is now up and can be got from here

It's like they read Dakka before making these decisions...

Awesome. So I guess we're done with the whole "wings as hull" debate?

mixed blessings on the LR for guard..but at least it confirms they can have one eh ?

No surprise either on the no orders to allies clarification, seems a sensible solution for the valk. and passengers too.

Uriels_Flame wrote:Awesome. So I guess we're done with the whole "wings as hull" debate?

Not entirely. We still don't know what they are for being shot at, if I read that correctly.

If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of
the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack?

No

Well that is definitely a different direction. Stinks for Astropaths but OotF was good for your opponent anyway.

GMMStudios wrote:If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of
the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack?

No

Well that is definitely a different direction. Stinks for Astropaths but OotF was good for your opponent anyway.

That might be one of the more arbitrary decisions. I'm guessing they were told they have trouble keeping the advisers in stock, and they should get people to buy other things instead....

Got the expected result on: only one heavy weapons team in infantry and veteran squads, you can't give orders in opponent's turn, hotshot lasguns aren't lasguns, hellstrikes aren't blast

Harsher than expected: ICs with Send in the Next Wave (ouch), no stacking of advisors

Not surprised: Can't multiple barrage with a mortar and Master of Ordnance, Valks can embark and disembark troops, allies FAQ

And while they did clarify that the Inducted Leman Russ in a WH/DH army must be a LRBT rather than a variant, they did not clarify whether that means 0-1 tank or 0-1 tank squadrons.

Death By Monkeys wrote:And while they did clarify that the Inducted Leman Russ in a WH/DH army must be a LRBT rather than a variant, they did not clarify whether that means 0-1 tank or 0-1 tank squadrons.

It says you are limited to 0-1 tank, so IMO it looks like they're simply keeping the old option fully intact, so only one tank.

HOLY CRAP!!!!

GW can write good rules and make quality FAQ's!!!!!

Now if they would just do this with everyone of their FAQ's.

This single work gives me hope for the future of this game.



You are limited to 0-1 LRBT, not 0-1 LRBT squadron. Seems pretty clear to me.

Raxmei wrote:Got the expected result on: only one heavy weapons team in infantry and veteran squads, you can't give orders in opponent's turn, hotshot lasguns aren't lasguns, hellstrikes aren't blast

Harsher than expected: ICs with Send in the Next Wave (ouch), no stacking of advisors

Not surprised: Can't multiple barrage with a mortar and Master of Ordnance, Valks can embark and disembark troops, allies FAQ

Yeah this is how I see all of them too.

Not too bad really.

Polonius wrote:It says you are limited to 0-1 tank, so IMO it looks like they're simply keeping the old option fully intact, so only one tank.

Don't get me wrong, that's how I read it, too (and how I originally read it), but there are still folks out there who'll want to read it as a squadron...

I had guessed as much. Most went the way I had thought. Would have liked storm troopers to get frfsrf as it would have made them more worth their points. But overall pretty happy.

One big bonus is that you can embark/disembark within 2" of the valks base, making the access points almost academic. It's not a huge boost, but a nice one.

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Polonius wrote:It says you are limited to 0-1 tank, so IMO it looks like they're simply keeping the old option fully intact, so only one tank.

Don't get me wrong, that's how I read it, too (and how I originally read it), but there are still folks out there who'll want to read it as a squadron...

Those people should just be happy they get the behemouth rule and can slap plasma cannons on.

Wow, nice GW. A very good FAQ, covered everything I could think of in a clear fashion and most of the ruling tended to be the common sense ones so they're not a pain to remember.

Dunno if someone different wrote this FAQ but if it was they need to keep the job.

As a IG player the advisors not stacking is sad, but the best for game balance.

Ironic that Advisors don't stack, yet Autarchs do

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Don't get me wrong, that's how I read it, too (and how I originally read it), but there are still folks out there who'll want to read it as a squadron...

Its how I read it, but its not really clearing anything up. Simply you cant take any variants.

It's funny that Autarchs stack, but IG advisors don't...

Well it says only LRBT also says 0 - 1 Battle tank. Seems pretty clear to me. Both by RAW and by RAI. They are not using "old" terms, they are using "new" terms. The new wording does not say squad but tank. I doubt this was an over site, as the FAQ was well written. I would say the best they can do with out saying something like this... "one LTBT may be used, not a squadron. Did I mention only one tank?"

Also note that as the list
states you are limited to 0-1 Leman Russ Battle
Tank

No one can argue about squadron, since it states a single tank, rather than saying squadron (since that 1 word ment so much to people)


All in all, its a great FAQ.

