Huh, that was... underwhelming.

could ghazkull run and charge before?

Nevermind.

 axisofentropy wrote:
could ghazkull run and charge before?

No, due to having SnP

 axisofentropy wrote:
could ghazkull run and charge before?

As far as I remember, yes, but only during his WAAAGH!. I think they just clarified it to include models that didn't have MA.

I like that they called attention to the fact that boyz get stronger when beating each other up for no reason.

Orks ain't smart, but I'm sure they'd save all that S4 goodness for the enemy.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I like that they called attention to the fact that boyz get stronger when beating each other up for no reason.

Orks ain't smart, but I'm sure they'd save all that S4 goodness for the enemy.

Yeah...and using the "the dok's mad!" as a reason for him having cybork body and dok's tools was pretty bad. I guess they don't want Orks getting in on that FNP stacking that Iron Hands can get.

 Grimskul wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I like that they called attention to the fact that boyz get stronger when beating each other up for no reason.

Orks ain't smart, but I'm sure they'd save all that S4 goodness for the enemy.

Yeah...and using the "the dok's mad!" as a reason for him having cybork body and dok's tools was pretty bad. I guess they don't want Orks getting in on that FNP stacking that Iron Hands can get.

Iron Hands specifically says it stacks with other FNP. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not. Believe me, I want my Death Company running around with 4+FNP because of Sanguinary Priests, but it isn't happening.

could ghazkull run and charge before?

Yes. tat bit of faq was also pointless.

At least the Green Tide is back.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I like that they called attention to the fact that boyz get stronger when beating each other up for no reason.

Orks ain't smart, but I'm sure they'd save all that S4 goodness for the enemy.

Yeah...and using the "the dok's mad!" as a reason for him having cybork body and dok's tools was pretty bad. I guess they don't want Orks getting in on that FNP stacking that Iron Hands can get.

Iron Hands specifically says it stacks with other FNP. Cybork and Dok's Tools do not. Believe me, I want my Death Company running around with 4+FNP because of Sanguinary Priests, but it isn't happening.

True. But it was a bone they could have thrown to us given that we literally do not have an invuln. save available in CC short of having Ghazghkull himself during a WAAAGH!

Blood Angels aren't great as is either but at least you have access to invuln. saves.

I read the FAQ expecting nothing and still feel disappointed. Some of the comments seem a bit snarky when Orks are basically in the running for worst army in 40k. We desperately need help and GW acts like all is well. The Stompa ruling for passengers shooting is total bull imo.

 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

Ok, the Ork FAQ is up. Just like I said - orks are crap and will stay crap. Cybork does't add anything usefull, there is no 7-8 on Mob rule, Orkanauts didn't get fixed. The good things - Tankbusta nobs now have a chopa, you can use the Greentide. As I said - no need for having high hopes.

I didn't expect any good news so the fact we got the Greentide back was a bit of surprise.

 hordrak wrote:

 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

Ok, the Ork FAQ is up. Just like I said - orks are crap and will stay crap. Cybork does't add anything usefull, there is no 7-8 on Mob rule, Orkanauts didn't get fixed. The good things - Tankbusta nobs now have a chopa, you can use the Greentide. As I said - no need for having high hopes.

It's an FAQ, not a new codex. Why would you expect things would change to make Orks more powerful?

I know when the Tyranid FAQ comes out, it's not going to make Nids stronger. It's not going to change how Shadows in the Warp works and is basically useless.

Just curious what were you really going to expect? What other FAQs made an army stronger more than before?

Just for the record--I had the Ork codex next to me today after I woke up, and had the feeling that Orks would get their FAQ today.

Davor wrote:

 hordrak wrote:

 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

Ok, the Ork FAQ is up. Just like I said - orks are crap and will stay crap. Cybork does't add anything usefull, there is no 7-8 on Mob rule, Orkanauts didn't get fixed. The good things - Tankbusta nobs now have a chopa, you can use the Greentide. As I said - no need for having high hopes.

It's an FAQ, not a new codex. Why would you expect things would change to make Orks more powerful?

I know when the Tyranid FAQ comes out, it's not going to make Nids stronger. It's not going to change how Shadows in the Warp works and is basically useless.

Just curious what were you really going to expect? What other FAQs made an army stronger more than before?

I expected nothing. Others had hopes for erratas.

The greentide back as a seperate non-great waaagh band detschment choice was good but expected after the General faq.
The choppa for the tankbusta so he can legally take the pk is nice and expected.
The mob rules 6+ was expected but still sad.

In fact the only thing that surprised me is the nerfing the stompa got. I don't think people realized how they just countered embarked units on this thing. You can easily block firing points when in combat and you can force emergency debarked for any units that want to charge or exit the vehicle.

I never realized a grabba klaw can prevent superheavy walkers from charging/Atking that's kinda cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warhead01 wrote:

could ghazkull run and charge before?

Yes. tat bit of faq was also pointless.

At least the Green Tide is back.

It clarified all units in the group can run and charge. Not just specific to mega armour. No one really was confused about this so egh.

Can a tankbusta nob take a tankhammers or do they still suck too?

FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

They did also change the Flickerjump rule as I recall.

 Gamgee wrote:
FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

Blood Angels set a precedent with the scouts and the Dreadnought errata. Because of that some people started thinking: "Oh, they made BA scouts and dreads better, so the can make some units in my codex better!"

 hordrak wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

Blood Angels set a precedent with the scouts and the Dreadnought errata. Because of that some people started thinking: "Oh, they made BA scouts and dreads better, so the can make some units in my codex better!"

Then people need to use context and not be stupid about it.

pm713 wrote:
They did also change the Flickerjump rule as I recall.

they errata it but it was really just a clarification to say yes a flickerjump is indeed a warpjump. None of the errata except dreadnauts and scouts for space marines was changing the rules. It was more thier writing sucked so let's try rewriting it again.

Requizen wrote:

 hordrak wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

Blood Angels set a precedent with the scouts and the Dreadnought errata. Because of that some people started thinking: "Oh, they made BA scouts and dreads better, so the can make some units in my codex better!"

Then people need to use context and not be stupid about it.

Wishfull thinking has no place for context. There are only false hopes.

 hordrak wrote:

Davor wrote:

 hordrak wrote:

 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

Ok, the Ork FAQ is up. Just like I said - orks are crap and will stay crap. Cybork does't add anything usefull, there is no 7-8 on Mob rule, Orkanauts didn't get fixed. The good things - Tankbusta nobs now have a chopa, you can use the Greentide. As I said - no need for having high hopes.

It's an FAQ, not a new codex. Why would you expect things would change to make Orks more powerful?

I know when the Tyranid FAQ comes out, it's not going to make Nids stronger. It's not going to change how Shadows in the Warp works and is basically useless.

Just curious what were you really going to expect? What other FAQs made an army stronger more than before?

I expected nothing. Others had hopes for erratas.

I think I quoted the wrong person. Sorry. Weird how that does that when I use multi quote.

Davor wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 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 BRB FAQ 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.

Nah I read it, I just don't agree with the arguments made. I still got love for all you though.

 redleger wrote:

Davor wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 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 BRB FAQ 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.

Nah I read it, I just don't agree with the arguments made. I still got love for all you though.

We should take this to YMDC then and have fun with it.

 Gamgee wrote:
FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

Except that, you know, outside of the 2012 & Hellbrute releases, the entire CSM model range is freaking ancient, still stuck in Finecrap, missing half of the unit's basic options and/or some combination of 'all of the above'.
Somehow I didn't see people knocking those poor DE players who were hoping & dreaming of an entire model line re-boot after being neglected for 9+ years... but suddenly because it is Chaos players hoping for some long awaited love, it's stupid & just plain wrong.


Now *IF* we do get an FAQ, (which with a rumored upcoming campaign book that's supposed to bring new rules for CSM's, I figure we'll get skipped over), the *only* "fix" I'm honestly hoping for is that Chaos Dreadnoughts will get the +2A boost that every other Space Marine Dreadnought has received, AND, that they'll finally return out Infernal Device rule since our Land Raider is completely unplayable without it.

Of course, I'm not really putting much hope into it, since GW don't give a rat's far about Chaos Marines...

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

Except that, you know, outside of the 2012 & Hellbrute releases, the entire CSM model range is freaking ancient, still stuck in Finecrap, missing half of the unit's basic options and/or some combination of 'all of the above'.
Somehow I didn't see people knocking those poor DE players who were hoping & dreaming of an entire model line re-boot after being neglected for 9+ years... but suddenly because it is Chaos players hoping for some long awaited love, it's stupid & just plain wrong.


Now *IF* we do get an FAQ, (which with a rumored upcoming campaign book that's supposed to bring new rules for CSM's, I figure we'll get skipped over), the *only* "fix" I'm honestly hoping for is that Chaos Dreadnoughts will get the +2A boost that every other Space Marine Dreadnought has received, AND, that they'll finally return out Infernal Device rule since our Land Raider is completely unplayable without it.

Of course, I'm not really putting much hope into it, since GW don't give a rat's far about Chaos Marines...

I think Gamgee was talking about someone who was expecti g those models to come with the FAQ for some reason, and not the campaign.

Can't you not charge when you are in a scouting transport anyways? What's the point of the Blitz Brigade?

"we dont know what to do with orks"

direct quote from GW.

The document is an FAQ, and behaves as such.

OT: Point of Blitz Brigade is to start closer to the enemy, making sure your unit is 12" closer when BW pops.

 hordrak wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
FAQ's are not balance changes or new units so why would anyone expect buffs?

We have had many many FAQ's at this point and other than one specific exception (the dreadnought errata) there has been no rule changes. Just clarifications and some minor adjustments.

I don't understand why people set themselves up for disappointment. There's this one person who thinks Chaos Marines will be getting 15 new models or something. I laughed out loud in real life at the wild expectations.

Blood Angels set a precedent with the scouts and the Dreadnought errata. Because of that some people started thinking: "Oh, they made BA scouts and dreads better, so the can make some units in my codex better!"

That was however not creating NEW stuff but making those units be same rulewise as identical units elsewhere.

It's more akin to have codex orks and codex bigger orks. Both codex share unit say grots. Codex orks then has them upgraded to BS4 grots! Wee! But codex big ork grots are still BS3...

Yeah, but nobody had "Codex: Our Marine Dreadnoughts Are Just Better" to synchronise with. An additional attack or two for an Ork Dreadnought wouldn't have been a completely crazy thing to hope for.

Waaargh wrote:
The document is an FAQ, and behaves as such.

