cuda1179 wrote:
And yet, it it wren't for the FAQ, a line/are of effect weapon is NOT banned from hitting a flier as long as it has the skyfire rule.

What part of skyfire allows you to fire a non-ballistic skill weapon at a flyer?

 matphat wrote:
I love that people are so damn excited to see Nob Bikers, which were not really that big of a deal anyway, get nerfed in to the "Not worth the points" category AGAIN, while standard army builds from competitive armies still can do more killing and survive longer at less points and no one seems to give a damn.

I understand that the LOS rules were stupid and a huge PITA as they were pre FAQ 1.1, but I am totally lost as to why it's such a big reason to celebrate when a mediocre army gets one of it's few hard hitters nerfed into the ground.

QFT. Orks just went from having 1 very competitive build to...none?

 Nox wrote:

 Lt.Soundwave wrote:
I was hoping the my skyray might actually see some use : /

The really sad thing is, according to the fluff, the Skyray is the Tau's anti-air tank.

Really? Ouch. Its not as though giving it skyfire would have tipped the balance either.
I mean, supposedly CSM and DA will get skyfire soon, why not tau?
Hell, why not everyone?

Lots of good stuff here.
LOVING that Chaos marine demon prince are flying MC. LOVE. Luv.

Whip Coils / Lash Whips got nerfed, and the effect only applies at the start of the fight sub phase instead of whenever someone touches base contact.

Yay.

And at the same time they made them much less complicated/confusing.

 pretre wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
And yet, it it wren't for the FAQ, a line/are of effect weapon is NOT banned from hitting a flier as long as it has the skyfire rule.

What part of skyfire allows you to fire a non-ballistic skill weapon at a flyer?

To hit a flier you must use a Snapshot, unless the model has Skyfire

Models that don't roll to hit can not snapshot. Okay, so that leaves skyfire.

Page 81 states: Shots resolved at a Zooming flier can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model has the Skyfire Special rule)

Termpates, Blasts, and Large Blasts can not hit fliers (a line weapon like a Death ray is none of these)

So, a Dathray meets all the criteria for hitting a flier if it uses skyfire, excpet the FAQ changed it.

Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3, things got clarified, Look Out, Sir! Got less silly.

Unfortunate for Orks, now they can't even look out, sir! the squad leaders.

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3, things got clarified, Look Out, Sir! Got less silly.

Unfortunate for Orks, now they can't even look out, sir! the squad leaders.

Squad leaders still can - it's only the unit of Nobs that can't LOS!.
Read the Designer's Note.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Termpates, Blasts, and Large Blasts can not hit fliers (a line weapon like a Death ray is none of these)

Except that it is effectively a template weapon, just a long thin template. It is clear from the faq answers that they have intended all of the things that I (not necessarily the rules) consider to be 'weird templates' to not hit flying targets.

I'm not going to go back and forth on pre-faq, since neither of us is going to budge. At least they faq'd it clearly now.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
And yet, it it wren't for the FAQ, a line/are of effect weapon is NOT banned from hitting a flier as long as it has the skyfire rule.

What part of skyfire allows you to fire a non-ballistic skill weapon at a flyer?

To hit a flier you must use a Snapshot, unless the model has Skyfire

Models that don't roll to hit can not snapshot. Okay, so that leaves skyfire.

Page 81 states: Shots resolved at a Zooming flier can only be resolved as Snap Shots (unless the model has the Skyfire Special rule)

Termpates, Blasts, and Large Blasts can not hit fliers (a line weapon like a Death ray is none of these)

So, a Dathray meets all the criteria for hitting a flier if it uses skyfire, excpet the FAQ changed it.

GW uses FAQs as erratas to changes rules as they see fit and have done so for years. It's nothing new, an d people just need accept it and move on.

rigeld2 wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3, things got clarified, Look Out, Sir! Got less silly.

Unfortunate for Orks, now they can't even look out, sir! the squad leaders.

Squad leaders still can - it's only the unit of Nobs that can't LOS!.
Read the Designer's Note.

Woops, good catch.

Just skimmed it, my bad.

Haven't "draw a line" weapons always been considered template weapons? And haven't templates been unable to hit fliers, since, like forever?

I dont' doubt that they used to be able to hit fliers, it's just not as inconsistent as people seem to think.

Basically, you need to roll to hit any flier. OTOH, anything that rolls to hit a flier has consequences (see marker lights and FMCs)

It's rare sign of restraint in the sixth edition, which seems to value rules for rules sake.

 Polonius wrote:
Haven't "draw a line" weapons always been considered template weapons?

Not rules-wise.

 DMajiko wrote:
Am I the only one that noticed that Bikes got Very Bulky (Count as 3 units) and therefore can now mount up into transports?

Bulky and Very Bulky don't grant the ability to ride in transports.

Transports by default can only carry Infantry. You need a special rule to allow any other type of unit to embark. All that Bulky and Very Bulky do is define how many spots the unit takes up if it is allowed in a transport.

Okay, we're done with the "Death Ray could [not] hit flyers pre-FAQ" question. It's moot, and distracting. Take it to YMDC if you really want to continue arguing about it.

I'm still not seeing a change for Njals storm and its damage effects on flyers. Anyone?

GW Employee1: "Let's give necrons Flyers"

GW Exployee2: "GREAT! So they can defend themselves from other flyers?"

Gw Exployee1: "Hmmmm...you're right give them weapons that only penetrate on 6 and a death ray for anything that's in the floor"

GW Employee 2: "Brilliant"

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures

This is certainly a typo. As written, Flying Monstrous Creatures can only be hit by snap shots when both Swooping and Gliding.

 Polonius wrote:
Haven't "draw a line" weapons always been considered template weapons? And haven't templates been unable to hit fliers, since, like forever?

I dont' doubt that they used to be able to hit fliers, it's just not as inconsistent as people seem to think.

Basically, you need to roll to hit any flier. OTOH, anything that rolls to hit a flier has consequences (see marker lights and FMCs)

It's rare sign of restraint in the sixth edition, which seems to value rules for rules sake.

Draw a line weapons have been considered "template" weapons in previous editions. Not sure how long its been for 40k. Fantasy didn't define them as such for an edition or two, but went back to the definition for 8th. This FAQ puts it back in for 40k. Again it was a common sense thing. Skyfire only allows you to hit with normal ballistic skill, it does not allow you to hit with weapons that don't use ballistic skill.

Has anyone mentioned all the AP2 added to CSM with daemon weapons? That strike at initiative?

Range S AP Type
- +1 2 Melee, Daemon
Weapon,Two-handed

Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath , do
these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious Charge,
Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear it is
equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No.

Q: Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic
powers Fortune and Guide? (p28)
A: No.

Q: Can you use a Warlock's Destructor power when resolving
Overwatch? (p28)
A: No.