I like the tone on some of the rulings. For example, the question about the MoO attached to a squad with a mortar for range finding purpose: "Clearly using the mortar to range find for Basilisks dozens of miles behind the frontlines is silly"

Most welcome.
Covers enough for a start.

The biggest (imo) question they missed was the Valkyrie wings thing. They also didn't address the Furious Charging Rough Riders question, but I don't think that one is as prominent.

I think thats one of the most well composed FAQ's. Could this be the start of their "better FAQ support" they'd spoken about? I hope so.

aka_mythos wrote:I think thats one of the most well composed FAQ's. Could this be the start of their "better FAQ support" they'd spoken about? I hope so.

:crosses fingers:


Now we as a community just need to let them know that we want all the old FAQ's redone.

Well it is also possible that the IG codex was just very well written, from a RAI point of view. The FAQ and Erratta just support what was meant to happen. They did not have to "FIX" any game play oversights. Just tighten up the language they had originally written. As most of the "fixes" erred on the side of common sense. I would cast a vote for well written.

Regarding the Autarch getting it:

I think its fair. Eldar for one are more advanced, and two, they have to give up both HQ slots to do it. Two Autarch Eldar aint that great.

I think the Astropath makes sense from a game balance perspective. They had to rule the same for both Astropaths and Fleet Officers, and multiple fleet officers can be very powerful in what I call semi-competitive play. Top notch lists will work around it, but for 60pts an IG player can really stonewall a big chunk of a daemon army. In addition, there are a lot of casual play scenarios with diced reserves, and a -2 could be huge in influencing that.

In all missions OotF helps demons.

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

The clarification to the vendetta base issue is a godsend. Those rules were a black forest of argument before.

Really good FAQ

I guess no FAQ can make hellstrike missiles not suck

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

A skilled demon player and a good list will mean only about 500 pts is on the table turn 1. Unless you roll poorly.

OotF basically denies its own army turns of shooting, so that turn 5 it is going to have a hard time pulling crap off objectives.

But otherwise I agree.

GMMStudios wrote:

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

A skilled demon player and a good list will mean only about 500 pts is on the table turn 1. Unless you roll poorly.

OotF basically denies its own army turns of shooting, so that turn 5 it is going to have a hard time pulling crap off objectives.

But otherwise I agree.

Ok, because I'm not talking skilled players with good lists. I'm talking about bad players with lousy lists.

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

A skilled demon player and a good list will mean only about 500 pts is on the table turn 1. Unless you roll poorly.

OotF basically denies its own army turns of shooting, so that turn 5 it is going to have a hard time pulling crap off objectives.

But otherwise I agree.

Ok, because I'm not talking skilled players with good lists. I'm talking about bad players with lousy lists.

This whole issue really hinges on table set up and mission style doesn't it? Late game daemon drops only really help when you can move onto objectives fairly uncontested. A skilled player will know whats coming, and will lock down 51% of what he needs to win, which against a half normal size army isn't particularly difficult.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank for WH and DH armies.

As nature intended...

/engage smug mode.
/sip mug of tea with pinky finger extended.
/EXALT!!

A thank you to GW for reinforcing good sportsmanship over minutiae-peddling.

If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Well no more mortars in my ccws time to make some rockets or lascannons.
And I was right about bulky terminators not hitching a ride in a Valkyrie.

Well put sarge...well put.

Sarge wrote:If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Perhaps they want to keep "Hellguns" in reserve for the new Inquisition codex?


I'm happy with the FAQ. Double OotF broke the reserves rules too much. They've become too important to the overall game now to mess with them that much.

The rest of the answers were pretty much what you'd expect. I think GW really came through with this one.

yeah, I think after the sturm and drang over the change to storm sheilds in the new SM codex, GW didn't want to have seperate rules for the same wargear anymore. Some is bound to happen, but if they kept the name, there would be all kinds of moaning about how DH and WH dont' get the new hellgun rules.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Sarge wrote:If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Is it not obvious? So that people wouldn't try to use their inquisitorial storm troopers as AP 3.
Overall I am content with the FAQ. No problems here.

You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

Polonius wrote:One big bonus is that you can embark/disembark within 2" of the valks base, making the access points almost academic. It's not a huge boost, but a nice one.

It's also a definite hint that 40K measurement is not supposed to be only on the horizontal plane...

How is that?

If we were only supposed to be measuring horizontally, the answer to that question would have been 'As all measurement in 40K is horizontal, the height of the Valkyrie's base is ignored for measuring dis/embarking or distance to objectives' rather than telling us to measure from the base instead...

ah, yes. That's very true.

Got Space Hulk a few days ago and now the IG update?! X-mas came early!

Quality FAQ update and especially helps since last week I just picked up a Valk.