OT: Point of Blitz Brigade is to start closer to the enemy, making sure your unit is 12" closer when BW pops.

That was nerfed, but in line with the battle rulebook. Before it just read 'turn' as in player turn, so if the Ork player was 2nd, they could charge after Scouting. Now it says game turn, so Orks have to charge T2 if they Scout. Pretty good, inline with how the BRB set it out to be.

Then you take a glance at the FAQ for the Tau Firestream formation (which can still be read as entering and leaving reserves every turn) and you have to see that there is a clear bias, even among Xenos races. I fully expect them to make Stormsurges somewhat immune to the tank shock while anchored. Something like only super heavy vehicles can tankshock/ram other super heavies/gargantuans.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I fully expect them to make Stormsurges somewhat immune to the tank shock while anchored. Something like only super heavy vehicles can tankshock/ram other super heavies/gargantuans.

It's actually been FAQ'd that it's instantly wiped if it's tankshocked while the anchors are deployed.

Spiritfox22 wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I fully expect them to make Stormsurges somewhat immune to the tank shock while anchored. Something like only super heavy vehicles can tankshock/ram other super heavies/gargantuans.

It's actually been FAQ'd that it's instantly wiped if it's tankshocked while the anchors are deployed.

I know and I laughed about it, but it's really weird how a Rhino can insta-kill a Stormsurge with ease. I expect some sort of 8th edition rule that renders this particular FAQ obsolete, considering the negative feedback they've gotten for it.

Not like I care, I'll be hopefully gone from this hobby in pursuit of MTG by the end of summer, but I still have friends who play this hobby, nevermind Tau. I hope for their sake they can enjoy a 8th edition set of rules that is balanced.

My verdict on the Ork FAQ

THE GOOD
We can use the Green Tide formation now
My question about the KFF was answered
Some answeres made me laugh
Tankbusta nob gets Choppa by default
Grabbin' klaws can stop SH walkers from moving
Goff Killmob and Badrukk's flash gitz are in the Waaagh! Ghazghkull supplement from 2016

THE BAD
Boyz can take out other boyz more easily in a Squabble because "they're really fired up"
FNP only goes to 5+ (provided I interpreted that correctly)
Zzap gun can get hot on any roll of 1,2,3 if Strength is above 10
KFF doesn't protect a void shield

THE UGLY
Painmob cannot move if after 'Pile on Da Pain' the enemy unit is destroyed
Only models from the painmob unit can 'Pile on da Pain!'
Gitfinda does not work with relentless
The italian version is in error
Looted wagon cannot be taken as Auxiliary choice in the Great Waaagh! Detachment

I get why they do not want pile on the pain to transfer beyond the formation. It was nice that they brought back the detachment as well as the green tide, brings back the potential for deep striking meganobz.

 hordrak wrote:


Wishfull thinking has no place for context. There are only false hopes.

And hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
My verdict on the Ork FAQ

THE GOOD
We can use the Green Tide formation now
My question about the KFF was answered
Some answeres made me laugh
Tankbusta nob gets Choppa by default
Grabbin' klaws can stop SH walkers from moving
Goff Killmob and Badrukk's flash gitz are in the Waaagh! Ghazghkull supplement from 2016

THE BAD
Boyz can take out other boyz more easily in a Squabble because "they're really fired up"
FNP only goes to 5+ (provided I interpreted that correctly)
Zzap gun can get hot on any roll of 1,2,3 if Strength is above 10
KFF doesn't protect a void shield

THE UGLY
Painmob cannot move if after 'Pile on Da Pain' the enemy unit is destroyed
Only models from the painmob unit can 'Pile on da Pain!'
Gitfinda does not work with relentless
The italian version is in error
Looted wagon cannot be taken as Auxiliary choice in the Great Waaagh! Detachment

I would add a few more bad (aka nerf clarifications to these faqs)
1) blitz brigade embarked units no longer can charge if the Ork player goes second. It originally was player turn not game turn.
2) ghaz council effectively lost 1ws since they stated the special rule doesn't stack with a waaagh banner
3) units in the stompa can easily be blocked from firing from fire points depending how people read the interpretation does "through"the unit extend to over the unit?
4) the General faq nerf of tankbusta bombs still sucks
5) the wazbomb blastjet kff is a massive liability be used ur giving enemy flyers an invul save ironically the death from the sky formation for kustom wazmob that increase the kff invul save to 3+ Changes it to a formation invul Only that won't help enemy units. Why keep the original kff to help your opponent is anyone's guess. And since most players consider dfts a dead supplement this formation is unplayable.
6) I'm pretty sure embarked units are screwed if a bigmek embarked on an open transport has a kff since it no longer offers any help to them vs templates and blasts and only protects the transport.
7) the half arsed way they included greentide means while the rest of the newer ghaz supplment can use either set of Ork relics. The old supplment limited the formation in the book to just orkinedes kustom gubbons. In other words no Lukky stikk on your greentide warboss.

In general a lot of the clarification while vague enough to go either way we're just additional nerfs.

Can the grabbing klaw completely prevent close combat with the battlewagon since a grabbin klaw needs to be used on a vehicle within 2in. Although the super heavy can't charge or move into base to base contact does this mean it can't atk in the assault phase even if they are within 2in. Because even though a superheavy may not gain his charge bonus it will still explode a rear AV10 open topped battlewagon in close combat charge bonus or not if its allowed to atk.

I never use the damn things, but I was thinking about it the other day, before the FAQ, and yeah, if you use the grabbing klaw and they're not in base contact with your hull, it can't attack you at all.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I never use the damn things, but I was thinking about it the other day, before the FAQ, and yeah, if you use the grabbing klaw and they're not in base contact with your hull, it can't attack you at all.

Well then put a big Mek with kff in the battle wagon, run it straight at the superheavy so it can only shoot it's front armour and pray you make that 4+ grabbin klaw roll. It can slow down a super heavy for a turn.....if only it worked for the game turn and not player turn you could tank shock/ram it and Insta gib it Stormsurge style... Sadly the effect only lasts for the player turn and only during his movement phase, not even his assault phase so you could stop him during his charge attempt kinda like an overwatch protection for battlewagons.

If this worked on GMC/MC as well as vehicles it might be more then a fluke occurance and worth the investment of points.

"They're really fired up!"

I see GW's execrable penchant for using fluff to justify rules abstractions hasn't changed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"They're really fired up!"

I see GW's execrable penchant for using fluff to justify rules abstractions hasn't changed.

Only when it's not used for Space Marines.

Mob Rule would work so much better by swapping Squabble on a 2-3 with Breaking 'eads 4-6.

Let's see, we have left: Necrons, Daemons, GK, CSM, and Nids. Probably Crons, Daemons, or Tyranids today, I'm still convinced GK and CSM won't get FAQs until after the rumored campaign with the two of them.

Requizen wrote:
Let's see, we have left: Necrons, Daemons, GK, CSM, and Nids. Probably Crons, Daemons, or Tyranids today, I'm still convinced GK and CSM won't get FAQs until after the rumored campaign with the two of them.

Astramilitarum would like to have a word with you.
Demons, khorne demonkin and CSM, black legion, crimson slaughter, whatever other campaigns I'm forgetting is possibly the last big faqs.
I'm predicting necron or Astra militarum today, leaning toward necrons.

KDK got their FAQ iirc.

 Wolfblade wrote:
KDK got their FAQ iirc.

you are correct demonkin and bloodoath got faqs but really that makes no sense they are basically just demons with marines anyway.

I could have sworn AM got one already. My bad.

Chaos is up!

And the hellbrutes got buffed. So the Deff Dreads are the only "Dreadnaughts " that didn't get buffed. Poor orks.

Hey, look at that. Helbrute attacks increase.

Edit: Beaten to the punch!

Anon052 wrote:
And the hellbrutes got buffed. So the Deff Dreads are the only "Dreadnaughts " that didn't get buffed. Poor orks.

And Killa Kanz! Killa Kanz with +2 attacks.....think about it!

hmm. Nothing awesome about this except the helbrute Errata. But Chaos didn't really have many issues other than that fact thats its CSM and right now they suck.

Mayhem Pack could be fun now.

Anon052 wrote:
And the hellbrutes got buffed. So the Deff Dreads are the only "Dreadnaughts " that didn't get buffed. Poor orks.

Well technically this isn't the final faq so GW still has time to see the folly of thier ways.

So, let me guess, Helbrutes got the same treatment, and people are still gonna complain, right?

At the very least, it means that Helbrutes aren't strictly inferior to Maulerfiends. I know they occupy different slots, but still.

Now all we need are cheaper Dreadclaws and Assault Claws!

for the work blocked!

 jreilly89 wrote:
So, let me guess, Helbrutes got the same treatment, and people are still gonna complain, right?

Complain about what?

Maulerfiends magma cutters strike at initiative now as well, does that make a huge difference? I'm not sure if that's a big deal, I know they're fairly commonly seen in chaos marine armies.

gungo wrote:

Anon052 wrote:
And the hellbrutes got buffed. So the Deff Dreads are the only "Dreadnaughts " that didn't get buffed. Poor orks.

Well technically this isn't the final faq so GW still has time to see the folly of thier ways.

Which would be great, and reasonable, and well deserved... but won't happen. Though all logic and "common sense" would imply they should get the same buff as Dreadnought it won't happen. Because they aren't a Dreadnought. They may function very similarly to, or exactly like, a Dreadnought but they still aren't one. So an errata to change the profile of the Deff Dread wouldn't happen. Which, in all honesty, is the exact reason I'm legitimately surprised the Helbrute did get the profile change, since GW went out of their way to rename it and say "no, it's not a Chaos Dreadnought - it's different than that somehow!".

But you know what? I would love to be wrong.

I think this DOES prove that, design-wise atleast, the Helbrute is actually just a chaos dreadnaught, while the Deff Dread and the Killa Kans are considered to be something different.

Baffled that the BaleFLAMER isn't a flamer weapon.

+2 attacks to Helbrutes (daemonkin AND CSM) AND Karn can hit invisibility on 2+?

GW threw us a bone?

OMG

 Swampmist wrote:
I think this DOES prove that, design-wise atleast, the Helbrute is actually just a chaos dreadnaught, while the Deff Dread and the Killa Kans are considered to be something different.

Hold on, I thought deff dreads usually go to war with a base of 4 attacks (swap a gun for extra klaw).
So they are actually more like each other now, rather than proven to be "something different", right?

