rules that let it leave? I don't have the codex so I can't quote the rule.
But it doesn't matter, it's a first draft, not official only the errata is official correct? So we can debate this in YMDC when it is an official ruling.
doktor_g wrote: @Kap'n: Lets hope for an unprecedented errata regarding Dorkanauts point cost, firepoints, transport capacity, and or super heavy. Oh man I got a wish list to beat the band.
Hell, I think every ork player has a wish list, but I'm not holding out any real hope of hotfixes, just curious about actual ork FAQs.
gungo wrote:Mob rule doesn't have any results for a 7+ that you would get from using waaagh ghazkull.
Hope is that is just fearless until end of turn; actual faq probably just says use the result of the 6 on the die.
Guys, don't even start, hope is the straight way to disappointment. Orks will remain a bottom tier codex and an errata can't fix issues that lie in the plain of straight bad desighn.
I really don't have a problme with Piranhas needing to stick around for 1 turn, as I'd use them mostly for seeker spam than drone spam. My real peeve with this formation is if drones are part of it or not.
I keep hearing people mention that the BRBFAQ makes it so that a scattered blast that lands on a different unit than was targeted counts as having targeted the new unit.
Can anybody help me find this? I can't seem to see it anywhere.
Qlanth wrote: I keep hearing people mention that the BRBFAQ makes it so that a scattered blast that lands on a different unit than was targeted counts as having targeted the new unit.
Can anybody help me find this? I can't seem to see it anywhere.
It's on their facebook page under the BRBfaqs. There's links in the YMDC forum as well.
Qlanth wrote: I keep hearing people mention that the BRBFAQ makes it so that a scattered blast that lands on a different unit than was targeted counts as having targeted the new unit.
Can anybody help me find this? I can't seem to see it anywhere.
It's on their facebook page under the BRBfaqs. There's links in the YMDC forum as well.
I've seen the FAQ I just can't see where in the FAQ this is described. It's not under Blast Templates and doesn't seem to be under Ordnance or Shooting either.
Gamgee wrote: After giving it some consideration I was wrong. I think everyone who says it can't enter and leave in the same turn is right.
No matter which way it is eventually ruled, I would like to take a moment to show some respect to someone who's willing to admit they may be wrong in the Internet. Most people can't do that, so I salute you, sir.
Gamgee wrote: After giving it some consideration I was wrong. I think everyone who says it can't enter and leave in the same turn is right.
No matter which way it is eventually ruled, I would like to take a moment to show some respect to someone who's willing to admit they may be wrong in the Internet. Most people can't do that, so I salute you, sir.
That is why I have respect for him. I know I have been hard on him once before for not debating properly but he always mans up.
It was asked In the initial round of questions too however whomever decides which question to ask is doing a pretty poor job it's like they deliberated pick the most benign version of it.
My guess is they will answer someone's question like below that doesn't even ask the proper question.
Question: can a tau commander can take signature systems?
Answer: Yes
Tabkbustas are still pretty good for the price and the old way people used meltabombs made tankhammers irrelevant.
If anything the cost of tankhammers needs to go down to +5pts swap from the rokkits and nobs need to be clarified that they can take a powerklaw in exchange for the rokkit as well, however with a 5pt tankhammer I likely would never take a pk on a tankbusta nob. I like the grenade ruling overall.
But none of that will happen for Orks in a faq. I'm just hoping for a mob rule 7+ clarification, deff dread atk increase (yea right), clarifications on waagh ghazskull relics can be taken in a CAD, greentide added back to waaagh ghazskull and maybe made into a core choice (yea right), clarification on nobs taking pks in units that don't have a CC weapon they can swap (tankbustas), and minor kff clarifications such as how do you measure the kff on a wazbom blastjet (base or model) and is a kff meant to protect all units or just friendly units? There might be a few more clarifications for Orks I missed, but I don't see anything that can drastically help the army unless GW decides to add some decent formations for warbikers, tankbustas, lootas, Mek guns, deffkoptas, warbuggies/wartrakk, trukk boys, etc. you know the main choices most Orks uses that don't have any formations. In other words we need a speed freak supplement.
Gorkanaught and Morkanught: Super-Heavy Assault Transport.
Tankbustas: each model may use up to one grenade per phase
That be great.
I would be good to do something about flash gitz, though that won't happen. Tankbustas needs the fix back, tho.
The Gitz are fine, the only thing they need without getting into the more army wide issue with Orks is that they need their 4+ armor back (the 5th edition codex version had 4+ armor stock). Maybe they can give bosspoles some extra functionality considering they gave every Git one for no discernible reason . Tankbustas sadly get hosed by the terrible melee grenade ruling that GW needs to rethink. Too many armies pay points per model for grenades so it becomes incredibly dumb to have to pay a ton of points for a 12 man squad of say Fire Warriors to get EMP grenades to only be able to use 1 in CC. 2 units of 6 pay the exact same as a unit of 12 but can use twice the number of grenades in CC.
I wonder if Stikkbomb Chukkas and Deffrollas will be erratad to not be useless 99.99999% of the time.
All stickbomb chunkkas errata into stickbomb flingas from the wazbom blastjet... Done and you just fixed or helped a lot of Ork vehicles in the process.