Q: Can a unit with both the and special rules deploy
as Infiltrators and then make a Scout redeployment before the game
begins? (p38)
A: Yes.

Q: The rulebook states "A unit that makes a Scout redeployment
cannot charge in the first turn." Does this mean that if your
opponent has the first turn and you go second, your Scouting unit
can charge? (p41)
A: Yes.

Q: Do models classified as unique count as ? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of
Bjorn the Fell-handed).

SO Chronus and Pask are not Characters.


Just some tidbits I found interesting.

Well these were certainly an improvement over the first ones. There will still be some bitching but I think this was a good showing overall that fixed a lot of outright WTF things. And even if you think it makes the units useless, I think that from an outright playability standpoint the removal of large all-character units whole cloth was a good one. It slowed the game down and circumvented the wound allocation system too much and was obviously (now that they have FAQ'd it and delivered designer's notes on it) not the intended way the rule worked. Now it is just IC's and squad leaders and I think this will stop a lot of the bitching about the otherwise good wound allocation system. Too bad barrage sniping is still possible, but at least it isn't as slowing as all-character units were.

And I'm personally glad they shored up the overflow wounds loophole for challenges. It just felt wrong to me.

Also glad to see the Necron flyer nerf.

Now just to wait for the first 6E codex to see if things continue to show promise.

SeptimusPryme wrote:
Has anyone mentioned all the AP2 added to CSM with daemon weapons? That strike at initiative?

Range S AP Type
- +1 2 Melee, Daemon
Weapon,Two-handed

Those are pretty sweet, but probably overshadowed with princes getting FMC and skyfire. Even less reason to take a lord even with a better daemon weapon. The princes are AP2 as well and can shoot the crap out of fliers now with their psychic powers.

They didn't. An archon joining a Codex: Eldar Harlequin unit with Eldrad is still a Codex: Eldar unit and can be fortuned.

My bad, I was to optimistic after reading things like nobz not being characters etc to think common sense would remove the ridicule of immortal 2++/++ archon bombs.

Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters, though I love the boost sanguinary guard got.

 Therion wrote:
It's just incredible that it took GW a couple months to make a few minor adjustments to the FAQs and they still managed to get some of them completely wrong while also failing to answer many crucial questions that needed clarification. They really seem to have a bunch of nutless monkeys running games design. They do only a little work and even that they do poorly.

Nope.

You're just quoting the FAQ which is a source of new rules with new strange exceptions. The person you were responding to was asking his question based on the rules of Warhammer 40K as they exist in the rulebook.

What? They've done two updates in like two months? GW are on the ball these days.

 pretre wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Termpates, Blasts, and Large Blasts can not hit fliers (a line weapon like a Death ray is none of these)

Except that it is effectively a template weapon, just a long thin template. It is clear from the faq answers that they have intended all of the things that I (not necessarily the rules) consider to be 'weird templates' to not hit flying targets.

I'm not going to go back and forth on pre-faq, since neither of us is going to budge. At least they faq'd it clearly now.

If you consider it a Template weapon, does that mean you would allow it to ignore cover?

 Happygrunt wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or more
groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will still be in
base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed in
an unbroken chain, though they can be connected end-toend
such as in the example shown on page 114.

Wow, didn't see that coming...

It is called "Aegis defense line" not Aegis defense lines".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

Kevlar wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Haven't "draw a line" weapons always been considered template weapons? And haven't templates been unable to hit fliers, since, like forever?

I dont' doubt that they used to be able to hit fliers, it's just not as inconsistent as people seem to think.

Basically, you need to roll to hit any flier. OTOH, anything that rolls to hit a flier has consequences (see marker lights and FMCs)

It's rare sign of restraint in the sixth edition, which seems to value rules for rules sake.

Draw a line weapons have been considered "template" weapons in previous editions. Not sure how long its been for 40k. Fantasy didn't define them as such for an edition or two, but went back to the definition for 8th. This FAQ puts it back in for 40k. Again it was a common sense thing. Skyfire only allows you to hit with normal ballistic skill, it does not allow you to hit with weapons that don't use ballistic skill.

As I have all ready quoted in the rules, Skyfire will help with any non template, non blast, non large-blast weapon. Check Page 81. If there were a weapon (hypothetically) that always hit on a 2+, they skyfire would allow it to hit a flier on a 2+ with no regard for balistic skill.

 cuda1179 wrote:


If you consider it a Template weapon, does that mean you would allow it to ignore cover?

It is a type of template weapon, not a flame template. Not all blast or ordnance templates ignore cover, and I'm sure there are some things that use the flamer template which also do not.

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

 Shep wrote:


I belive in 6th edition, the penalty to firing ordnance weapons applies only to non-vehicle units.

Don't know if you were replied to or not but - Very last paragraph on P.71 "Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons".

Kevlar wrote:
It is a type of template weapon, not a flame template. Not all blast or ordnance templates ignore cover, and I'm sure there are some things that use the flamer template which also do not.

You're confusing several rules there.

Blasts and Ordnance don't use Templates, they use Blast and Large Blast markers.
Template weapons use the teardrop-shaped Template. There is no 'flame template'... just the one template that is used by all Template weapons. All Template weapons ignore cover.

Swooping hawks with intercept count vehicles as being WS0 in assault. Really considering these guys now

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

CRAP!!!

For some reason I don't think a squad of CSM or Marines would just sit there and not charge the Monstrous Creature/Walker/Wych Squad/Boyz Mob/... that blew up their transport, do you?

 insaniak wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
It is a type of template weapon, not a flame template. Not all blast or ordnance templates ignore cover, and I'm sure there are some things that use the flamer template which also do not.

You're confusing several rules there.

Blasts and Ordnance don't use Templates, they use Blast and Large Blast markers.
Template weapons use the teardrop-shaped Template. There is no 'flame template'... just the one template that is used by all Template weapons. All Template weapons ignore cover.

I'm not confusing anything. I know 40k "dumbs down" its lingo, but all three of those, even line weapons are "templates" by definition (stencil, pattern, overlay).

What zooming flyers ignore are weapons that do not hit with ballistic skill. For the most part these are all the "template" type weapons, even line weapons which are a special kind of template.

So, with "heavy" replacing "lumbering behemoth" on the Leman Russ, it sure reads to me that with the main cannon being ordinance, hull mounted weapons and sponsons can now only snap shot when the cannon is fired.

Am I wrong in this? Heavy just says that it always counts as being stationary, stationary says you can fire all weapons (nothing about BS), but there is now no rule that overrides the ordinance restriction that requires all other weapons be fired as snap shots when the ordinance fires.

Guys...seriously?

It's been settled by the FAQ, until they change their minds on the next FAQ. A mod has already said to drop it. Either let it go or take it to YMDC.

dauntless wrote:
So, with "heavy" replacing "lumbering behemoth" on the Leman Russ, it sure reads to me that with the main cannon being ordinance, hull mounted weapons and sponsons can now only snap shot when the cannon is fired.