Ofcourse, if you count the arms, I guess deff dreads are "base 2" attacks just ike pre faq ´noughts.

 Fayric wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
I think this DOES prove that, design-wise atleast, the Helbrute is actually just a chaos dreadnaught, while the Deff Dread and the Killa Kans are considered to be something different.

Hold on, I thought deff dreads usually go to war with a base of 4 attacks (swap a gun for extra klaw).
So they are actually more like each other now, rather than proven to be "something different", right?

Kind of? The basic loadout is 3 attacks, not four like the dreads, and over-all the Deff Dread actually works slightly differently (more arms, less options.) IDK, but it seems to me that the Deff Dread is NOT meant to simply be "The ork Dreadnaught," anymore than the Wraithlord is "The Eldar Dreadnaught." They can, and usually do, fill the same role but they are designed to be different. However, the Helbrute is LITERALLY just the CSM dreadnaught, and is considered as such from a game design stand-point, so we see it get the +2 attacks.

To be fair even if deff dreads gain an extra atk through errata they would still be a bad unit. Survivability and movement not extra atks are the problem. It's not like a deff dread could even compete with like the 13 atks murderfang gets.

I'd be happy with ere we go on deff dreads and stikkbomb flingas for a 5+ invul on first pen/glance a turn and +1 atk.

I would like Orks to find a way to deep strike their Kans. It's not out of character for them to just drop them out of the sky anyway... Or lifta-droppa them over the battlefield.

I don't see any reason for Orks to cry about not getting extra attacks on a Deff Dread. It wouldn't solve any problems so there's no point.

With extra CC arms Ork Deffdreads have 6 attack plus the 1 charge attack. How many do you want? They are fine already

Warhams-77 wrote:
With extra CC arms Ork Deffdreads have 6 attack plus the 1 charge attack. How many do you want? They are fine already

13 like murderfang
No seriously how do you get 6 base? It's 3 base and +2 with replacing your other two weapons with klaws. So 5 max and +1 on charge.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
I would like Orks to find a way to deep strike their Kans. It's not out of character for them to just drop them out of the sky anyway... Or lifta-droppa them over the battlefield.

There is one formation that can do it however what Orks really need are rok (drop pods) and tellyporta (teleport machines). Both heavily featured in fluff and books and niether with any in game representation.

No seriously how do you get 6 base? It's 3 base and +2 with replacing your other two weapons with klaws. So 5 max and +1 on charge.

No. it's 3+1+1+1 for 6+1 for charging. You forgot one the second Klaw.

the_scotsman wrote:
Maulerfiends magma cutters strike at initiative now as well, does that make a huge difference? I'm not sure if that's a big deal, I know they're fairly commonly seen in chaos marine armies.

Look again. The FAQ only changes the first two sentences (getting attacks against units rather than models). The FAQ doesn't mention the third sentence (the one that mentions that it's at initiative step 1), nor the profile.

 Swampmist wrote:
Kind of? The basic loadout is 3 attacks, not four like the dreads, and over-all the Deff Dread actually works slightly differently (more arms, less options.) IDK, but it seems to me that the Deff Dread is NOT meant to simply be "The ork Dreadnaught," anymore than the Wraithlord is "The Eldar Dreadnaught." They can, and usually do, fill the same role but they are designed to be different. However, the Helbrute is LITERALLY just the CSM dreadnaught, and is considered as such from a game design stand-point, so we see it get the +2 attacks.

Yeah 3 attacks. Since basic loadout is 2 arms it's more like 2+1 for having two weapons. It's bit odd for marine dreadnoughts to be better in CC than ork dread(and better at shooting to boot).

Though in the grand scale of things useless. You don't use dreadnoughts except with games purely for fun with your friends and there you can get extra attacks anyway.

Actually outside tournaments don't think it should be too hard to get those anyway. Opponents are likely happy if it means you'll waste points on those overpriced piece of junks +2 attack for dreads and killa kans ain't bad idea to give to your opponent if it means he'll take useless junk to his army

Well, with this increase in my Helbrute's attacks I can at least think about fielding him now. Probably still won't in tournaments, but you never know.

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah 3 attacks. Since basic loadout is 2 arms it's more like 2+1 for having two weapons

Nope. 3 base, +1 for having 2 close combat weapons stock, so 4 attacks with no upgrades, 5 on the charge.

It's exactly the same as choppa boys.

2 base, +1 for stock 2 close combat weapons for 3 attacks stock, 4 on the charge. The BRB even uses choppa boyz as an example of this.

Add 2 more arms to the dread and it's 6 attacks, 7 on the charge.

 JimOnMars wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah 3 attacks. Since basic loadout is 2 arms it's more like 2+1 for having two weapons

Nope. 3 base, +1 for having 2 close combat weapons stock, so 4 attacks with no upgrades, 5 on the charge.

Okay so still just equal in CC to 1 handed SM dred and worse shooting. Still odd for ork.

I like the ruling that Kharn can hit invisible units on a 2+. That'll spawn a bunch more 1d4chan memes I think...

Hey, when you are crazy and swinging your axe wildly, you are bound to hit something.

Khorne cares not for such magic trickery. Prepare to die.

 Xca|iber wrote:
I like the ruling that Kharn can hit invisible units on a 2+. That'll spawn a bunch more 1d4chan memes I think...

That Khârn, such a kidder!

tneva82 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah 3 attacks. Since basic loadout is 2 arms it's more like 2+1 for having two weapons

Nope. 3 base, +1 for having 2 close combat weapons stock, so 4 attacks with no upgrades, 5 on the charge.

Okay so still just equal in CC to 1 handed SM dred and worse shooting. Still odd for ork.

Presumably that's why they didn't buff it. Our stock dreads always get 4 attacks minimum, even though we have to use two arms to do it.

Fair enough for me, as we can always buy two more, and s10 AP2 at I2 for 10 pts each is a bargain.

 JimOnMars wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah 3 attacks. Since basic loadout is 2 arms it's more like 2+1 for having two weapons

Nope. 3 base, +1 for having 2 close combat weapons stock, so 4 attacks with no upgrades, 5 on the charge.

Okay so still just equal in CC to 1 handed SM dred and worse shooting. Still odd for ork.

Presumably that's why they didn't buff it. Our stock dreads always get 4 attacks minimum, even though we have to use two arms to do it.

Fair enough for me, as we can always buy two more, and s10 AP2 at I2 for 10 pts each is a bargain.

Still odd for base ork dreadnought to be equal to marine dreadnought that has 1 arm less. So ork dredd with one klaw is actually WORSE in CC than marine equilavent which feels odd.

And yet another nerf for orks. Ork dreadnoughts are worse at shooting than marine dreadnoughts but at least we USED to be better in CC(useless as that advantage was in 7th ed). Now that too is no longer true...

I love the subtle Maulerfiend buff; Changing the Magma Cutters from 'same target' to 'same unit' does change things a lot. Not that you would've used them against MEQ's or TEQ's, but still - actual 3+2 attacks rather than '3+2 on the same target'-attacks makes them quite strong - 1 wound models aren't the bane of the Maulerfiend anymore.
It still auto-hits & hits at Init 1 step, but.. wow. That's actually good news.

The Helbrute buff is deserved; the rage still makes them unpredictable but maybe they become quite useful in the 'mayhem pack'-formation. Distraction-Brutes awaaayy!

And Khârn.. did the word 'always' change overnight? He always hits on 2+. But still, clarification for the Rule-lawyers is good - 'always'.

tneva82 wrote:
Still odd for base ork dreadnought to be equal to marine dreadnought that has 1 arm less. So ork dredd with one klaw is actually WORSE in CC than marine equilavent which feels odd.

And yet another nerf for orks. Ork dreadnoughts are worse at shooting than marine dreadnoughts but at least we USED to be better in CC(useless as that advantage was in 7th ed). Now that too is no longer true...

I disagree. An Ork dreadnought with 1 klaw is not a legal model in 40k. Saying "our illegal model isn't as good as your legal model" is pretty pointless.

I could say "my armless choppa boy is worse than a spore mine", but that would also be pointless.

The stock deff dred has 4 attacks (5 on charge.) It's 80 points. You can get 2 more attacks, if you want. How the unit is modeled and how the fluff is written doesn't change how effective it is on the tabletop. It's has the same attacks as a dreadnaught. Don't worry about the "1-arm" vs "2-arm" as it doesn't affect the rules at all.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
I like the ruling that Kharn can hit invisible units on a 2+. That'll spawn a bunch more 1d4chan memes I think...

That Khârn, such a kidder!

Kharn can smell fear.

It smells like urine.

Another week. Down to GK, Necrons, Guard, Nids, and Daemons. I wonder if we'll get any more double releases to speed up the process or if they have a timetable in mind.

People really think ork dreads are a "deal"? If they were such a "deal" they would be used more or at all. Look I love ork dreads, I run the formation with 9 killa kans 3 dreads and 2 gorkanauts all the time. I have never once won with it. I had Bjorn and murder fang kill literally everything there but the 2 gorkanauts. Why? Because initiative 2 is CRIPPLING in a dread v dread or MC fight. Want to make it fair? Give them I4 on the charge AT LEAST.

This week's FAQ for Tyranids is up.

Oh man, great job GW. "The rules for the Trygon's tunnel are stupid, how are we supposed to even get it to work?"

[Dodges question by stating the rules]

So, that remains useless. Everything else is stuff that people already assumed.

Edit: HOWEVER, Termagants that are spawned from a Tervigon count as having Obj Sec. That's legit, I guess.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Oh man, great job GW. "The rules for the Trygon's tunnel are stupid, how are we supposed to even get it to work?"

[Dodges question by stating the rules]

So, that remains useless. Everything else is stuff that people already assumed.

They didn't dodge any questions they clarified the rule. The faq is not there to rewrite rules you don't like.
The follow up question for the endless swarm type units is a great way to use the tunnel if it works.
And just because you assume something didn't mean people agree with you. A good example was the tyrannocyte firing arcs.

gungo wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Oh man, great job GW. "The rules for the Trygon's tunnel are stupid, how are we supposed to even get it to work?"

[Dodges question by stating the rules]

So, that remains useless. Everything else is stuff that people already assumed.

They didn't dodge any questions they clarified the rule. The faq is not there to rewrite rules you don't like.
The follow up question for the endless swarm type units is a great way to use the tunnel if it works.
And just because you assume something didn't mean people agree with you. A good example was the tyrannocyte firing arcs.

Yeah I've only ever used Trygon tunnels with the endless swarm-type rules. Solely within the codex the rule isn't great, but perhaps the reason they added these formations was to help mitigate it.