Always knew that stacking advisors was bad mojo from the start since not only was it overpowered but it wasn't written in the codex that such abilities could in fact stack. From a fluff standpoint it'd just complicate things by having more than one liaison working together like that imo as well.

Best news ive had all month!

GW has at least partially renewed my faith. I hereby take back a significant portion of my whining.

for now

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

But then I could only fit half as many Krootox in my Devilfish

Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

1. Hotshot Lasguns not getting FRFSRF.
2. No stacking with advisors.

Why do these strike me as bad?

Because their rulings are arbitrary and use fluff to justify them. Why can't I use FRFSRF with Hotshot Lasguns? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Why don't advisors stack? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Now I even like the fluff reason for Advisors not stacking, but it's still an arbitrary ruling based in no way on the rules - it's a rule change, and not a clarification. FAQ's should not change rules. Errata, sure, but that's for fixing mistakes, not for changing things that you didn't intend. Then again GW has an interesting track record for fixing 'mistakes', like when Oblits became T4(5) as T5 was a 'misprint'.

I'm reminded quite keenly of my most hated FAQ answer, back in the days of Chaos 3.5 (when Chaos wasn't boring, for those who remember). The question "Does Blood Rage affect Daemonic Flight" came up, and their answer was "Being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster!". At the time most people modelled Daemonic Flight as big wings, not Daemon Prince-sized Jump Packs, so this answer was particularly horrible. A fluff explanation to explain a rules abstraction is not a good way to answer FAQ's.

As for the Hotshot Lasgun one, well, it just solidifies the position of "Worst Choice In The Codex" for Storm Troopers. Equal first with Ogryn, that is.

Also nice to see them addressing the DH and WH parts. They could have just as easily ignored that.

kadun wrote:

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

But then I could only fit half as many Krootox in my Devilfish

I hope you're not going to the 'ard boyz finals. :p


Actually the Hotshot lasgun ruling is the correct one RAW wise HBMC. Go check the big thread in YMDC. Or the summary which is; a bolter and storm bolter are different.

More rules changes dressed up as an FAQ.

I guess they couldn't afford to actually re-write and re-print the codex though...

Fluff is better than saying "because I say so".

Its a good FAQ and now there is one so be happy!!

They could have fixed the 'no lasguns for Sergeants' and the 'no meltabombs for Stormtroopers' typos

George Spiggott wrote:They could have fixed the 'no lasguns for Sergeants' and the 'no meltabombs for Stormtroopers' typos

I'd have settled for a lasgun Sergeant fix.

Although if all IG Stormies carried Meltabombs as part of their standard kit, that might help justify their points cost.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

1. Hotshot Lasguns not getting FRFSRF.
2. No stacking with advisors.

Hotshot lasguns seem to not have been intended to work with FRFSRF, and rules wise they couldn't either, so I don't see the problem. The no stacking advisers was already kinda iffy, but I guess this settles that issue.

Only thing I'm missing to be happy is...

weaken resolve vs. mob rule/rites of battle/stubborn/book of St. Lucius

Interestingly enough, this settles about 5 different major flamewar/rules debates that have happened in YMDC since the IG Codex came out!

Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

Um, if you haven't noticed, for over a decade (since 40k3 came out), GW *has* been making figures cheaper.

We pay fewer points per model than ever before.

You haven't noticed that?

The only thing they missed was what counts as the Hull of the Valkyrie/Vendetta.

That, and a clarification of how the manticore is expected to fire.

Overall, though, it's a great product, and I hope GW sees that players are pleased so they keep it up.

I am disappointing that they missed the whole Hunting Lance / Furious Charge question. RAW is clear, if silly. Considering some of the other stuff they took the time to fix, it'd've been nice for them to make some sense of Mogul Kamir's special ability.

Vale,

JohnS

Because their rulings are arbitrary and use fluff to justify them. Why can't I use FRFSRF with Hotshot Lasguns? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Why don't advisors stack? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Now I even like the fluff reason for Advisors not stacking, but it's still an arbitrary ruling based in no way on the rules - it's a rule change, and not a clarification. FAQ's should not change rules. Errata, sure, but that's for fixing mistakes, not for changing things that you didn't intend. Then again GW has an interesting track record for fixing 'mistakes', like when Oblits became T4(5) as T5 was a 'misprint'.

I find it odd too, as only one change had really been made (that being the change to advisors). They solidified the position most had on the hot shot lasguns (which is unfortunate, since the unit needed it) and rightly knocked down advisors which in my opinion were a bit too good in groups. The arbitrary decision was at least one in the right direction, even if they didn't go against common perception in the case where it was needed. I'm thankful here, at least they didn't pull another lashwhip "clarification".

aka_mythos wrote:I think thats one of the most well composed FAQ's. Could this be the start of their "better FAQ support" they'd spoken about? I hope so.