Am I wrong in this? Heavy just says that it always counts as being stationary, stationary says you can fire all weapons (nothing about BS), but there is now no rule that overrides the ordinance restriction that requires all other weapons be fired as snap shots when the ordinance fires.

You have it right.

dauntless wrote:
So, with "heavy" replacing "lumbering behemoth" on the Leman Russ, it sure reads to me that with the main cannon being ordinance, hull mounted weapons and sponsons can now only snap shot when the cannon is fired.

Am I wrong in this? Heavy just says that it always counts as being stationary, stationary says you can fire all weapons (nothing about BS), but there is now no rule that overrides the ordinance restriction that requires all other weapons be fired as snap shots when the ordinance fires.

The only good thing is that when it moves 6" it can fire everything ELSE at full bs as opposed to just 1 weapon. So, at least there's that I guess. But, being a cron player, I feel your pain.

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

Crazyterran wrote:

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

I guess "broken" means different things to different people.

Stoffer wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

I guess "broken" means different things to different people.

Of course it does. It's all subjective to the persons meta and point of view.

For a long time I felt black templars were broken in CC with a cheap vow that gave them pref enemy and everyone was fearless. That's been fixed, now I'm happy. Others didn't see it that way though.

 Kevin949 wrote:

dauntless wrote:
So, with "heavy" replacing "lumbering behemoth" on the Leman Russ, it sure reads to me that with the main cannon being ordinance, hull mounted weapons and sponsons can now only snap shot when the cannon is fired.

Am I wrong in this? Heavy just says that it always counts as being stationary, stationary says you can fire all weapons (nothing about BS), but there is now no rule that overrides the ordinance restriction that requires all other weapons be fired as snap shots when the ordinance fires.

The only good thing is that when it moves 6" it can fire everything ELSE at full bs as opposed to just 1 weapon. So, at least there's that I guess. But, being a cron player, I feel your pain.

Re-read the ordinance rules. As far as I can see there is no drawback to them when fitted to a vehicle. I read it that the Russ can move up to 6" and fire all weapons at full BS.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

I guess "broken" means different things to different people.

Of course it does. It's all subjective to the persons meta and point of view.

For a long time I felt black templars were broken in CC with a cheap vow that gave them pref enemy and everyone was fearless. That's been fixed, now I'm happy. Others didn't see it that way though.

I'm fairly certain calling him "broken" in 6th is a bit of a stretch. 5th? Yeah sure, 6th? lol.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

dauntless wrote:
So, with "heavy" replacing "lumbering behemoth" on the Leman Russ, it sure reads to me that with the main cannon being ordinance, hull mounted weapons and sponsons can now only snap shot when the cannon is fired.

Am I wrong in this? Heavy just says that it always counts as being stationary, stationary says you can fire all weapons (nothing about BS), but there is now no rule that overrides the ordinance restriction that requires all other weapons be fired as snap shots when the ordinance fires.

The only good thing is that when it moves 6" it can fire everything ELSE at full bs as opposed to just 1 weapon. So, at least there's that I guess. But, being a cron player, I feel your pain.

Re-read the ordinance rules. As far as I can see there is no drawback to them when fitted to a vehicle. I read it that the Russ can move up to 6" and fire all weapons at full BS.

No, you re-read the rules...

I will reiterate...last paragraph, page 71 under "Vehicles & Ordnance".

"Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons"
Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance
weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon
can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn"

Nothing in the Heavy or Relentless rules override this (seeing as heavy and relentless are near identical, just a 6" movement restriction).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stoffer wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

I guess "broken" means different things to different people.

Of course it does. It's all subjective to the persons meta and point of view.

For a long time I felt black templars were broken in CC with a cheap vow that gave them pref enemy and everyone was fearless. That's been fixed, now I'm happy. Others didn't see it that way though.

I'm fairly certain calling him "broken" in 6th is a bit of a stretch. 5th? Yeah sure, 6th? lol.

Did you mean to reply to someone else? I wasn't saying he was broken, I've never played against mephiston so I have no clue how good he is beyond what people say here.

Stoffer wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

I guess "broken" means different things to different people.

Of course it does. It's all subjective to the persons meta and point of view.

For a long time I felt black templars were broken in CC with a cheap vow that gave them pref enemy and everyone was fearless. That's been fixed, now I'm happy. Others didn't see it that way though.

I'm fairly certain calling him "broken" in 6th is a bit of a stretch. 5th? Yeah sure, 6th? lol.

A Mephiston that hits Iron Arm is virtually unkillable. He's a MC with none of the draw backs of an MC.

maybe it's because i play Codex Marines and my Librarian special character is garbage, but...

 Kevin949 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

dauntless wrote:
So, with "heavy" replacing "lumbering behemoth" on the Leman Russ, it sure reads to me that with the main cannon being ordinance, hull mounted weapons and sponsons can now only snap shot when the cannon is fired.

Am I wrong in this? Heavy just says that it always counts as being stationary, stationary says you can fire all weapons (nothing about BS), but there is now no rule that overrides the ordinance restriction that requires all other weapons be fired as snap shots when the ordinance fires.

The only good thing is that when it moves 6" it can fire everything ELSE at full bs as opposed to just 1 weapon. So, at least there's that I guess. But, being a cron player, I feel your pain.

Re-read the ordinance rules. As far as I can see there is no drawback to them when fitted to a vehicle. I read it that the Russ can move up to 6" and fire all weapons at full BS.

No, you re-read the rules...

I will reiterate...last paragraph, page 71 under "Vehicles & Ordnance".

"Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons"
Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance
weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon
can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn"

Nothing in the Heavy or Relentless rules override this (seeing as heavy and relentless are near identical, just a 6" movement restriction).

So, Guardsmen now have even less of a reason to take Leman Russes when they have things like Manticores now? >.>

 Alkasyn wrote:
Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath , do
these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious Charge,
Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear it is
equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No.

Except Baron Sathonyx. He gets all his special rules for some reason.

Crazyterran wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

overkongen wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Overall, these FAQs are of very good quality. Mephiston got fixed to Mastery 3

That's not new. Mephiston was clarified as Mastery Level 3 in the original V1 FAQ. He can unfortunately still only take two BRB powers.

Woops, my bad, I thought that's what they fixed.

Maybe they feel that Mephiston is broken enough.

I guess "broken" means different things to different people.

Of course it does. It's all subjective to the persons meta and point of view.

For a long time I felt black templars were broken in CC with a cheap vow that gave them pref enemy and everyone was fearless. That's been fixed, now I'm happy. Others didn't see it that way though.

I'm fairly certain calling him "broken" in 6th is a bit of a stretch. 5th? Yeah sure, 6th? lol.

A Mephiston that hits Iron Arm is virtually unkillable. He's a MC with none of the draw backs of an MC.

maybe it's because i play Codex Marines and my Librarian special character is garbage, but...