I really don't get the Tyrannocyte ruling though. Nowhere in the rules does it mention vehicle firing arc rules; it's a monstrous creature.

gungo wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Oh man, great job GW. "The rules for the Trygon's tunnel are stupid, how are we supposed to even get it to work?"

[Dodges question by stating the rules]

So, that remains useless. Everything else is stuff that people already assumed.

They didn't dodge any questions they clarified the rule. The faq is not there to rewrite rules you don't like.
The follow up question for the endless swarm type units is a great way to use the tunnel if it works.
And just because you assume something didn't mean people agree with you. A good example was the tyrannocyte firing arcs.

Most people played it that way from what I could tell.

And you're right, they did clarify the ruling for the Trygon. They clarified that "Yes, it is a bad rule. Move along now."

Well, now we can use Infiltrate near AoC allies.

gungo wrote:

And just because you assume something didn't mean people agree with you. A good example was the tyrannocyte firing arcs.

Tyrannocyte doesn't have firing arcs. It even says all 5 weapons can shoot at one target IF IT'S THE CLOSET. If there are two or more targets, then treat it as if they were firing arcs. Thing is what are the chances of two units or more being at the exact same distance?

So if only one unit is closer than another unit even though the "fire arcs" are different, all 5 weapons shoot at the closet mini.

 xttz wrote:

gungo wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Oh man, great job GW. "The rules for the Trygon's tunnel are stupid, how are we supposed to even get it to work?"

[Dodges question by stating the rules]

So, that remains useless. Everything else is stuff that people already assumed.

They didn't dodge any questions they clarified the rule. The faq is not there to rewrite rules you don't like.
The follow up question for the endless swarm type units is a great way to use the tunnel if it works.
And just because you assume something didn't mean people agree with you. A good example was the tyrannocyte firing arcs.

Yeah I've only ever used Trygon tunnels with the endless swarm-type rules. Solely within the codex the rule isn't great, but perhaps the reason they added these formations was to help mitigate it.

I really don't get the Tyrannocyte ruling though. Nowhere in the rules does it mention vehicle firing arc rules; it's a monstrous creature.

To be fair they didn't say to use the vehicle rules. They kind of side stepped thier response by stating you can use the vehicle fire arcs example. It's a non-commit so way for them to tell you to use the vehicle rules for units at the same distance even though it makes no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

gungo wrote:

And just because you assume something didn't mean people agree with you. A good example was the tyrannocyte firing arcs.

Tyrannocyte doesn't have firing arcs. It even says all 5 weapons can shoot at one target IF IT'S THE CLOSET. If there are two or more targets, then treat it as if they were firing arcs. Thing is what are the chances of two units or more being at the exact same distance?

So if only one unit is closer than another unit even though the "fire arcs" are different, all 5 weapons shoot at the closet mini.

Read what you wrote
"They don't have fire arcs"
"Treat it as if they were firing arcs"
Corne back to me when you make sense. They basically gave them firing arcs even though they only shoot at the closest units.

Hmm. Still no Necrons. Not a whole lot that really needs clarifying with us (expect things like the Retribution Phalanx unit size issue), but I was really expecting us to follow Tau for some reason.

So any chance of getting the pics posted for the work blocked among us?

for the work blocked

I am shocked with the Hive Tyrant being able to leave the Tyrant Guard.

Hmmm. Flyrants can join and leave Tyrant Guard now. Have no idea if this is a good tactic, but it can be at least fun to use now.

I got to wonder if GW even read their rules for Hive Tyrants.. Can it leave a unit like other ICs? It's not even an IC!

I'm liking that they're keeping a consistent pace on these FAQs, I think every Wednesday for about a month now. I imagine they're getting about to the end of the FAQs at this point. What's left, necrons, IG, demons? Maybe space wolves?

Tyrannocyte fire arcs finally cleared up. Nerf imo :(
Nice old Mawloc being able to TFTD into combat though.

The biggest question for me - Tyrannocites can carry a unit (with attached IC) or a single MC. What about a unit that has a MC, like the Swarmlord and his Tyrant Guard? I would assume specific trumps general, but they are a unit.

 Kirasu wrote:
I got to wonder if GW even read their rules for Hive Tyrants.. Can it leave a unit like other ICs? It's not even an IC!

It has a rule letting it join units as if it were an IC.

Requizen wrote:
The biggest question for me - Tyrannocites can carry a unit (with attached IC) or a single MC. What about a unit that has a MC, like the Swarmlord and his Tyrant Guard? I would assume specific trumps general, but they are a unit.

Usually that would be fine, however MC's count as 20 models inside a Tyrannocyte which is equal to their capacity. Therefore there's no more room to fit guards inside.

Requizen wrote:
The biggest question for me - Tyrannocites can carry a unit (with attached IC) or a single MC. What about a unit that has a MC, like the Swarmlord and his Tyrant Guard? I would assume specific trumps general, but they are a unit.

I would definitely ask that one on FB. Glad to see AoC can be deployed within 12" of each other, but I'm still curious on the logic behind "ally as Tyranids" translating to "Allies of Convenience", but that's a discussion for another thread.

pm713 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I got to wonder if GW even read their rules for Hive Tyrants.. Can it leave a unit like other ICs? It's not even an IC!

It has a rule letting it join units as if it were an IC.

That's the kind of thinking that GW probably used too.. Except Hive Tyrants have no such rule. Hive Guard do have a rule that allow a Hive Tyrant to *join* the unit as if it were an IC.. Not leave nor does it confer the actual IC rule to the Hive Tyrant.
Big difference, but it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Welp. They just sort of by proxy made Skyblight damn near useless.

'Can units with Respawn mechanics arrive by Deep Strike if they have Deep Strike?'

'Nope, they arrive 'from Reserve'.'

Woo. Way to make those respawning gargoyle units useless.

 Ratius wrote:

Nice old Mawloc being able to TFTD into combat though.

Can this only be used once now? I always thought when burrowing you get to use this attack again, but now I noticed with the burrow rule is different than what I thought. Getting back into 40K and all these new FAQ rulings coming in now, I am confused what is Ongoing reserves and Deep Strike Reservers. Are they different or the same thing? I thought it was you can always use the TFTD when you come back, but now with the new FAQ ruling, I am not so sure now.

 Kirasu wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I got to wonder if GW even read their rules for Hive Tyrants.. Can it leave a unit like other ICs? It's not even an IC!

It has a rule letting it join units as if it were an IC.

That's the kind of thinking that GW probably used too.. Except Hive Tyrants have no such rule. Hive Guard do have a rule that allow a Hive Tyrant to *join* the unit as if it were an IC.. Not leave nor does it confer the actual IC rule to the Hive Tyrant.
Big difference, but it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Plus the question wasn't worded how you say it up there. It asked if it can leave like ICs normally can do. Small distinction, but it doesn't specifically call out the Tyrant as an IC. And from your most recent post, it basically means that the question was asked *because* the Guard have the rule that allows the Tyrant to join them, but doesn't explicitly say it can ever leave. Now we know it is allowed to leave the Guard unit. The FAQ doesn't say anything about treating it as an IC in any other way than being allowed to join and (now) leave the unit.

 Ratius wrote:
Tyrannocyte fire arcs finally cleared up. Nerf imo :(

Hardly. That's a pretty sensible judgement there. Even Tyranids have a limit to their range of muscle movements. Venom cannons are pretty nasty.

Davor wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Nice old Mawloc being able to TFTD into combat though.

Can this only be used once now? I always thought when burrowing you get to use this attack again, but now I noticed with the burrow rule is different than what I thought. Getting back into 40K and all these new FAQ rulings coming in now, I am confused what is Ongoing reserves and Deep Strike Reservers. Are they different or the same thing? I thought it was you can always use the TFTD when you come back, but now with the new FAQ ruling, I am not so sure now.

Nothing has changed with Terror From the Deep, they just calrified that you can hit invisible and locked in combat units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Tyrannocyte fire arcs finally cleared up. Nerf imo :(

Hardly. That's a pretty sensible judgement there. Even Tyranids have a limit to their range of muscle movements. Venom cannons are pretty nasty.

And yet it's a Monstrous Creature with a 360 degree firing arc.

 Imateria wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Tyrannocyte fire arcs finally cleared up. Nerf imo :(

Hardly. That's a pretty sensible judgement there. Even Tyranids have a limit to their range of muscle movements. Venom cannons are pretty nasty.

And yet it's a Monstrous Creature with a 360 degree firing arc.

What I'm getting at is, you can't direct all/most of it at one high value target.

Eh, I think the fire arc ruling on the tyrannocyte was a mistake, unless we are supposed to draw LOS from all monstrous creatures weapons to their target now. Why can't it be assumed that as it is a living, floating thing that it could rotate as it fires each cannon at a target?

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, I think the fire arc ruling on the tyrannocyte was a mistake, unless we are supposed to draw LOS from all monstrous creatures weapons to their target now. Why can't it be assumed that as it is a living, floating thing that it could rotate as it fires each cannon at a target?

It finally hit me. Just coming back to 40K again so not sure how all the rules work so could be wrong. The way I see it now is, It's not a mistake that a Monstrous Creature fires 360 degrees, it's the "Instinctive Fire" rule that doesn't have 360 degrees of fire, and clearly says to measure from the barrel and not the base. So MC rules are still in effect it's the Instinctive Fire rule that overrides the MC rules on how shooting works since this is done at the END of the shooting phase.

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, I think the fire arc ruling on the tyrannocyte was a mistake, unless we are supposed to draw LOS from all monstrous creatures weapons to their target now. Why can't it be assumed that as it is a living, floating thing that it could rotate as it fires each cannon at a target?

Moving on the spot counts as moving IIRC.

The way they described the firing Arc rules for the Tyrannocyte isn't because of some change to MC rules. It's cuz they designed the Tyrannocyte as a Tyranid Drop Pod, then realized that Tyranids don't use vehicle rules so they just effectively gave an undercosted Carnifex five times the weapons.

All of that nonsense is suppose to say "The Tyrannocyte's cannons are suppose to each fire at a different target that they're pointing at", except in longer, less coherent rule-talk.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The way they described the firing Arc rules for the Tyrannocyte isn't because of some change to MC rules. It's cuz they designed the Tyrannocyte as a Tyranid Drop Pod, then realized that Tyranids don't use vehicle rules so they just effectively gave an undercosted Carnifex five times the weapons.