FYI stikkbomb flingas is a 5++ save for the first glance or pen each turn.
gungo wrote: All stickbomb chunkkas errata into stickbomb flingas from the wazbom blastjet... Done and you just fixed or helped a lot of Ork vehicles in the process.
FYI stikkbomb flingas is a 5++ save for the first glance or pen each turn.
How's that work? Do the Orks use Grenades as flares?
Prediction (with no backing): GK and CSM won't get FAQs. Instead, they'll get a big update with Warzone: Fenris Part 2 and many of those rules will overwrite things that people are asking about, and then maybe a round of FAQs after.
Necrons
Orks
Tyranids
Chaos (CSM and Daemons)
Imperial Guard (Aster Miliwhatum? You're in The Guard, son)
Am I forgetting anyone?
Grey Knights are still missing as well. Did they do Inq yet?
Requizen wrote:Prediction (with no backing): GK and CSM won't get FAQs. Instead, they'll get a big update with Warzone: Fenris Part 2 and many of those rules will overwrite things that people are asking about, and then maybe a round of FAQs after.
anticitizen013 wrote: I don't know if I'm the only one but I really look forward to these FAQs... my life is clearly very exciting
I honestly only looked forward to seeing Tau, so I could start using my Hunter contingent again. Now I honestly don't care.
As far as the piranhas go, I know the BRBFAQ stated that you can not enter then leave in the same turn, however the FAQ for Tau specifically seems to state that the opposite is true for that formation only. Many formations have rules that over ride BRB rules. Its called a formation bonus, and its why people use formations. Im pretty sure the EVERY TURN is pretty clear, and not ambiguous at all. Its how I will play it until someone can point me to something that refutes this.
anticitizen013 wrote: I don't know if I'm the only one but I really look forward to these FAQs... my life is clearly very exciting
I honestly only looked forward to seeing Tau, so I could start using my Hunter contingent again. Now I honestly don't care.
As far as the piranhas go, I know the BRBFAQ stated that you can not enter then leave in the same turn, however the FAQ for Tau specifically seems to state that the opposite is true for that formation only. Many formations have rules that over ride BRB rules. Its called a formation bonus, and its why people use formations. Im pretty sure the EVERY TURN is pretty clear, and not ambiguous at all. Its how I will play it until someone can point me to something that refutes this.
It can leave on any turn, including the first, but the restriction on leaving the same turn you arrive is not mentioned or refuted and therefore is still in effect. Unless it is specifically countermanded, it doesn't just suddenly disappear. You leave the board in the same manner as any other unit that can leave the board, such as Flyers or FMCs, and they can't fly on and off.
anticitizen013 wrote: I don't know if I'm the only one but I really look forward to these FAQs... my life is clearly very exciting
I honestly only looked forward to seeing Tau, so I could start using my Hunter contingent again. Now I honestly don't care.
As far as the piranhas go, I know the BRBFAQ stated that you can not enter then leave in the same turn, however the FAQ for Tau specifically seems to state that the opposite is true for that formation only. Many formations have rules that over ride BRB rules. Its called a formation bonus, and its why people use formations. Im pretty sure the EVERY TURN is pretty clear, and not ambiguous at all. Its how I will play it until someone can point me to something that refutes this.
It can leave on any turn, including the first, but the restriction on leaving the same turn you arrive is not mentioned or refuted and therefore is still in effect. Unless it is specifically countermanded, it doesn't just suddenly disappear. You leave the board in the same manner as any other unit that can leave the board, such as Flyers or FMCs, and they can't fly on and off.
I would be in 100% agreement with you if it said any turn and not every turn. However I am sure this is not a rules arguing thread, and there is no need to argue really. I think its just somehow a different interpretation of what the word every means. I interpret it to mean every single turn 1-7.
I am thinking when its official it will get cleared up though.
anticitizen013 wrote: I don't know if I'm the only one but I really look forward to these FAQs... my life is clearly very exciting
I honestly only looked forward to seeing Tau, so I could start using my Hunter contingent again. Now I honestly don't care.
As far as the piranhas go, I know the BRBFAQ stated that you can not enter then leave in the same turn, however the FAQ for Tau specifically seems to state that the opposite is true for that formation only. Many formations have rules that over ride BRB rules. Its called a formation bonus, and its why people use formations. Im pretty sure the EVERY TURN is pretty clear, and not ambiguous at all. Its how I will play it until someone can point me to something that refutes this.
Here we go again. I guess we can tell this person didn't read the last few pages.
Added a choppa to the tankbusta boss nob in an errata, and kustom force fields affect friends and enemies.
I don't play orks and didn't know that if they fight amongst themselves they do S4 hits to each other, while being S3 normally. That's a very silly thing.
So... orks cybork body with a painboy is indeed useless, orks are intended to make S4 hits when rolling a 4-6 on the mob rule chart despite being S3, and the 'naughts aren't super heavies.
Whelp, I guess the only nice thing was they at least gave the choppa to the Tankbusta Nob in order to allow him to get melee upgrades. And letting us technically keep the green tide and Waaagh! Ghazghkull detachment...
Disappointing they didn't bother to address the uselessness of CB nor giving a better result to having results of higher than a 6 for Mob Rule, but not surprising.
I posted it in a response to updating other units like the 
I would also like better Dark Eldar, and I'm sure that a lot of people would like better Imperial Guard, Tyranid, 