And if he takes any of those powers, he loses his mobility and he's not an IC. Not worth it anymore.

Wait till Kharn sees what the faq did to Gorechild.

Kevlar wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
It is a type of template weapon, not a flame template. Not all blast or ordnance templates ignore cover, and I'm sure there are some things that use the flamer template which also do not.

You're confusing several rules there.

Blasts and Ordnance don't use Templates, they use Blast and Large Blast markers.
Template weapons use the teardrop-shaped Template. There is no 'flame template'... just the one template that is used by all Template weapons. All Template weapons ignore cover.

I'm not confusing anything. I know 40k "dumbs down" its lingo, but all three of those, even line weapons are "templates" by definition (stencil, pattern, overlay).

What zooming flyers ignore are weapons that do not hit with ballistic skill. For the most part these are all the "template" type weapons, even line weapons which are a special kind of template.

But, not by GW definition, the only one that matters here. GW says there templete and blast markers. Dosen't matters what the real world calls them.

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Phydox wrote:
Wait till Kharn sees what the faq did to Gorechild.

There were no actual changes.

 Kevin949 wrote:


No, you re-read the rules...

I will reiterate...last paragraph, page 71 under "Vehicles & Ordnance".

"Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons"
Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance
weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon
can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn"

Nothing in the Heavy or Relentless rules override this (seeing as heavy and relentless are near identical, just a 6" movement restriction).

My bad. Typical of the rulebook that you need 3 different sections all in different places to get a full picture of the implications of a rule.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

WHAT

I don't really see how the loss of character profiles for Nob bikers spells their doom. Ok so they can't LOS each other. But the guys still have 2 wounds, T5, 4+ armor, 4+ cover, 5+ FNP (because who doesn't take a painboy). Throw in a Warboss on a bike and you can LOS to him.

The unit is still going to put out a ton of hurt and will still soak it all pretty good. I just don't see how they are suddenly not worth the points, when before people were complaining that they were too good.

If SW Wolf Guard guys want a character they can always upgrade one guy to Arjac Rockfist. He is great fun.

The lack of (ch) is a downgrade due to firing angles--however the forced allocation of wounds to closest model is more damaging IMO. That makes leading characters fairly pointless.

Again though, I do not understand the changes to armor groups that are similar yet led by a character. It appears in shooting you always allocate LOS first, then roll saves--even if similar armor saves.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

I don't know, that LOS rule was my solution to high STR templates and playing opponents who were actually smart enough to maneuver into a better shooting position. It's going to hurt a lot against some armies.

Edit: I just played a guard army with two demolisher cannons. He would have removed all my paladins somewhere around turn 3 if it wasn't for LOS.

Stoffer wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

I don't know, that LOS rule was my solution to high STR templates and playing opponents who were actually smart enough to maneuver into a better shooting position. It's going to hurt a lot against some armies.

Edit: I just played a guard army with two demolisher cannons. He would have removed all my paladins somewhere around turn 3 if it wasn't for LOS.

How where the Demolisher Cannons not IDing your Paladins? How can you LoS! ID off onto another guy...?

Maybe he means line of sight and not look out sir.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Do you even understand how Paladins work? What made them so good, and so survivable, was their ability to move wounds around to keep them plugging away at full strength. Without that, there is literally no reason to take them over the other options. If you need massed firepower, you can get three times as many psycannons in a list using purifier spam (A list that was always far more powerful than Paladinstar since the very beginning, and has remained utterly untouched). If you need massed 2+ armour, normal terminators will give you more bodies for your wounds.

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

Crazyterran wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

I don't know, that LOS rule was my solution to high STR templates and playing opponents who were actually smart enough to maneuver into a better shooting position. It's going to hurt a lot against some armies.

Edit: I just played a guard army with two demolisher cannons. He would have removed all my paladins somewhere around turn 3 if it wasn't for LOS.

How where the Demolisher Cannons not IDing your Paladins? How can you LoS! ID off onto another guy...?

Template on Paladins. Use their look out sir to put the wounds on Draigo. Roll 3+ invulns.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Still bummed about Paladins no longer being characters

Boo hoo...

It's a valid complaint. Paladins may have had their way with unskilled players, but they were never the top dog of 40k, or even their own codex. The nerf they got was way too hard, and now they're absolute garbage.

The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

lol wut

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

Ah, I love the interwebs. Who are you? Blackmoor I've known for a long time from the US GT circuit but I don't know your internet handle. Would I have met you in DC, or Chicago, New York or Vegas?

Thanks in advance.

Paladins garbage? Music to my ears.

Here's the thing guys. No other unit can do wound allocation. The only thing left is the Necron Royal Court, or other Death Stars made up of various IC's or whatever.

It's simple. GW is sending a simple little message: Wound Allocation Shenanigans Are Not Cool.

There, see? Easy to understand, simple, basic. Stop trying to abuse rules, spam, and do other gimmicky shenanigans and you'll probably have a much better time playing and learning an army that isn't an 'easy button'.

 pretre wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Termpates, Blasts, and Large Blasts can not hit fliers (a line weapon like a Death ray is none of these)

Except that it is effectively a template weapon, just a long thin template. It is clear from the faq answers that they have intended all of the things that I (not necessarily the rules) consider to be 'weird templates' to not hit flying targets.

I'm not going to go back and forth on pre-faq, since neither of us is going to budge. At least they faq'd it clearly now.

Does this mean I can target a model I can see with the Death Ray and drawn the line through other models and units I dont have LOS to and still kill them following the rules for the FAQd rule on using a blast weapon to wound models around the target you can't actually see?

Same question can be asked of weapons with the Torrent rule (hellhound tank, GK Dread Knight etc). Can I place the small part of the template on a model I can see, then turn it so it basically flames around a corner at models taking cover behind a building?

 Fafnir wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Do you even understand how Paladins work? What made them so good, and so survivable, was their ability to move wounds around to keep them plugging away at full strength. Without that, there is literally no reason to take them over the other options. If you need massed firepower, you can get three times as many psycannons in a list using purifier spam (A list that was always far more powerful than Paladinstar since the very beginning, and has remained utterly untouched). If you need massed 2+ armour, normal terminators will give you more bodies for your wounds.

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

You do know you're talking to Blackmoor, right? Who made it to the final game of the Nova Open GT (8 games, winning his first 7) with a paladin-heavy list last year, and regularly finishes well in large tournaments with them?

He knows what he's talking about regarding paladins...

 RiTides wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Do you even understand how Paladins work? What made them so good, and so survivable, was their ability to move wounds around to keep them plugging away at full strength. Without that, there is literally no reason to take them over the other options. If you need massed firepower, you can get three times as many psycannons in a list using purifier spam (A list that was always far more powerful than Paladinstar since the very beginning, and has remained utterly untouched). If you need massed 2+ armour, normal terminators will give you more bodies for your wounds.