Tyrannocytes are undercosted now? At 75 points. Are you kiddin me? For less than half of it's cost an imperial player gets two Obsec drop pods with AV12. You know, there's a reason why you don't see Tcytes outside casual play. And that was BEFORE this nerf.
And T5 isn't much in todays meta with so many 12" move S10 cc units.

Before the derpcytes, in the previous codex Nids had Mycetic Spores that costed 40pts. Cheap enough to spam so you could actually afford an army that packed some punch when it landed. Their native S6 opened up many a Rhino for my Dakkafexes to spew maggots over the soft content.

Still on the whole it's a more positive faq than I had anticipated. Obsec spawned Gants is big, and AoC ignored for the sake of deployment means I can actually buy some Genestealer Cult!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Oh man, great job GW. "The rules for the Trygon's tunnel are stupid, how are we supposed to even get it to work?"

[Dodges question by stating the rules]

So, that remains useless. Everything else is stuff that people already assumed.

They didn't dodge any questions they clarified the rule. The faq is not there to rewrite rules you don't like.

Yeah, not like they rewrote that you can actually infiltrate within 12" of enemy models or anything...

 Kirasu wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I got to wonder if GW even read their rules for Hive Tyrants.. Can it leave a unit like other ICs? It's not even an IC!

It has a rule letting it join units as if it were an IC.

That's the kind of thinking that GW probably used too.. Except Hive Tyrants have no such rule. Hive Guard do have a rule that allow a Hive Tyrant to *join* the unit as if it were an IC.. Not leave nor does it confer the actual IC rule to the Hive Tyrant.
Big difference, but it doesn't really matter I suppose.

The rule for joining and leaving a unit are under the same header in the brb. So, in order to join exactly like an independent character, they would have to follow every rule under that particular heading.

Didn't GW rule that a Hive Tyrant couldn't leave Tyrant Guard in a previous edition? Same working, but now magically the ruling is different for why?

Nid players alway said that I know of, you can always join, but never leave. I wonder why this was brought up because of non Nid players.

Independent Characters can join a units in a T-Cyte...Hive Tyrant's join Tyrant Guard exactly like Independent Characters...Hive Tyrant and it's Guard can go in the same T-Cyte?

shadowfinder wrote:
Independent Characters can join a units in a T-Cyte...Hive Tyrant's join Tyrant Guard exactly like Independent Characters...Hive Tyrant and it's Guard can go in the same T-Cyte?

Can't see why not.


Also T'cytes can be deployed empty now if I read that correctly. Can't remember if that is a big deal or not.

Davor wrote:
Didn't GW rule that a Hive Tyrant couldn't leave Tyrant Guard in a previous edition? Same working, but now magically the ruling is different for why?

Nid players alway said that I know of, you can always join, but never leave. I wonder why this was brought up because of non Nid players.

Maybe they thought it was silly that a being engineered to be a devious leader can't walk away from his minions.

Davor wrote:

shadowfinder wrote:
Independent Characters can join a units in a T-Cyte...Hive Tyrant's join Tyrant Guard exactly like Independent Characters...Hive Tyrant and it's Guard can go in the same T-Cyte?

Can't see why not.


Also T'cytes can be deployed empty now if I read that correctly. Can't remember if that is a big deal or not.

75 to 100 point ripper.t5 5 wound 4+ save moving MC which now shoots random areas. can be large blast for 25 point more. I like them cause you have to dedicate a two or three of units to kill them or one high powered one with shooting. But having a empty one is no big deal.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Didn't GW rule that a Hive Tyrant couldn't leave Tyrant Guard in a previous edition? Same working, but now magically the ruling is different for why?

Nid players alway said that I know of, you can always join, but never leave. I wonder why this was brought up because of non Nid players.

They couldn't leave before was in the main rules.

shadowfinder wrote:
Independent Characters can join a units in a T-Cyte...Hive Tyrant's join Tyrant Guard exactly like Independent Characters...Hive Tyrant and it's Guard can go in the same T-Cyte?

They won't all fit in the same pod. The Pod only has room for 20 models and a single MC counts as 20 models.
No room for the Guard.

Oh yeah, forgot about the 20 mini limit. Thanks for the reminder Matt.Kingsley.

shadowfinder wrote:

75 to 100 point ripper.t5 5 wound 4+ save moving MC which now shoots random areas. can be large blast for 25 point more. I like them cause you have to dedicate a two or three of units to kill them or one high powered one with shooting. But having a empty one is no big deal.

Not if you're spamming hive tyrants. However, they can also attack with AP2 and smash in CC. It's a great area threat for gladius marines.

 greyknight12 wrote:

shadowfinder wrote:

75 to 100 point ripper.t5 5 wound 4+ save moving MC which now shoots random areas. can be large blast for 25 point more. I like them cause you have to dedicate a two or three of units to kill them or one high powered one with shooting. But having a empty one is no big deal.

Not if you're spamming hive tyrants. However, they can also attack with AP2 and smash in CC. It's a great area threat for gladius marines.

A Tyrannocyte has no threat area with regards to melee because it cannot voluntarily charge anything; it can only be charged. If your opponent is feeling particularly self-destructive and wants to charge a S5+ AP2 unit, then great for you. But that's more of a 'suicide zone' than an 'area threat'.

shadowfinder wrote:

75 to 100 point ripper.t5 5 wound 4+ save moving MC which now shoots random areas. can be large blast for 25 point more. I like them cause you have to dedicate a two or three of units to kill them or one high powered one with shooting.

Ripper? I don't like them because they are horribly overcosted, much more so with this faq. And unlike pods they can't be ObSec (or have 360 shooting apparently). So many 12+" move cc units that takes them out without breaking a sweat. Thunderwolf cavalry and Imperial Knights just doubles them out, as do any MC out there. And bikes, Juglords with Fleshhounds kills them pretty easy in cc.

 greyknight12 wrote:
However, they can also attack with AP2 and smash in CC. It's a great area threat for gladius marines.

Nope, T-cytes can't assault, because reasonzz. And they can't even scratch a drop pod, unless you buy them Venom Cannons, in which case you could fire one or max two shots at a pod and hope to roll a 6 for a glance, lol. My guess is you have never actually deployed a Tyrannocyte.

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights posted.

We've got a two-fer this week with Astra Militarum and Grey Knights.

they are very short.....

GK FAQ question 2: "Reminder that Drop Pod taxi services are dead. That is all."

They all seem very wishlisty

Short and to the point really, though the Leman Russ one will always get brought up. Because a useful Leman Russ tank..? feth me, right!

Erm. Random yarrick nerf? Went from fearless hero of the imperium to most cowardly commissar..

 Desubot wrote:
They all seem very wishlisty

Yeah seriously.

"This thing doesn't have the rules I want, can it have those rules?" No.
"This formation doesn't have the models I want, can it have those models?" No.

I just like to imagine what would have happened if GW had ruled that the fire point on a rhino was the rear door.

The tears of SM players would have flooded GW HQ. Guard players are just sitting there with the Dark Eldar players, looking at their pretty models on a shelf and shrugging.

the_scotsman wrote:
I just like to imagine what would have happened if GW had ruled that the fire point on a rhino was the rear door.

The tears of SM players would have flooded GW HQ. Guard players are just sitting there with the Dark Eldar players, looking at their pretty models on a shelf and shrugging.

It's a poorly worded answer
The chimera has 3 hatches
The turret hatch
The rear top hatch
And the rear door hatch (access point)
I'm assuming when they said he read hatch they mean the rear top hatch and not the rear door hatch as that's the access point not fire point, but I'm sure they will clarify it.

The rep on Facebook also stated that the are working on the final two faqs for next week and already working on the final version of the faqs to include clarifications and additional questions that were asked.
So it sounds like the final version of the faqs should be posted by the end of August.

Now all we need is a new ruleset to clear up the horrid, clunky mess 40k has become lol.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Now all we need is a new ruleset to clear up the horrid, clunky mess 40k has become lol.

that is not the problem

the problem would be to get one from GW

Well seeing as they are making FAQS I don't think new rules are coming soon.

the_scotsman wrote:
I just like to imagine what would have happened if GW had ruled that the fire point on a rhino was the rear door.

The tears of SM players would have flooded GW HQ. Guard players are just sitting there with the Dark Eldar players, looking at their pretty models on a shelf and shrugging.

Not the rear access point. The hatch on top, at the back between the lasgun arrays. That's the fire point. The set of double-doors that open up to the sky.

the_scotsman wrote:I just like to imagine what would have happened if GW had ruled that the fire point on a rhino was the rear door.

The tears of SM players would have flooded GW HQ. Guard players are just sitting there with the Dark Eldar players, looking at their pretty models on a shelf and shrugging.

While giving GW more money for other armies. This is done on purpose. And it seems to work, or at least did work back in 5th edition. It just mind boggles me someone has an army they love, and get so upset with GW that they will give them more money, time and energy for another army so they can win easier or more.

I am hoping that 8th edition will put a stop to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So how many FAQs are left now? Necrons are the only ones left now? Just curious what is going to happen now. Get these FAQs to become official or will be used for 8th edition? Maybe both?

I wonder if all the FAQs will be released all at once when they are official or will they trickle down again?

I was rather optimistically hoping for more for the guard, like ' AOE benefits can AOE from inside a transport' but oh well.

The point about non CAD elements into a formation is at least helpful, if of no benefit to IG.

Davor wrote:

So how many FAQs are left now? Necrons are the only ones left now?

Necrons and Daemons, I believe.

I facepalmed hard when I saw the last two GK questions.

Overall I'm decently satisified with the FAQs so far, at least they clarified that what the general population thought was RAI was indeed how the rules were meant to be played, not the mustache-twirling Saturday cartoon villain logic some people came up with.

Game still needs rebalancing but that's for actual codex updates.

I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

If you're not wearing a loyalist power armour you're not worth spending too much time on.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

Flakk Missiles have not had Interceptor ever.

The problem with Hydras isn't the lack of Interceptor and the fact that it only has Skyfire. The problem with Hydras is that they didn't retain the Auto-Targeting System and that for a weapon system that is supposed to "fill the air with flak", it sure as heck does not.
The problem with Hydras is that the things it is supposed to be good against(fast moving targets that aren't ground based), they just don't care about something which has no Ignores Cover.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Oh please. There was no "Steel Host nerf", there was a FAQ of a question that has popped up because of people doing what I like to refer to as "selective reading".

To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

gungo wrote:
To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

I can kinda see why Pask is not allowed though, even if I do not agree with it.