When was this announcement made? I missed it.

GG

JohnHwangDD wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

Um, if you haven't noticed, for over a decade (since 40k3 came out), GW *has* been making figures cheaper.

We pay fewer points per model than ever before.

You haven't noticed that?

And we are encouraged to play larger games and pay more $ per point than ever!!!! win win imo.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

H.B.M.C. you can´t comment on IG until you finish your promised Codex overview. I´m dying to compare your thoughts on IG with Polonius`

M.

Comparing our viewpoints would be like comparing oranges to apples.

He reviewed the Codex from the perspective of the game - looking at unit combinations, effectiveness, etc. I will be looking at the Codex as a whole - Cover2Cover - and while analysis of units will be part of it, I will look just as closely at the fluff and the colour section as I will the rules themselves.

There's nothing wrong with Polonius' approach - if anything, it's a far more useful review from a player's perspective than anything I would write - but it's just different to mine, enough that comparisons aren't really worth much.

Meh, not bad, too bad on the hotshot lasgun and orders to allies thing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Comparing our viewpoints would be like comparing oranges to apples.

He reviewed the Codex from the perspective of the game - looking at unit combinations, effectiveness, etc. I will be looking at the Codex as a whole - Cover2Cover - and while analysis of units will be part of it, I will look just as closely at the fluff and the colour section as I will the rules themselves.

There's nothing wrong with Polonius' approach - if anything, it's a far more useful review from a player's perspective than anything I would write - but it's just different to mine, enough that comparisons aren't really worth much.

Well, what are you waiting for then?????? Post it!

M.

Fattimus_maximus wrote:Meh, not bad, too bad on the hotshot lasgun and orders to allies thing.

Does the orders to allies thing surprise you though?

Miguelsan wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

H.B.M.C. you can´t comment on IG until you finish your promised Codex overview. I´m dying to compare your thoughts on IG with Polonius`

M.

Yeah, I spent about 10% of my time on the stuff HBMC is going to spend 90% of his review on. In retrospect, what I really wrote was a preliminary unit analysis, not a codex review.

Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

H.B.M.C. wrote:Does the orders to allies thing surprise you though?

Honestly, it surprised me. I'm a bit peeved about 3 other points in this faq as well.
#1 Hot shot lasguns not benefiting from the FRFSRF order = stormtroopers are officially gakked.

#2 Hellstrike missles... Without the template the valkyrie is now absolutely worthless without a weapons upgrade, which I find sad. Since the Valkyrie kit was released I have run my valks with no upgrades 90% of the time as that actually filled a nice space in my army list. Now I have to re write virtually every army list I have saved since this book was released as well as find something to fill tha role left empty by the hellstrikes. Thanks GW.

#3 No orders to allies/friendly models? Isn't that the exact reason that it was worded as it was?

Don't make too big a noise about otherwise they'll next be telling you Straken cannot benefit friendly Grey Knights...

Were you really using the Hellstrike as having a template? Even though it's a set precedent that some weapons without templates have counted as ordnance?

As for the stormtrooper ruling I was hoping for the opposite answer but i'll take it. And the orders to allies was ridiculous so i'm glad they nixed it. Even if they did use "fluff" as the justification.

Yeah, the Hellstrike one doesn't strike me as a problem because they never said 'Blast'.

Ordnance =/= Blast.
Ordnance = Ordnance.

Ironically if they'd kept the name "Hellguns", the question about FRFSRF would probably have never come up. Well that's when happens when Jervis jumps on board and tries to make his writers bring back as many 2nd Ed concepts (but none of the fun) into 40K.

It may be a set percedent in other books, but I had no knowledge of it. The only Army I have run in 40k is IG and there was no precedent in the IG. I ran them like that in the ard' boyz and against many veteran players and nobody ever corrected me. meh. I hate the MRP's and the vendetta can't move quickly and utilize it's firepower so I guess that the airplanes will be vanishing from my army lists from now on. sad times.

Kungfuhustler wrote:I ran them like that in the ard' boyz and against many veteran players and nobody ever corrected me.

I will admit that there are a number of rules that, due to false assumptions, have become de facto rules themselves. I know that ever since 3rd Ed our group (and, as I have since found out, a lot of people here and elsewhere) played Marine Dread CCW's as always having 2D6 armour penetration vs vehicles. We were shocked when we found out that wasn't true.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ironically if they'd kept the name "Hellguns", the question about FRFSRF would probably have never come up. Well that's when happens when Jervis jumps on board and tries to make his writers bring back as many 2nd Ed concepts (but none of the fun) into 40K.