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

You do know you're talking to Blackmoor, right? Who made it to the final game of the Nova Open GT (8 games, winning his first 7) with a paladin-heavy list last year, and regularly finishes well in large tournaments with them?

He knows what he's talking about regarding paladins...

Yeah, I'm a little curious as to what he means by it.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Big boost for Nids actually....So much information to process:

Q: The rulebook says that you halve your Attacks characteristic if
you perform a Smash attack. However, if a Monstrous Creature has
an uneven number of Attacks, (3 for example), but has charged that
turn, does it receive the bonus Attack for charging before or after
halving its Attacks? (p42)
A: You halve the model’s Attacks characteristic first, then
apply any additional modifiers. In the example above, the
model would halve its Attacks first (rounding up to 2), then
receive a bonus Attack for charging.

So many attacks on a Warpspeed Crushing claw tervigon...

Q: Flyers are entitled to choose whether or not to use the Skyfire
special rule at the start of each Shooting phase. Can Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures also do this? (p49)
A: Yes.

Woot! I cans shoot down flyers!

I hate to say it, but until blasts can hit flyers, its still pretty much useless.

Lets see, a harpy has ....stinger salvo 18" S5
or
A hive tyrant with S6 18".

Yes, its a bit better. But we lost any hope for using aegis guns (I was even building a nid one).

Combine that with the Broodlord BS thing....ouch.

drbored wrote:
Paladins garbage? Music to my ears.

Here's the thing guys. No other unit can do wound allocation. The only thing left is the Necron Royal Court, or other Death Stars made up of various IC's or whatever.

It's simple. GW is sending a simple little message: Wound Allocation Shenanigans Are Not Cool.

You can still do a limited amount of it by leading with a character, and having two or three models in contact with him. But yeah, it's largely shut down.

@davethepak

Harpies are never a consideration. And I think you might not quite understand what your talking about in regards to the tyrant. 9 hits=3 glances anything that's not a vendetta or storm raven. So 12 St6 shots will drop an AV11 or less flyer on average. Combined with being able to shoot onto the table 24" giving you an actual range of 42" as well and you're looking pretty good.

If you have decent resiliency on the table it migh even be best to keep them in reserve and to try and come in after your opponents flyers to drop them, giving you less chances of being shot out of the sky.

And the ruling on modifiers is pretty nice. Because unless I'm reading it wrong it's basically 2+1 (Charge) +D3 (Crushing Claws) at St10 poison with even more if you pull down warpspeed....

 Hazardx987 wrote:

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

CRAP!!!

For some reason I don't think a squad of CSM or Marines would just sit there and not charge the Monstrous Creature/Walker/Wych Squad/Boyz Mob/... that blew up their transport, do you?

this rule doesnt make any sense to me. Is having your transport blown up thus forcing you to disembark really any different the not having the transport blown up and deciding the disembark? Either way I should be able to assault on the next turn

 ironicsilence wrote:

 Hazardx987 wrote:

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

CRAP!!!

For some reason I don't think a squad of CSM or Marines would just sit there and not charge the Monstrous Creature/Walker/Wych Squad/Boyz Mob/... that blew up their transport, do you?

this rule doesnt make any sense to me. Is having your transport blown up thus forcing you to disembark really any different the not having the transport blown up and deciding the disembark? Either way I should be able to assault on the next turn

i agree, this makes no sense. at all.

That disembarking and assaulting answer makes no sense. They aren't disembarking the in the same turn that they wish to assault, so what's the big deal?

 Noisy_Marine wrote:
That disembarking and assaulting answer makes no sense. They aren't disembarking the in the same turn that they wish to assault, so what's the big deal?

The issue was in the 6th edition rulebook it states any time it states 'turn' it is referring to 'Player turn'. So, the only time the assault vehicle rule would come into play is if you managed to lose your vehicle during your (player) turn. The FAQ clarifies that the Assault rule carries over from your enemy's 'Player' turn into yours--granting the assault if destroyed.

This clarifies that yes, if your rhino is destroyed in your opponent's turn and your Berzerkers disembark--they have to take another round of shooting before they can assault. I think they should have made that rule apply only if you moved flat out.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@davethepak

Harpies are never a consideration. And I think you might not quite understand what your talking about in regards to the tyrant. 9 hits=3 glances anything that's not a vendetta or storm raven. So 12 St6 shots will drop an AV11 or less flyer on average. Combined with being able to shoot onto the table 24" giving you an actual range of 42" as well and you're looking pretty good.

If you have decent resiliency on the table it migh even be best to keep them in reserve and to try and come in after your opponents flyers to drop them, giving you less chances of being shot out of the sky.

Plus, unlike a Flyer, a FMC has 360-degree arc of fire, making it hard to out maneuver in later rounds.

Yup, pretty sweet.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Noisy_Marine wrote:
That disembarking and assaulting answer makes no sense. They aren't disembarking the in the same turn that they wish to assault, so what's the big deal?

The issue was in the 6th edition rulebook it states any time it states 'turn' it is referring to 'Player turn'. So, the only time the assault vehicle rule would come into play is if you managed to lose your vehicle during your (player) turn. The FAQ clarifies that the Assault rule carries over from your enemy's 'Player' turn into yours--granting the assault if destroyed.

This clarifies that yes, if your rhino is destroyed in your opponent's turn and your Berzerkers disembark--they have to take another round of shooting before they can assault. I think they should have made that rule apply only if you moved flat out.

I'd be fine with the rule if it had that only flat out part in it, without it I dont approve

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Noisy_Marine wrote:
That disembarking and assaulting answer makes no sense. They aren't disembarking the in the same turn that they wish to assault, so what's the big deal?

The issue was in the 6th edition rulebook it states any time it states 'turn' it is referring to 'Player turn'. So, the only time the assault vehicle rule would come into play is if you managed to lose your vehicle during your (player) turn. The FAQ clarifies that the Assault rule carries over from your enemy's 'Player' turn into yours--granting the assault if destroyed.

This clarifies that yes, if your rhino is destroyed in your opponent's turn and your Berzerkers disembark--they have to take another round of shooting before they can assault. I think they should have made that rule apply only if you moved flat out.

They might as well bring back entanglement then.

Stoffer wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Do you even understand how Paladins work? What made them so good, and so survivable, was their ability to move wounds around to keep them plugging away at full strength. Without that, there is literally no reason to take them over the other options. If you need massed firepower, you can get three times as many psycannons in a list using purifier spam (A list that was always far more powerful than Paladinstar since the very beginning, and has remained utterly untouched). If you need massed 2+ armour, normal terminators will give you more bodies for your wounds.

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

You do know you're talking to Blackmoor, right? Who made it to the final game of the Nova Open GT (8 games, winning his first 7) with a paladin-heavy list last year, and regularly finishes well in large tournaments with them?

He knows what he's talking about regarding paladins...