While the unit upgrade options are the same("Tank Commander upgraded to Knight-Commander Pask" and "Captain to Chapter Master"), the unit composition actually does change("1 Tank Commander" becomes "1(Unique)" while it just remains as "1 Captain" for the Captain option).

Additionally, it's not unreasonable there needs to be a specific caveat that a Special Character has to be allowed to replace a part of a formation.

The ruling I was the most upset with was the one regarding PE and re-rolling 1's for Gets Hot on our plasma tanks. My whole army at 1850 was based on the Steel Host and rolling an Executioner tank squadron that wouldn't easily blow itself up. What's even the post of using Executioner tanks now that they basically kill themselves so easily?

Sorry wanted to rant. But yeah IG always seem to getting the short end of the stick lately. I don't get why Reece keeps denying that they're bad or harder to play, yeah I get it reece you have vultures and FW artillery not all of us do.

I really wish they would update IG already. Our 6th ed codex was okay when it came out, now it's utter gak.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Looks like the GW practice of over powered/unpowered codices still work. Not saying that the poster will do this but it does seem to be working though. Someone so upset they will shelf/get rid of their army and give GW even more money with their bad practices. Nothing tells GW please stop nerving codices when people just keep giving GW more money because of it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

What the feth..?

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

Every unit suffers a hit for each (of its) models within d6"

So yeah it affects all units on the table... just that most of them won't have models in those units within d6" of the Pyrovores. So the rest will take 0 S3 hits.

Requizen wrote:
Every unit suffers a hit for each (of its) models within d6"

So yeah it affects all units on the table... just that most of them won't have models in those units within d6" of the Pyrovores. So the rest will take 0 S3 hits.

Problem is you are inserting (in those units) into the phrase. RAW it doesn't state so...

Lets be honest though, thats so blatantly not how you play it. On the wierd world that is the internet you can makr a funny thread about it but noone is ever going to actually think its played like that

 Wolfblade wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

Excellent point for YMDC. In the real world, it's units with models within D6".

 Wolfblade wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

I'm confused then, because it says "within d6" of the slain pyrovore." Even if you say that RAW it hits the whole table, you still only roll wounds for models within whatever you roll on the d6 for the range, coming out from the slain pyrovore.

Edit: OHHHHHH I'm seeing it now. The way it reads is basically:

1. You roll a d6 for range.
2. You count how many models are within that range.
3. You resolve that many hits against every unit on the table.

Yeah?

Yup. You know what they were going for but it's not what they wrote. Emblematic of the poor wording and proofing the releases sometimes have.

Wildly off topic though.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

No, it does not. Your high school English teachers would be ashamed.

Yes, it does.

"If a pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a strength 3 ap- hit for each model (excluding pyrovores) within d6" of the slain pyrovore."

The d6" defines how many hits every unit suffers, not which units are effected.

What they meant to say is "every unit within d6" suffers a str 3 ap- hit for each model that it has at least partially within the rolled distance."

The d6" pretty clearly defines a range. You roll the d6 to find a range in inches (of the slain pyrovore), and every unit suffers one hit per model (in that unit) within that range (of the slain pyrovore).

except RAW, EVERY unit, not those just within D6" takes the hits. the D6" just is a range for the model count.

I'm confused then, because it says "within d6" of the slain pyrovore." Even if you say that RAW it hits the whole table, you still only roll wounds for models within whatever you roll on the d6 for the range, coming out from the slain pyrovore.

Edit: OHHHHHH I'm seeing it now. The way it reads is basically:

1. You roll a d6 for range.
2. You count how many models are within that range.
3. You resolve that many hits against every unit on the table.

Yeah?

Correct. RAW, it's one of the stupidest things ever and I'm (sorta) surprised GW managed to miss it TWICE.

RAI, it's obvious that it's meant to only affect units in D6 range.

 Wolfblade wrote:

RAI, it's obvious that it's meant to only affect units in D6 range.

RAI a lot of things would be obvious but were answered with RAW in the FAQ because "the current sentence" count, otherwise it would have been an Errata and not a FAQ

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Hopefully interceptor dies in 8th.

BossJakadakk wrote:
Edit: OHHHHHH I'm seeing it now. The way it reads is basically:

1. You roll a d6 for range.
2. You count how many models are within that range.
3. You resolve that many hits against every unit on the table.

Yeah?

Yeah. Silly to the extreme. Luckily I have never heard of anybody REALLY trying to pull a stunt but has to wonder didn't anybody send it for GW and if not why it wasn't answered? Did they slap their face and go "that's too obvious for us to bother"

Right!?

It's not off topic. I mentioned that it blows my mind the nid faq didn't address this. Or how another poster put it, "they missed this... TWICE". The faq is for rules clarifications. This is one of the most rediculously worded rules in the game at the moment... maybe just flat out the most, and it has existed with no word from gw for YEARS. In fact, since 6th edition!

Granted, everyone knows what they meant. But raw, pyrovores explode tables.

Just surround a pyrovore with a horde of gaunt or spore mines or whatever and watch the table drown in 30 str 3ap- hits. A cataclysmic fire titans and c'tan wish they could dish out.

 Lance845 wrote:
Right!?

It's not off topic. I mentioned that it blows my mind the nid faq didn't address this. Or how another poster put it, "they missed this... TWICE". The faq is for rules clarifications. This is one of the most rediculously worded rules in the game at the moment... maybe just flat out the most, and it has existed with no word from gw for YEARS. In fact, since 6th edition!

Granted, everyone knows what they meant. But raw, pyrovores explode tables.

Remember that the FAQ questions were submitted by the community. If they missed it, it may be because nobody submitted it in the first place.

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

I can kinda see why Pask is not allowed though, even if I do not agree with it.

While the unit upgrade options are the same("Tank Commander upgraded to Knight-Commander Pask" and "Captain to Chapter Master"), the unit composition actually does change("1 Tank Commander" becomes "1(Unique)" while it just remains as "1 Captain" for the Captain option).

Additionally, it's not unreasonable there needs to be a specific caveat that a Special Character has to be allowed to replace a part of a formation.

Pask is about as unique as any specific chapter master.
How many chapter masters does a SM company have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Hopefully interceptor dies in 8th.

Interceptor is good, it's the only deferent to deepstrike reserve shenanigans.
Skyfire needs to go away.... It's redundant... Flyers have jink to protect them
I'd also like to see flyers to have the ability to begin the game on the table.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't know if this was mentioned, but it blows my mind that the Tyranid FAQ doesn't have a rewording of the Pyrovore rule.

RAW it still blows up the entire table and there is zero clarification of that in the FAQ.

Maybe no one asked a question about it.

There is still time to pop over to facebook and ask.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

Flakk Missiles have not had Interceptor ever.

The problem with Hydras isn't the lack of Interceptor and the fact that it only has Skyfire. The problem with Hydras is that they didn't retain the Auto-Targeting System and that for a weapon system that is supposed to "fill the air with flak", it sure as heck does not.
The problem with Hydras is that the things it is supposed to be good against(fast moving targets that aren't ground based), they just don't care about something which has no Ignores Cover.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Oh please. There was no "Steel Host nerf", there was a FAQ of a question that has popped up because of people doing what I like to refer to as "selective reading".

Uhhh... yes, there was. Losing Pask was rough and on top of that, the PE on Blast ruling that flies in the face of the wording in the rulebook. I basically have 3 tanks I can't use now our of my 5 for the Steel Host. Oh yea, and a crap Hydra.

So Steel Host is essentially dead now, which sucks because it isn't like IG had much going for it in the first place.

gungo wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
To be fair pask not being allowed in steel host makes no sense since the upgrade is worded exactly the same (right down to even the same cost) as the battle companies upgrade from Captain to chapter master.

I can kinda see why Pask is not allowed though, even if I do not agree with it.

While the unit upgrade options are the same("Tank Commander upgraded to Knight-Commander Pask" and "Captain to Chapter Master"), the unit composition actually does change("1 Tank Commander" becomes "1(Unique)" while it just remains as "1 Captain" for the Captain option).

Additionally, it's not unreasonable there needs to be a specific caveat that a Special Character has to be allowed to replace a part of a formation.

Pask is about as unique as any specific chapter master.

There is a difference, however, between "Generic Chapter Master" and "Marneus Calgar".

Notice the wording for a Battle Demi-Company however. There are caveats allowing for the named Captains and Chaplains to replace the Captain or Chaplain.

How many chapter masters does a SM company have?

The question should have been "How many Chapter Masters does a SM Chapter have?" and "What makes a Chapter Master different from a Captain?".

Orbital Bombardment is the only noticeable difference aside from stats--and frankly, OB should not be tied to the Chapter Master profile.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Because we couldn't have an AA platform with Interceptor... right. Makes sense.

GW really, really must hate the IG for some reason. Between the Steel Host nerfs and this, I am tempted to just hock the whole army and focus on my Marines, since I know those will get endless support.

Hopefully interceptor dies in 8th.

Interceptor is good, it's the only deferent to deepstrike reserve shenanigans.

Not really. Interceptor is not so widely available that it is a deterrent to DSR shenanigans. There's only one army which has Interceptor so widely spread that it is a genuine deterrent to DSR shenanigans, and that army pays like 5 points for Interceptor.

Skyfire needs to go away.... It's redundant... Flyers have jink to protect them
I'd also like to see flyers to have the ability to begin the game on the table.

Skyfire, as a concept, is okay. The issue is that Jink saves are considered Cover saves rather than their own classification of saves. There's a reason why the Imperial Armour Hydra is still viable while the C: AM one is garbage. Autotargeting System stripping saves granted by Jink is huge for dealing with Skimmers and Flyers.

So, hoping for Necron FAQ today?

Necrons and Daemons are left. Double release is probably unlikely, as they have only done those for "related" factions, but possible I guess.

Have the Tempestus Scions been done yet? Can't quite recall.

 BrookM wrote:
Have the Tempestus Scions been done yet? Can't quite recall.

Yeah, they were one of the first, in a multi-release with Inquisition and Sisters.

Necrons is up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, some interesting stuff, I must say. Apparently now they say that C'Tans and Wraiths do strike at Init 1 when charging through terrain. Rip.

Also, Rest in Pepperonis to the Conclave of the Burning One. We knew you well. "Taps begins to play"

Necrons seemed to get a boost but there's some contradictory stuff in there too :(

Ffyllotek wrote:
Necrons seemed to get a boost but there's some contradictory stuff in there too :(

Boost as in how? Most of it was stuff we already assumed (Praetorian weapons, Deathmarks wounding GCs on a 2, only one spyder in the formation, ext.).