If they kept them named hellguns, I think that many people would try to argue that their IST had AP3. I am in favor of the name change as it averts this potential problem altogether. I think the "hot-shot lasgun != lasgun" problem is pretty obvious to solve, and is now even addressed in the FAQ.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

Um, if you haven't noticed, for over a decade (since 40k3 came out), GW *has* been making figures cheaper.

We pay fewer points per model than ever before.

You haven't noticed that?

Nice shootin Tex!

ph34r wrote:If they kept them named hellguns, I think that many people would try to argue that their IST had AP3.

Any more than Black Templar, Chaos and Inquisitorial players want their Land Raiders to hold more models? Or their Assault Cannons to be better? Or their Storm Shields to have the same rules???

No, leaving them as Hellguns would have avoided the whole issue as then names wouldn't be similar to another item in the same Codex (rather than a different item with the same name in a different Codex - something GW obviously has no problem with).

ph34r wrote:I think the "hot-shot lasgun != lasgun" problem is pretty obvious to solve, and is now even addressed in the FAQ.

I think Hellguns =/= Lasguns would have been easier, given the two works only share 'guns', where as the current form both share 'Lasgun', and therefore that sparks confusion.

Polonius wrote:In retrospect, what I really wrote was a preliminary unit analysis, not a codex review.

Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

I think an update might well be a good idea, now that we've all had some time to chew things over and let things digest.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ph34r wrote:If they kept them named hellguns, I think that many people would try to argue that their IST had AP3.

Any more than Black Templar, Chaos and Inquisitorial players want their Land Raiders to hold more models? Or their Assault Cannons to be better? Or their Storm Shields to have the same rules???

No, leaving them as Hellguns would have avoided the whole issue as then names wouldn't be similar to another item in the same Codex (rather than a different item with the same name in a different Codex - something GW obviously has no problem with).

ph34r wrote:I think the "hot-shot lasgun != lasgun" problem is pretty obvious to solve, and is now even addressed in the FAQ.

I think Hellguns =/= Lasguns would have been easier, given the two works only share 'guns', where as the current form both share 'Lasgun', and therefore that sparks confusion.

They want them to be better, but according to GW they aren't. I'd rather new items with the same name updated old ones myself... BT/Chaos/Inq could have decent land raiders, assault cannons, storm shields, consistent smoke launchers, etc. But... then we would have the problem of inquisitorial storm troopers costing 10 points and having AP3 hellguns, which might actually make them good. So what's it gonna be? I prefer the new(old) name. If people can be not confused by things like Lysander's bolter drill listing the variants and FRFSRF not (can they? Am I assuming too much of 40k players?) then people can not be confused by hot-shot lasguns.

ph34r wrote:But... then we would have the problem of inquisitorial storm troopers costing 10 points and having AP3 hellguns, which might actually make them good.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ph34r wrote:But... then we would have the problem of inquisitorial storm troopers costing 10 points and having AP3 hellguns, which might actually make them good.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Well, to GW it is. Not that 16 pt new storm troopers are good at all, but making a 40% less expensive version minus a few extra rules would be silly.

Making them 16 points in the first place was silly, unless their intention was to keep up the 10+ year tradition of Storm Troopers always sucking ass.

Yeah, but at least they thought they were doing it right. If they had made a 10 and 16 point version of the same thing it would just be ridiculously incompetent.

Units with the same rules and different point values is ultimately better than units with the same names and equipment but different rules.

Do you think that for Adepticon Team tourney the OOF and Astropath ability will stack?

The OOF and the Astropath have different effects. They'll stack in the future no more than they stacked yesterday.

It's multiples of each type that this FAQ addresses (however clumsily).

@ph34r: At this point, I am perfectly OK paying 10 pts per Stormie as 5-10 Scoring models with up to 2 BS4 Plasma Guns at +10 pts each.

Or rather, I'm OK when the the alternative is overpaying an obscene 16 pts per non-Scoring S3 gun, paying for an unnecessary Sergeant, and then overpaying an additional +5 pts more for the Plasma Guns.

The former are playable, whereas the latter aren't even close, especially when on can take Scoring Nuns with Guns for fewer points...

Another rare occasion, but I agree with what John said for all the reasons John just said.

Glad they fixed the ridiculously short range of the Deathstrike. The enemy only had be get eighty feet away to be safe from your intercontinental missile. Now you can use them to shoot at armies that are actually set up on other continents (in Apocalypse, obviously, and using some sort of telepresence).

Sarge wrote:If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Not to mention that hot-shot lasgun sounds so silly and weak compared to Hellgun! Bad choice GW...

//Edge

I'm.... just.... so..... happy!.....