Yeah, I'm a little curious as to what he means by it.

I will be glad to answer that.

In 6th edition durability is very important. When you have a Necon Air Force flying around you need out last them because you will not be able to shoot many of them down. I played against 2 Necron flyers at the Nova Invitational and my paladins were the only thing to survive. Same with all of the other torrent of fire armies.

I want to go on record as saying that 2 wound terminators are hard to kill.

Now on to wound allocation.
In 6th edition assault is dead and in my 5 games I was only assaulted once by a unit of Wraiths which the paladins have no trouble beating.
Now since it is a shooting game think of paladins as a durable psycannon platform. So let’s say we take 5 wounds from shooting (which is very, very hard to do) in the past if you were able to make your 4+ LOS roll you were able to hand them off so that a squad of 5 paladins had one wound each (FYI, which was really hard to do anyways without losing a paladin or two along the way). So now what happens? You lose 2 paladins and have one with 1 wound. So ask yourself how does this impact your squad?

#1. You are not as good in assault. Here is some news for you, you will still kill most units in assault assuming they want to, or can even get to you. Remember 5th edition when everyone had power weapons that could kill paladins? That was so last edition.

#2. Shooting is diminished. Oh no, I shoot 2 less storm bolters! The paladins are still getting shots from 2 psycannons that can move and shot to full effect. You have to do 8 wounds to a 5-man paladin squad before you reduce their meaningful firepower.

Also you can still manipulate wounds by rotating your models around. If you have a paladin with one wound just move him back in the squad.

And a couple of other notes:
To the person who said that purifiers are better than paladins has never played that match-up before. I have played against 2 purifier armies at tournaments in the last 3 weeks with my Draigowing and Paladins win every time. It is all about 2 wounds with a 2+ save and it does not matter if you can spread the wounds around or not. They just can't do any damage while the paladins psycannons are killing a lot of Purifiers.

As far as demolisher cannons, why are you getting shot with them? They have a 24” range so just stay 30” away. When then come close hit them with all of your psycannons with prescience and you should be able to take them out or at least stop them from shooting.

Some people can read and learn, others just have to learn the hard way.

Stoffer wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Do you even understand how Paladins work? What made them so good, and so survivable, was their ability to move wounds around to keep them plugging away at full strength. Without that, there is literally no reason to take them over the other options. If you need massed firepower, you can get three times as many psycannons in a list using purifier spam (A list that was always far more powerful than Paladinstar since the very beginning, and has remained utterly untouched). If you need massed 2+ armour, normal terminators will give you more bodies for your wounds.

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

You do know you're talking to Blackmoor, right? Who made it to the final game of the Nova Open GT (8 games, winning his first 7) with a paladin-heavy list last year, and regularly finishes well in large tournaments with them?

He knows what he's talking about regarding paladins...

Yeah, I'm a little curious as to what he means by it.

Nob Bikers don't really fear ID wounds very often now that they're T5 base, but what can really wreck them is just a ton of regular wounds, as now that FNP has dropped to 5+, they really aren't all that resilient if the unit is taking a ton of wounds, so having to allocate wounds onto the closest model means that you'll be losing a lot more Nob Bikers now to regular wounds...and the bad part is that a Warboss leading the unit utilizing LoS is generally vulnerable to the same kinds of wounds that hurt the Nobs around him...so its not really a case of being able to take a ton of wounds on the Warboss.

Paladins, on the other hand, have that superior armor save, but their big weakness is the S8+ ID. However, Draigo leading the unit can still now be placed at the front and take any S8+ hits on himself, using his 3++ save and his 4 Wounds to soak up quite a few of those shots. Then he can just pass on the standard wounds onto the closest Paladin (and players will always keep the non-Psycannon guys near Draigo now).

So basically Paladins are still able to utilize the most beneficial part of the rule most of the time. Yeah, they can be outflanked now and have S8+ wounds hitting regular Paladins because they're closer, but really there aren't that many super-mobile S8 shooting threats to really put an overall dent in the plan.

 yakface wrote:

So it looks like they haven't covered the question regarding whether or not passengers placed from an exploding vehicle count as disembarking or not for the purposes of assaulting.

They really need to get that answered because RAW those models placed after an explosion CAN assault and it makes players NOT want to shoot at vehicles in certain cases because they know there's a chance if they explode the vehicle they'll free the squad up to be able to assault when it wouldn't be able to before.

Yeah, that's confusing as all hell. They actually removed the word "disembark" from the rule.

I gotta play it by RAW until they say otherwise. Explodes=can assault. Wrecked = cannot.

>.< dammit, that's the one thing I wanted ultimate clarification on. Meh.

Thanks blackmoor,
I'll try not to abandon my paladins yet. Will see how my tournament goes tomorrow.

 Brian P wrote:

 yakface wrote:

So it looks like they haven't covered the question regarding whether or not passengers placed from an exploding vehicle count as disembarking or not for the purposes of assaulting.

They really need to get that answered because RAW those models placed after an explosion CAN assault and it makes players NOT want to shoot at vehicles in certain cases because they know there's a chance if they explode the vehicle they'll free the squad up to be able to assault when it wouldn't be able to before.

Yeah, that's confusing as all hell. They actually removed the word "disembark" from the rule.

I gotta play it by RAW until they say otherwise. Explodes=can assault. Wrecked = cannot.

Well, they changed the summary to match the interior rules, that's not really the same as them 'removing' the word disembark from it.

The reason I don't think this is a clear nod from GW that explodes results are supposed to free models to assault is because it is exactly the same wording from the 5th edition rulebook, which has always been incredibly nebulous on several issues, none of which have changed in 6th edition.

We all agree that placing the models where the vehicle exploded doesn't use the rules for disembarking (such as being able to move 6", etc), but I still do think you have to make the leap of logic and say that the models still count as disembarking or else you run into several issues that have no resolution, namely:

If they don't count as disembarking then I can theoretically place them within 1" of enemy models. What happens if I place them in base contact with an enemy model? What about on top of friendly or enemy vehicles (in the case of a flyer transports that were 'over' other models)? What about models that can't fit where the vehicle was? Are these dead or what?

There are just all these questions that cannot be answered if you don't at least quantify that the models count as having disembarked.

And like I said you also get the non-sensical situation of not wanting to shoot at a vehicle in some cases because making it explode, which is supposed to be the most damaging result, can actually HELP the unit inside by allowing it to assault where it wouldn't be able to in any other circumstance.

Yeah Jon--I agree. Plus, I think intent is pretty clear--considering that a paragraph later it states "...the now disembarked troops". I know that linguistically "Disembark" and "now disembarked" could be considered different tenses (and meaning)--but as you pointed out, it just raises more questions.

Blackmoor wrote:
In 6th edition assault is dead

I beg to differ.

So for "Look out sir", it seems like you always have to allocate wounds out to models before you take any saves, is this correct?