Side note, I haven't even looked at the rules for a sponson mounted weapon. What are the rules for that, exactly? I don't have my rulebook on me.

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1667969406857025/1667967710190528/?type=3&theater



Cool with most of that -- that's how we'd been playing the harvest so yeah us !

Hadn't even thought about the beamer/shred combo -- although not sure I've used anything other than res. protocols anyhow

.. wrong about the C'tan though IMO -- Mcs can shoot twice so...?

So now Lance doesn't cancel Quantum Shielding? Which are we supposed to use at this point

I have to say I'm pretty happy they clarified the Judicator Battlion and Nightscythe hang up. With the Praetorians being able to ride in a Nightscythe makes me happy too.

Also it appears I have lost the Obelisk weapon firing arc war lol. Or not, I forget how sponsons work but don't they long have an arc based on how they move? Which if that is true the FAQ hasn't actually answered anything lol.

 reds8n wrote:
.. wrong about the C'tan though IMO -- Mcs can shoot twice so...?

Monstrous Creatures can fire two different weapons. Powers of the C'tan would be the equivalent of a single weapon with six randomly chosen firing modes.

 Ghaz wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
.. wrong about the C'tan though IMO -- Mcs can shoot twice so...?

Monstrous Creatures can fire two different weapons. Powers of the C'tan would be the equivalent of a single weapon with six randomly chosen firing modes.

Which is saddening because IIRC, it was worded to treat it as a shooting attack, but didn't mention it as a weapon, which is where the confusion came in.

Being able to use Gaze of Death in CC against any unit within line of sight seems huge.

But then you can't take it in Conclave of the Burning One any more so will anybody even play with them?

 Reavik wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
.. wrong about the C'tan though IMO -- Mcs can shoot twice so...?

Monstrous Creatures can fire two different weapons. Powers of the C'tan would be the equivalent of a single weapon with six randomly chosen firing modes.

Which is saddening because IIRC, it was worded to treat it as a shooting attack, but didn't mention it as a weapon, which is where the confusion came in.

If you're not treating it as a weapon, then there's nothing that would allow you to use it twice to begin with as the rule says that a Monstrous Creature can "... fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase..."

Qlanth wrote:
Being able to use Gaze of Death in CC against any unit within line of sight seems huge.

But then you can't take it in Conclave of the Burning One any more so will anybody even play with them?

Short Answer: No.

Oh GW, you gave everyone that wanted to field a C'tan effectively the perfect tool to do so. The formation seemed to be made to breath new life into my shelved giant. And when we finally get an answer to our prayer you strip it from us like the malevolent sons of bitches you are.

Redt of the FAQ is kind of how I used to play things anyway.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So now Lance doesn't cancel Quantum Shielding? Which are we supposed to use at this point

They answered the question right there - unless I'm not seeing something.

Q: Does the Lance special rule work against QUantum Shielding?
A: Yes.

Fourth question in the following image...

 Ghaz wrote:
Fourth question in the following image...

Ah! I see. Yeah, a few contradictions have popped up between the first general FAQ and the codex FAQ's. Likely they will circle around and clarify everything.. by the time 8th rolls out.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So now Lance doesn't cancel Quantum Shielding? Which are we supposed to use at this point

They answered the question right there - unless I'm not seeing something.

Q: Does the Lance special rule work against QUantum Shielding?
A: Yes.

They previously addressed it in the BRB FAQ, as "both cancel each other out, and use the vehicles base AV"

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
So now Lance doesn't cancel Quantum Shielding? Which are we supposed to use at this point

They answered the question right there - unless I'm not seeing something.

Q: Does the Lance special rule work against QUantum Shielding?
A: Yes.

In a previous FAQ they said the rules cancel each other out, ie none of the rules would be applied. This goes against that.

As previously answered, basically it looks like they fixed the previously stupid FAQ ruling but we have no way of knowing which they actually want us to use. Preferably, we would just have our AVs reduced to 12.

I'm surprised they didn't clarify the number of Scarabs that are returned with the Ret. Phalanx formation. I went ahead and asked the question on Facebook.

DaPino wrote:
Oh GW, you gave everyone that wanted to field a C'tan effectively the perfect tool to do so. The formation seemed to be made to breath new life into my shelved giant. And when we finally get an answer to our prayer you strip it from us like the malevolent sons of bitches you are.

Redt of the FAQ is kind of how I used to play things anyway.

Welcome to our world...

So, finally Chaos Daemons are next...er....last?

 Sersi wrote:
So, finally Chaos Daemons are next...er....last?

Well they could still release deathwatch faq. It's not like there aren't questions for it.

The Chaos daemons FAQ is as long as the rest of the put together, I'm sure.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sersi wrote:
So, finally Chaos Daemons are next...er....last?

Well they could still release deathwatch faq. It's not like there aren't questions for it.

They actually said they might do one.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sersi wrote:
So, finally Chaos Daemons are next...er....last?

Well they could still release deathwatch faq. It's not like there aren't questions for it.

They actually said they might do one.

Would be odd not to. Release FAQ's for every other codex but not them? Not like there's not candinates...

Actually question should be more of "when". Do they do first draft for them now or later?

tneva82 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sersi wrote:
So, finally Chaos Daemons are next...er....last?

Well they could still release deathwatch faq. It's not like there aren't questions for it.

They actually said they might do one.

Would be odd not to. Release FAQ's for every other codex but not them? Not like there's not candinates...

Actually question should be more of "when". Do they do first draft for them now or later?

Well, if you look, they didn't answer any questions (because there probably weren't any compiled due to the book not being out) about the Angels of Death book either. I certainly hope they go back and cover stuff about that book and do some stuff for the Deathwatch Codex as well.

So how about a little clarification on how you can reembark on a Night Scythe.

The only way it would seem is to embark before the night scythe moves, since that is the only way the transport can move full distance.

Or they would jave to add to the Invasion Beams rule to allow reembark if the flyer moves under 36.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So how about a little clarification on how you can reembark on a Night Scythe.

The only way it would seem is to embark before the night scythe moves, since that is the only way the transport can move full distance.

Or they would jave to add to the Invasion Beams rule to allow reembark if the flyer moves under 36.

They also need to errata it so that you can embark on a zooming flier somehow

harkequin wrote:

They also need to errata it so that you can embark on a zooming flier somehow

Not really. The rules state that you can't embark on a zooming flyer unless stated otherwise.

The FAQ states otherwise.


GW have a poor track record for keeping errata in the errata section.

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:

They also need to errata it so that you can embark on a zooming flier somehow

Not really. The rules state that you can't embark on a zooming flyer unless stated otherwise.

The FAQ states otherwise.


GW have a poor track record for keeping errata in the errata section.

Checked BRB, you are correct. "unless otherwise stated" so the FAQ is fine, could have been clearer but its usable

 Crazyterran wrote:
The Chaos daemons FAQ is as long as the rest of the put together, I'm sure.

It certainly could be. There is allot a conflicting information in the codex seeing as then decided to just staple the new psychic lore tables, formations , rewards, war lord traits, etc to the back of the codex rather than say which parts over write which.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Tyrannocyte fire arcs finally cleared up. Nerf imo :(

Hardly. That's a pretty sensible judgement there. Even Tyranids have a limit to their range of muscle movements. Venom cannons are pretty nasty.

Sorry but I think you're reading it wrong. RAW for MCs are that they don't need to be facing a target to shoot at it. "If in doubt" means if you're not sure what's closer, pretend it's a vehicle gun.

In other other words, measure from each gun, shoot unit closest to that gun. If you're not sure which of two units is closer, the closer one is the one a vehicle could shoot if the gun was in the same location mounted on a vehicle.

daemons this week !

So they still don't address the Bloodthirster D weapon being different wording from the Knight D weapon, despite being the same keyword. Sigh. Glaring omission.

And I even put up a request about that, and there were multiple locked threads about it here. It's clearly an issue. Currently makes Blade of Blood overpowered and the D-axe weakened (as compared to a Knight's D-weapon).

I'm not up to date on that problem what's the issue with it?

One base of Nurglings in a unit can throw a defensive grenade in their Shooting phase (though it's best not to think too hard about precisely what it is they're throwing).

gungo wrote:
I'm not up to date on that problem what's the issue with it?

Knight says (bit of paraphrasing) a model attacking with this rule attacks at I1
Bloodthirster says a model with this rule attacks at I1

Big difference. The rule (I forgot the exact name) is the same rule name, but with omitted words in the demon book.

I'm sorry I'm not seeing the difference at least the way you wrote it.
Niether makes the model Int 1 outside of the assault phase ( they are still base int for other rules)
Nor is either weapon based but model based
They both read to me they attack in the assault phase at int 1 regardless.
I'm sure there is something I'm missing though if it's that big an issue though.

Feel free to ask again on the comments they said in the last faq they are answering additional questions

Heh, Nurglings can throw dirty bombs.

It's been tackled in YMDC, and got locked with no side agreeing. Again, one says the model just has to have it. The other says only while attacking. Go back a couple pages into YMDC and you'll be able to find it. I'm on a phone, so searching it out is a bit of trouble.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It's been tackled in YMDC, and got locked with no side agreeing. Again, one says the model just has to have it. The other says only while attacking. Go back a couple pages into YMDC and you'll be able to find it. I'm on a phone, so searching it out is a bit of trouble.

It did get answered in a way in the Harlequin draft FAQ:

So, we're talking about Daemons. I am quite dumb about them, however, those Exalted Flamers of Tzeenech or whatever. I fought them recently, and they were 75 points for their 4t/4s/3w + theyre jetbikes + theyre level 1 psykers + theyre heralds? (Wtf is a herald?)

Is this true? If so, why dont peoplejust being a ton of them? lol...

Arkengate wrote:
So, we're talking about Daemons. I am quite dumb about them, however, those Exalted Flamers of Tzeenech or whatever. I fought them recently, and they were 75 points for their 4t/4s/3w + theyre jetbikes + theyre level 1 psykers + theyre heralds? (Wtf is a herald?)

Is this true? If so, why dont peoplejust being a ton of them? lol...

I don't really know where to begin. I think you are talking about Heralds of Tzeentch, which are Psykers (that can be upgraded to ML3) and can be mounted on Jetbikes, and people do spam them, but they are well over 100pts kitted out properly. And they are only T4 when on bike and only have 2 Wounds
Exalted Flamers are a completely different unit. If you played against those, they were Infantry (FAQ has now made them "Jump") and those are 3 wounds.