On the downside... too bad I can't use my mortar to range that MoO

I'm not saying that new ST are good or IST are bad, I'm just saying that I would rather the new ST have different rules and different names than different rules and the same names.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Units with the same rules and different point values is ultimately better than units with the same names and equipment but different rules.

Exactly! That is what they did, change the hellgun name. So, the different storm troopers have different equipment, the only similarity between them is that Inquisitorial Storm Troopers contain "Storm Troopers". They don't have the same equipment and different rules.

And now we're going in circles, as the original point was that the change from Hellguns to Hotshot Lasguns created the question surrounding FRFSRF. Which it did.

No mention of Special Wep Squads taking grenades rather than HW squads

1 thing i have noticed, is the excuss they've used to deny FRFRF to hell guns
"Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally
suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot
lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire."
If the hotshot cannot substain a high rate of fire, then why have they made it a RAPID fire weapon, and not say assault 2?
If they allowed the order on hotshot lasguns, then ST would be worth the points you pay, at the moment there not to be honest.

Even with the extra shot, it's going to take a lot more to make Stormies worth 16 points each.

If Storms had S5 Rending guns, they might be worth 16 pts, because then they'd have a decent shot at cracking most Transports.

Silly Games Workshop. Makes pitifully weak Guardsmen even weaker. Me boyz'll stick a choppa in dem!

Its ok... we can take enough Leman Russes to make up for it.

Fair point. I firmly believe that Russes are the best tanks in the game.

I'm disapointed that they didin't clear up a couple of heavy weapons issues -
1. are heavy flamers 'heavy weapons' - ie do you need to team up. Codex seems to point toward no, but Vraks part 3 is definately yes.
2. can the loader of a heavy weapons team fire his lasgun (as a HW team has 1 stat line now instead of 2 separate guys).

Ignore Vraks. Warwick either got it wrong or didn't know what he was writing. Look to the Codex.

As to the second part, no he can't, because a 'Heavy Weapon Team' isn't two models - it is a single model with 2 wounds, as defined by the Codex.

Hey, it's relatively timely, for GW, so that's a plus.

Kungfuhustler wrote:The only Army I have run in 40k is IG and there was no precedent in the IG.

Actually, there kinda is, as the Hellstrike Missile rules are(ironically) a direct Copy-pasta of the rules for the Hellstrike Missile from Imperial Armour.

HAHAHA! Valkyries canno' transport Terminators! Suck it, DH!

H.B.M.C. wrote:And now we're going in circles, as the original point was that the change from Hellguns to Hotshot Lasguns created the question surrounding FRFSRF. Which it did.

And again, avoided other potential problems
And now the FRFSRF problem is FAQd for those who couldn't understand before, anyway!

Very clear FAq, great job...finally

good faq, clears up lots of questions and is relatively quick out. If they keep this up I'll be even more impessed.

OK, for all you people chanting the praise of GW. Calm down and take a breath. Do not get all warm and fuzzy yet. This FAQ is an anomaly. Yes, it cleared some questions and was delivered relatively quickly. But considering GW`s track record I am still reserving judgement. Remember that there are still many unanswered question left ( and not just from the Guard Codex ).

FAQ wrote:Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire.

Somebody hasn't played Dawn of War.

George Spiggott wrote:

FAQ wrote:Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire.

Somebody hasn't played Dawn of War.

Uhg. In Dawn of war lascannons shot like multilasers and plasma guns shot as fast as lasguns.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is at least one halfway decent build for stormtroopers: 5 men, two meltas, deep striking. the accurate landing means they'll land exactly on target over half the time, and two BS4 melta guns are pretty decent. It's not a great unit, and pales in comparison to veterans, but this whole new codex reflects a new design philosophy for IG, which is that BS4, chimeras, and even Valks are less rare than previously though, while all special operations infantry, infiltrators and deep strikers in particular, are less common.

ph34r wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

FAQ wrote:Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire.

Somebody hasn't played Dawn of War.

Uhg. In Dawn of war lascannons shot like multilasers and plasma guns shot as fast as lasguns.

Well, since a plasma gun and a las gun are both rapid fire weapons that bit makes sense at least.

I've been stung with the FRFSRF on my turn so I'm glad to see that cleared up.

olympia wrote:I've been stung with the FRFSRF on my turn so I'm glad to see that cleared up.

I have only had a single individual try to throw that at me, (they also attempted the "teleporting Yarrick" rule in the same game)...least to say it didn't fly for a second with me, and I haven't play this player since.

While the clarifications are welcome, a bit of ad hoc rebalancing (through favorable interpretations of rules that logically could have gone either way) in favor of Storm Troopers and Penal Legionnaires might have been nice.