Your unit has all the same saves and a character in the lead; you now have to LOS all wounds out before taking any saves at all?

This seems like it would significantly bog down the game.

Figured out it was to correct this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/472018.page

 Hulksmash wrote:
@davethepak

Harpies are never a consideration. And I think you might not quite understand what your talking about in regards to the tyrant. 9 hits=3 glances anything that's not a vendetta or storm raven. So 12 St6 shots will drop an AV11 or less flyer on average. Combined with being able to shoot onto the table 24" giving you an actual range of 42" as well and you're looking pretty good.

If you have decent resiliency on the table it migh even be best to keep them in reserve and to try and come in after your opponents flyers to drop them, giving you less chances of being shot out of the sky.

And the ruling on modifiers is pretty nice. Because unless I'm reading it wrong it's basically 2+1 (Charge) +D3 (Crushing Claws) at St10 poison with even more if you pull down warpspeed....

Oh, I agree with your details - they are spot on - and yes I know the math on the potential of the tryant in facing lower armor (i.e. not guard or storm ravens) absolutely.
While I welcome the skyfire option, that is a lot of points for what you get - perhaps once they release a harpy model they will get a boost...

I also like your tactics regarding possible reserve and leveraging their mobility (this helps with the very limited range- as does their 360 fire) - I read your nid tactics regularly from your blog. Of course, being shot out of the sky by lasguns can be annoying as is the nerf to beasts and terrain (my raveners are sad yet again).

I still play nids, and do respect that they take a bit more thought and are not as forgiving (as say, something with better range and options i.e. other top tier flyers) - but just because I find some satisfaction in playing armies that are more challenging (my main army is tau) it would nice if it were not always an uphill battle.

P.80 Wrecked: Used the terminology of disembarked.

p.80 Explodes: Does not use the term disembarked, but also does not state that it does not happen.

In the immediately following paragraph, it refers to the passengers from a destroyed vehicle (which includes wrecked *and* explodes) as being 'now disembarked'.

If the passengers were embarked, and are 'now disembarked', they had to disembark.

Is it me or do the Chaos Icon rules in the chaos daemons FAQ and csm FAQ make no damn sense?

The question is 'do they scatter if landing next to one of the icons' and the answer says

"yes, if the icon says it works for all friendly models' so basically YES it does scatter even if the icon says it works for all friendly models.

And then it has another line about it also scattering if the icon says it only work for certain models from it's respective codex.

lol or did I just misread something? Cuz that just made no sense to me they could've just said that they wont work for each other.

It's almost certainly written to be compatible with new icons in the impending new CSM codex. The current answer is basically a longwinded way of saying "yes, they scatter", for the current codex, but leaves open the possibility that we're going to see icons with different rules soon.

A question. Because of the new Faq's, will Njal's Vengeful Tornado Affect flyers now? I think not.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Phydox wrote:
Wait till Kharn sees what the faq did to Gorechild.

There were no actual changes.

Yup. Though I hear Astorath and Dante both dropped by to visit him and they all had a a grand old time burning GW designers in effigy! And some not in effigy.

 Pyriel- wrote:

They didn't. An archon joining a Codex: Eldar Harlequin unit with Eldrad is still a Codex: Eldar unit and can be fortuned.

My bad, I was to optimistic after reading things like nobz not being characters etc to think common sense would remove the ridicule of immortal 2++/++ archon bombs.

Q: Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic
powers Fortune and Guide? (p28)
A: No.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:

They didn't. An archon joining a Codex: Eldar Harlequin unit with Eldrad is still a Codex: Eldar unit and can be fortuned.

My bad, I was to optimistic after reading things like nobz not being characters etc to think common sense would remove the ridicule of immortal 2++/++ archon bombs.

Q: Do Dark Eldar allies count as Eldar for the Farseer psychic
powers Fortune and Guide? (p28)
A: No.

I don't believe that quote covers the mechanic that makes the combo work. You cast the powers on a squad like harlies chosen from the ELDAR codex and simply have the archon join it. IIRC, the IC rules make him part of the squad exactly as if he were a full time member. The faq is addressing casting it on a DE squad which is superfically similar but different in the key important aspect.

Just found out veil no longer is 2d6" to see them.... I don't know why, but this makes me so happy. Now they just have a 4+ cover save in the open, which I'm more than happy to FRFSRF to death.

Had a game where my IG literally couldn't do a thing to them, since I had to get within 12", and even then, it was no guarantee that most of my unit could see them. I'm going to have fun getting revenge for this one...

I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

DE are good... Huskblade is just mandatory now, in every Archon, wich means Orb will have to make an apearance...

Orkz got some nerfing, why in hell a rockit atached to a stick have AP - instead of AP3? The boom is even better (S10 instead of 8).

Dark Angels gained the most absurd dread in years: Venerable Dreads with modern profiles, for +25 points o.O

Chaos got a lot of nice stuff too, GW is clearysaying "we prefer to see marine players winning, preferably the players from the last codex"

Anyway, everything looks well worked, and very balanced (as we can expect from GW).

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
So for "Look out sir", it seems like you always have to allocate wounds out to models before you take any saves, is this correct?

Your unit has all the same saves and a character in the lead; you now have to LOS all wounds out before taking any saves at all?

This seems like it would significantly bog down the game.

I don't expect people will actually play LOS on a unit with all the same saves differently than the book says. They had an elegant solution the first time and it doesn't change any possible result.

 Sephyr wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Phydox wrote:
Wait till Kharn sees what the faq did to Gorechild.

There were no actual changes.

Yup. Though I hear Astorath and Dante both dropped by to visit him and they all had a a grand old time burning GW designers in effigy! And some not in effigy.

Dante was already there from my POV. Astorath definitely got the shaft this round though. Everyone agreed that Astorath had a unique power weapon. Now at least he can take out terminators. If only he actually had eternal warrior as well ....

rogueeyes wrote:

 Sephyr wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Phydox wrote:
Wait till Kharn sees what the faq did to Gorechild.

There were no actual changes.

Yup. Though I hear Astorath and Dante both dropped by to visit him and they all had a a grand old time burning GW designers in effigy! And some not in effigy.

Dante was already there from my POV. Astorath definitely got the shaft this round though. Everyone agreed that Astorath had a unique power weapon. Now at least he can take out terminators. If only he actually had eternal warrior as well ....

No one takes out terminators in close combat in sixth anyway. Just use your cheap, numerous, ap2 shooting that every codex even vaguely competitive has access too instead.

Dunno if this has been said yet:

Tau FAQ wrote:
Page 30 – Armoury, Disruption Pod.
Change the last sentence to read “A vehicle with a disruption
pod has the Shrouded special rule against any weapons firing
from more than 12" away.”

3+ cover save on Tau Vehicles! 2+ if moving flat out! woohoo!

gigasnail wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:

 Hazardx987 wrote:

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

CRAP!!!