Either you are grossly mis-remembering stats, or your opponent lied

 Ghaz wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It's been tackled in YMDC, and got locked with no side agreeing. Again, one says the model just has to have it. The other says only while attacking. Go back a couple pages into YMDC and you'll be able to find it. I'm on a phone, so searching it out is a bit of trouble.

It did get answered in a way in the Harlequin draft FAQ:

EDIT: I found it in the BRB FAQ (ya know the one that came out about 2 months ago)

"Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes."

-

Holy gak, they gave Daemons back Psychic Focus. While not huge, that is a big boon.

Huh the Errata on allowing Daemons to generate all their powers from the updated lores was a unexpected way of fixing it (making it tied to the new Super Detachment).

Overall I'm happy with this FaQ. I can't think of any obviously missed questions and the answers don't seem pants-on-head stupid or contradictory with the written rules.

It's good to know that I get both Chaos and Psychic Focus, even if the Daemon Primaris powers aren't that good (besides Stream of Corruption. AP3 Flamer templates are always a good thing to have).

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
(besides Stream of Corruption. AP3 Flamer templates are always a good thing to have).

Agreed!

Yea, possession explicitly allows the "fancy" bloodthirsters!

I don't really know where to begin. I think you are talking about Heralds of Tzeentch, which are Psykers (that can be upgraded to ML3) and can be mounted on Jetbikes, and people do spam them, but they are well over 100pts kitted out properly. And they are only T4 when on bike and only have 2 Wounds
Exalted Flamers are a completely different unit. If you played against those, they were Infantry (FAQ has now made them "Jump") and those are 3 wounds.

Either you are grossly mis-remembering stats, or your opponent lied

i remember last night playing vs him, he didnt have a list (that wasnt hand written) and it said Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch.
It had 4 toughness, 3 wounds. It had a Torrent ability that was a template. It was 50 points in the Curse of the Wulfen book, but he also said they were "riding discs, which makes them jetbikes" and had the herald upgrade to make them Psykers level 1, at 75 points each. He brought 10 of them for 750 points. He was using them in a formation along with a Demon to get +1 to all fire rolls.

Unfortunately, I don't have all the books sitting around to find the stats/find out how he did them. I cant even really find Curse of the wulfen on battlescribe :-(
-

Well, I'm pretty happy with the FAQ. I don't get why they would Errata the God specific Psychic Disciplines that way. So if you don't take the detachment then you can still only roll 1/2 your powers + you get psychic focus. But you still roll on the new 7 power Charts rather than the old 4 power ones. Well at least now we can get psychic focus on the Rule book powers, that's a solid bonus.

Arkengate wrote:
I don't really know where to begin. I think you are talking about Heralds of Tzeentch, which are Psykers (that can be upgraded to ML3) and can be mounted on Jetbikes, and people do spam them, but they are well over 100pts kitted out properly. And they are only T4 when on bike and only have 2 Wounds
Exalted Flamers are a completely different unit. If you played against those, they were Infantry (FAQ has now made them "Jump") and those are 3 wounds.

Either you are grossly mis-remembering stats, or your opponent lied

i remember last night playing vs him, he didnt have a list (that wasnt hand written) and it said Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch.
It had 4 toughness, 3 wounds. It had a Torrent ability that was a template. It was 50 points in the Curse of the Wulfen book, but he also said they were "riding discs, which makes them jetbikes" and had the herald upgrade to make them Psykers level 1, at 75 points each. He brought 10 of them for 750 points. He was using them in a formation along with a Demon to get +1 to all fire rolls.

Unfortunately, I don't have all the books sitting around to find the stats/find out how he did them. I cant even really find Curse of the wulfen on battlescribe :-(
-

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1676232199364079/?type=3&theater

You've had the codex for a few days now, and you might have a few questions. The Deathwatch is a very distinctive army, with units composed in unique ways and with access to more kit than usual. If there's anything that you're unsure about, post your questions below, and we'll send them on to our rules guys.

We'll be sure to post up the Draft FAQ before it's official too, so you can all give us your thoughts before any new rules are made official.

Thanks in advance for your help, Watch Brothers

Here's hoping Shotguns + Bolters can still be legit.

Made sure to ask about the Stalker Boltgun/Banebolts of Eryxia dilemma.

I posted quite a few inquiries. Currently the top comment, and I asked about Bolters/Shotguns. Here's hoping for replies within the next week or two.

I asked about the Stalker Banebolts issue, asked for them to update Kill Team Cassius to be compatible with the new Codex (add Mission Tactics, have the respective units count as their unit type for the purposes of Formations). I also asked if it was intentional for the base configuration for Veterans to not be able to be built with the Kill Team kit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's hoping Shotguns + Bolters can still be legit.

Does it require conversion or *gasp* 3rd party accessories? Then I'd say it's unlikely to remain. No models no rules!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's hoping Shotguns + Bolters can still be legit.

How is it even a question?
Deathwatch Veterans have a boltgun
Deathwatch Veterans Can exchange a boltgun for a shotgun

Deathwatch Veterans also have a CCW.
Deathwatch Veterans can exchange a CCW for a Boltgun

There is no double-swap here. If they rule that bolter+shotgun is illegal, they are also ruling that shotgun + power weapon is illegal since the ranged and melee weapon lists use the same verbiage.
---------------------------------------

What's iffy is stalker bolter plus shotgun (or any combination of two choices from the special list) as that would require you to swap your CCW for a bolter then swap your shiny new bolter for something.

Of course if they say that doesn't work they also say that codex bikers can't have special weapons either.

Agreed, Rose.

I made a point to indicate this same process is also how Space Marine Bikes get upgrades as well, in hopes of them realizing it's clearly legal.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here's hoping Shotguns + Bolters can still be legit.

How is it even a question?
Deathwatch Veterans have a boltgun
Deathwatch Veterans Can exchange a boltgun for a shotgun

Deathwatch Veterans also have a CCW.
Deathwatch Veterans can exchange a CCW for a Boltgun

There is no double-swap here. If they rule that bolter+shotgun is illegal, they are also ruling that shotgun + power weapon is illegal since the ranged and melee weapon lists use the same verbiage.
---------------------------------------

What's iffy is stalker bolter plus shotgun (or any combination of two choices from the special list) as that would require you to swap your CCW for a bolter then swap your shiny new bolter for something.

Of course if they say that doesn't work they also say that codex bikers can't have special weapons either.

Who says they have to be consistent?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Who says they have to be consistent?

Exactly this. The verbiage of option substitution precedence is RAW but GW has been occasionally throwing RAW out of the window on these FAQs and giving us RAI or HIWPI instead. Such a change should be an errata, but it isn't.

If they don't allow it, then we're back to the problem of Erratas masquerading as FAQs and whether we obey them or not.

I really have to say, after all this time I'm quite disappointed in how the treat the mark of Tzeentch for the demons. That +3 leadership bonus to 'defend against perils of the warp', is a very sad way of saying 'we just didn't want to rewrite the codex entry'.

In the past, demons and others with the mark of Tzeentch had an excessively easy time 'casting' psychic powers. Which made sense, as, not only are demons made of warp magic, their god is pretty much the one who manipulates it best. I seem to recall Tzeentch psychers in one of the codex's not even having to make psychic tests!

When the demons first received their own codex, they used their psychic powers as just 'normal attacks', just shooting them in the shooting phase (or whenever they were supposed to go off), no tests, they just 'did' them cause they're demons, and it's what they do. Though less 'whimsical', this did somewhat make sense considering they're made-of-magic.

Now they've added a special phase into the game especially for psychic powers, and of course, demons should be a part of that. But, the demons who are servants of Tzneetch should be given a bit more of an advantage in this phase, considering their origins, then just 'a slightly better save vs perils'. That +3 LD advantage is there from a time when casting a psychic power meant just making a LD test to see if it went off. So even when the rule was created, the intent was to make psychic powers 'easier' for Tzeentch demons to cast. Now with Warp charges, that's all changed, and they are stuck generating powers exactly like everyone else.

In my opinion ,there's two ways you could solve this.


The Fluffy option:
You generate of good amount of warp charges when you play Tzeentch demons, and when I say 'good', I just mean 'good', it's more then most armies, but not enough to be a BIG advantage especially when you consider this their ONLY way of doing any sort of shooting attacks. Tzeentch demons SUCK in melee, so, as in previous editions, they rely on attacking with tons of crazy shooting. Instead of the 'good' amount of dice they generate in the psychic phase, they need to generate an INSANE amount of dice. I recently played a 1000pt Tzeetch demon army, and with 3 x 20 horror squads, 2 x lev 1 heralds, and a lev 2 LoC, I was only pulling down base 13 warp charge dice. This meant my army's shooting was centered around 14-19 dice (depending on my roll that round), Plus, if they rolled well, my opponent could effectively dispel at least one of my attacks with their deny the witch, on top of their armor and invul saves. Realistically, I should be getting something like 30 warp charge dice per turn, more then I could really use effectively, but meaning I could pour as much into getting the spells cast as possible. Even if you take away my +3 LD advantage, you're probably saying "That's too OP!!!1!!", but hear me out. As mentioned earlier, they are Tzeentch Demons, made of magic, created from the god of magic, yada, yada. However, all this absolute, vomit-overload of psychic powers I'm doing per turn is creating TONS of perils of the warp attacks, which is reducing the numbers of units and killing characters, but that is what these demons would do (according to the fluff). They're completely reckless/fearless/desperate creatures, with not cares for what happens to them. This sort of thing is textbook Chaos. Potential HUGE GAINS balanced by potential HUGE LOSSES. An absolute tidal wave of psychic power, that causes plenty of potential destruction, but also dissipates soon after it hits.


The Sensible option:
The second fix would be to ditch the +3 LD bonus, and just give Tzeentch demons a +1 to their warp charge activation rolls. This would give them a nice little advantage, but make them fully susceptible to perils, and being more meticulous with how they use their charges (still a 33% chance they fail it, vs a 50% chance). This would also balance them out a bit more when paired with other gods demons in the same army.

Ultimately, the demons just need a new, updated codex for this edition, but I suppose you could say that for any of the armies, it just feels like Tzeentch in particular, got the shaft when 7th ed. hit.

Hmm... I should do a full listing of all the contradictory HQ armaments for the Deathwatch and send 'em that.

it's proably as intended but asking if libbys can't take jump packs and chappys can't take terminator armor or jump packs is intended might be a good idea. maybe they'll errata it