Way to go GW on the non-stacking advisors, too. This was turning up all the time like WHFB scroll caddies did/do, which is never a good sign.

Really? People actually tried to issue orders on the opponent's turn?

Even Dire Avengers double shoot in a single phase on their own turn and have to skip their next shots.

I thought the Dakka threads on orders out of turn were hypothetical rules minutiae discussions, not real issues.

(I wonder if people say the same re: mortar+MoO... because I was def guilty of that at one point)

All in all a good FAQ

The mortar/MoO thing made at least a tiny bit of sense, range finding is range finding, after all.

The out of turn things was pretty OTT.

kartofelkopf wrote:I thought the Dakka threads on orders out of turn were hypothetical rules minutiae discussions, not real issues.

You might be surprised by how many rules discussions that people dismiss as just internet babble turn out to be the way that someone has simply always taken the rules to work.

Just throwing this out there: They NEEDED to faq the orders in the opponents phase thing. Raw CLEARLY state that you can issue orders in the opponents phase. Mind that you do actually have to understand how the bgb (on pg 9) defines the word "turn" and then states that that definition is to be interperated in all codex and the bgb in the way defined. GW really screwed the pooch when they wrote the orders section..

Kungfuhustler wrote:Just throwing this out there: They NEEDED to faq the orders in the opponents phase thing. Raw CLEARLY state that you can issue orders in the opponents phase. Mind that you do actually have to understand how the bgb (on pg 9) defines the word "turn" and then states that that definition is to be interperated in all codex and the bgb in the way defined. GW really screwed the pooch when they wrote the orders section..

QFT.

Well, it's not inconceivable that, given GW's penchant for nostalgia, they brought back a limited form of overwatch for the IG.

I mean, I think it's hard to read those rules and claim, with a straight face, that that's what GW meant, particularly given the references to orders being given before shooting or running. Vagueness about what was meant by the shooting phase and using the general definition of turn are not the avenues that GW generally changes core rules.

I'm not saying we didn't need an FAQ, but rather that there is not a single person in this hobby that's actually surprised at how the FAQ came down.

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

2nd Ed Terminators supplied with the smaller bases would be able to fit then. :3

Majesticgoat wrote:

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

2nd Ed Terminators supplied with the smaller bases would be able to fit then. :3

Seeing as how I have 2nd ed Chaos Terminators it would make my Chaos Land Raider actually useful. I fully support this.

I just love the rulings about Vendettas that just made every one having to buy a crapload extra of their most expensive model.

Other then that, its nice to see a useful FAQ for once.

Very true. Looks like the marketing department had some influence here.

Polonius wrote:Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

Sorry to go a bit OOT and for the partial necro, but why do you think that Armored Sentinels are better than your original estimate? Especially comparing them to the other FA choices in the Codex?

Going back OT, I like the FAQ alot, it is well written and clears up alot of pending issues, especially regarding the Valk / Vend. The only thing that I'm a bit surprised about is the advisors rulling, I would think that GW would simply make the CCS 0-1 wich IMO would make alot more sense fluff wise than an arbitrary decision like preventing them from stacking...

Polonius wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that there is at least one halfway decent build for stormtroopers: 5 men, two meltas, deep striking. the accurate landing means they'll land exactly on target over half the time, and two BS4 melta guns are pretty decent. It's not a great unit, and pales in comparison to veterans, but this whole new codex reflects a new design philosophy for IG, which is that BS4, chimeras, and even Valks are less rare than previously though, while all special operations infantry, infiltrators and deep strikers in particular, are less common.

I actually have had good luck with 5 men, one melta, one flamer. It is still a suicide squad, but they earned their points back last night on a striking scorpion squad. Personally, I think they're expensive, but as far as a hail-mary crapshoot goes, they're less a gamble than Marbo is.

PhantomViper wrote:

Polonius wrote:Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

Sorry to go a bit OOT and for the partial necro, but why do you think that Armored Sentinels are better than your original estimate? Especially comparing them to the other FA choices in the Codex?

Going back OT, I like the FAQ alot, it is well written and clears up alot of pending issues, especially regarding the Valk / Vend. The only thing that I'm a bit surprised about is the advisors rulling, I would think that GW would simply make the CCS 0-1 wich IMO would make alot more sense fluff wise than an arbitrary decision like preventing them from stacking...

Except an FAQ is not supposed to change rules or re-balance armies, it's supposed to be a clarification of ambiguous rules.

willydstyle wrote:
Except an FAQ is not supposed to change rules or re-balance armies, it's supposed to be a clarification of ambiguous rules.

You're right, but in this case they changed the rules to re-balance the army anyway, so...

willydstyle wrote:
Except an FAQ is not supposed to change rules or re-balance armies, it's supposed to be a clarification of ambiguous rules.

Says you.

An official FAQ is the best time to to clarify/change something without having to reprint the whole book.

Last I checked, FAQ stood for Frequently Asked Questions. Basically, a list of queries the author gets frequently and is tired of handing out the same answers all the time on.

Saying that it is suppossed to be used, or not used, for re-balancing or anything other than answering Frequently Asked Questions is just crap. It has one use, Answering Questions. Frequent ones. Because that's how an acronym works, even here in Interdweebs Land. If, in addition to answering those Frequently Asked Questions, it happens to clarify, rebalance, slant, create, destroy, or do friggin jumping jacks; that's secondary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it as a bonus; like the little toy in your cracker jacks.

grizgrin wrote:Last I checked, FAQ stood for Frequently Asked Questions. Basically, a list of queries the author gets frequently and is tired of handing out the same answers all the time on.

Saying that it is suppossed to be used, or not used, for re-balancing or anything other than answering Frequently Asked Questions is just crap. It has one use, Answering Questions. Frequent ones. Because that's how an acronym works, even here in Interdweebs Land. If, in addition to answering those Frequently Asked Questions, it happens to clarify, rebalance, slant, create, destroy, or do friggin jumping jacks; that's secondary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it as a bonus; like the little toy in your cracker jacks.

But the PDF is entitled Errata and FAQ

Errata = a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication

I gotta admit, I thought the Hellstrike was a large blast too. It just seemed more reasonable than what is otherwise just a REALLY LARGE Hunter Killer missile.

Glad to see they put out a FAQ within a year of the Codex release though. Definitely a step in the right direction!

Shep wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Last I checked, FAQ stood for Frequently Asked Questions. Basically, a list of queries the author gets frequently and is tired of handing out the same answers all the time on.

Saying that it is suppossed to be used, or not used, for re-balancing or anything other than answering Frequently Asked Questions is just crap. It has one use, Answering Questions. Frequent ones. Because that's how an acronym works, even here in Interdweebs Land. If, in addition to answering those Frequently Asked Questions, it happens to clarify, rebalance, slant, create, destroy, or do friggin jumping jacks; that's secondary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it as a bonus; like the little toy in your cracker jacks.

But the PDF is entitled Errata and FAQ

Errata = a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication

GW makes a distinction between the errata and FAQs. The errata they intend to change in further printings of the codex. The FAQs they do not.

THank you for this post.

whitedragon wrote:Says you.

No, that's what an FAQ does.

FAQs answer questions come about frequently enough to be worth answering. Erratas fix mistakes.

Changing a rule is neither of those.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Says you.

No, that's what an FAQ does.

FAQs answer questions come about frequently enough to be worth answering. Erratas fix mistakes.

Changing a rule is neither of those.

These rules changes aren't even official rules changes so you can ignore any you don't like. This FAQ isn't worth the paper it's written on (much like the codex).

George Spiggott wrote:These rules changes aren't even official rules changes so you can ignore any you don't like.

Er... you can do that anyway, even when they are official changes.

GW FAQ's aren't official nower days. Jervis would rather we all have a group hug and talk it out amongst themselves.

A nifty way to guilt-trip anyone who disagrees and get themselves out of having to actually fix anything properly.

Amazing how even on Dakka we can argue about the RAW involving what is or isnt a FAQ.. and what FAQ really means based on its wording

Seriously?

It's amazing how on Dakka some people can point out how GW writes bad rules, and then makes up for it by directly contradicting some of the clear rules they've already written, and some players feel that's not worth criticizing... Seriously?

Its just amusing that when the rules can no longer be argued instead people start to argue about the definition of a FAQ and then can turn virtually anything into a RAW debate... even a PDF document

Criticizing the FAQ is fairly irrelevant since it is quite clear on its ruling and its straight from GW

The idea that the FAQs are also "studio house rules" is also straight from GW.

One flaw .. Adepticon FAQ is the official FAQ of GW tournaments (and obviously adepticon).. Since their FAQ uses GW's FAQ it is indeed much more than studio house rules
I have never been to a tournament where the GW FAQs were ignored

Knowing that whatever FAQ GW produces will be followed by a majority of tournaments its irrelevant to argue about its validity because such validity is already assured and proven

willydstyle wrote:It's amazing how on Dakka some people can point out how GW writes bad rules, and then makes up for it by directly contradicting some of the clear rules they've already written, and some players feel that's not worth criticizing... Seriously?

We're nothing if not inconsistent. And argumentative.

Adepticon is the official FAQ for 'Ard Boyz final. It is not the official FAQ for RTTs or necessarily for any future GW tournaments.