For some reason I don't think a squad of CSM or Marines would just sit there and not charge the Monstrous Creature/Walker/Wych Squad/Boyz Mob/... that blew up their transport, do you?

this rule doesnt make any sense to me. Is having your transport blown up thus forcing you to disembark really any different the not having the transport blown up and deciding the disembark? Either way I should be able to assault on the next turn

i agree, this makes no sense. at all.

It make a lot of sense... Player turns are a mechanic used by the rules to clarify the action who is happening at the same time. The "first player" just represent a guy with a slight advantage in terms of time and reaction.

That rule dont mean your marines will "sit there and not charge the enemy" it means the unit is busy trying to get out of the wreck/crater alive. In the next Player Turn, they will act as if they had just disembarked, because in the "real time", that is exactly what they where doying...

So, tell me how it dont make sense that, if you had just disembarked from your shine Rhino you could not assault, but if your Rhino was exploded/wrecked, them you can assault after disembarking...

About the "Assault Vehicle", it is weird to assault from a destroyed Land Raider and not from a destroyed Rhino, but it start to make sense when you think about open topped vehicles (like ork trukks).

I see Kaldor Draigo took a nerfhammer to the face...

except that's exactly what it means, you are sitting there, twiddling your thumbs, for your next turn, and then your opponent's next shooting phase. getting a transport trashed takes the unit it carried out of the fight for too long. assault already has been nerfed to hell and back; it didn't need this additional kick in the jimmy.

if they wanted this mechanic in the game, have it apply if you fail the pinning test when the truck blows or something. this is 40k, we're talking about post-humans in power armor that want to carve your face off with a chainsaw, fungus warriors, and evil space fairies on hoverboards. realism or logic have no place in a discussion of 40k rules.

Onlinemph wrote:
I see Kaldor Draigo took a nerfhammer to the face...

How is that?

Ok wtf, really? they removed the S10 vs Psykers and Daemons as well? wtf GW. 275 fething points.

gigasnail wrote:
except that's exactly what it means, you are sitting there, twiddling your thumbs, for your next turn, and then your opponent's next shooting phase. getting a transport trashed takes the unit it carried out of the fight for too long. assault already has been nerfed to hell and back; it didn't need this additional kick in the jimmy.

Well, yeah. That's what was going to happen if their transport WASN'T destroyed. Why should they get a benefit from having the vehicle they were in blown up? That makes no sense at all. Throwing your transports into the line of fire, hoping to have them blown up so you can assault next turn? That's so gamey and stupid it doesn't bare thinking about.

dunno what the hell i was thinking, this FAQ wouldn't change the length a squad has to wait to assault in 6th. looks like i fail at kindergarten math. sorry folks, nothing to see here ~

 Kaldor wrote:

gigasnail wrote:
except that's exactly what it means, you are sitting there, twiddling your thumbs, for your next turn, and then your opponent's next shooting phase. getting a transport trashed takes the unit it carried out of the fight for too long. assault already has been nerfed to hell and back; it didn't need this additional kick in the jimmy.

Well, yeah. That's what was going to happen if their transport WASN'T destroyed. Why should they get a benefit from having the vehicle they were in blown up? That makes no sense at all. Throwing your transports into the line of fire, hoping to have them blown up so you can assault next turn? That's so gamey and stupid it doesn't bare thinking about.

Taking transports for assault troops at all is actively harmful now. I think people are trying to find any way around having the majority of assault armies in this game becoming useless in sixth. It seems like with every codex, edition, and FAQ GW just puts another nail in the coffin of the assault phase. I don't blame people for trying to be gamey to get around it, assault armies make up a significant portion of the games playerbase, GW is basically just telling people to put their armies in the dumpster with rules like these.

It's also not gamey since it's explicitly what the rules said to do before this FAQ. If they didn't want people "gaming the rules" they would have hired a designer that is even vaguely competent. They didn't they hired Matt Ward.

yeah, it was more this trend i am annoyed about.

i dunno how i misread the FAQ though, seriously. /shameface

At least assault vehicles ignore the restrictions. So good news! When your battlewagon blows up and kills half your mob, you can still assault!

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
At least assault vehicles ignore the restrictions. So good news! When your battlewagon blows up and kills half your mob, you can still assault!

It really only hurts rhinos. Every other transport commonly used by assault units is open topped or an assault vehicle. Why blood angels even exist anymore as a codex is beyond me. Grey knights and then sixth, someone really hates redmarines.

Wow. Incubi Klaives are AP2

LOL I was the only person to say nial has the stave in his hand but everyone said its unsual weapon (which is true at the time)

Cool that GW ruled it as i have thought

Personal favorite highlights of the Eldar update.

Q. If a Farseer joins a unit that includes a Warlock with the Embolden
power, does he get to re-roll failed Psychic tests? (p26)
A. Yes – the presence of the Warlock obviously helps the
Farseer to concentrate.

Q: Do Haywire weapons, vibro-cannons and D-weapons (D-cannon,
wraithcannons, etc.) affect fortifications in the same way they do
vehicles? (var)
A: Yes.

Page 31 – Howling Banshees, Banshee Mask.
Replace this entry with the following:
Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault, a model wearing
a Banshee mask has Initiative 10, even if it charged through
difficult terrain. Furthermore, defensive grenades cannot be
used against a charging model with a Banshee Mask.

The most fun nerf i see is the one to Ghazgull "profet of waaagh!!" SR...

Last edition it was a incredible ace in the last turn, and added a nice sense of "final blow" to big hordes. Now it will be used as fast as possible, maybe at the third turn, just for that auto 6 on the run...

Apparently, another warboss will have to declare a waaagh!! in that last turn...

 Blackmoor wrote:

And a couple of other notes:
To the person who said that purifiers are better than paladins has never played that match-up before. I have played against 2 purifier armies at tournaments in the last 3 weeks with my Draigowing and Paladins win every time. It is all about 2 wounds with a 2+ save and it does not matter if you can spread the wounds around or not. They just can't do any damage while the paladins psycannons are killing a lot of Purifiers.

Of course Paladins will beat Purifiers when you pit the two armies against each other, but that doesn't make Paladins the better army. In most other matchups, Purifiers have a lot more versatility that makes them overall much more viable. A single good matchup does not make a list better than another.

As far as demolisher cannons, why are you getting shot with them? They have a 24” range so just stay 30” away. When then come close hit them with all of your psycannons with prescience and you should be able to take them out or at least stop them from shooting.

This strategy works until you go against BA Vindicators, at which point, they're the ones out-ranging you.

Also, you underestimate the value of the stormbolter. Sure, against the big scary targets, it's not particularly valuable, but you need it to help move off the basic infantry that often comes in numbers too large for just Psycannons alone to remove. On a unit that relies on its massive, steady torrent of fire to move units off the table to make up for its terrible mobility, losing models to attrition is a big deal.

I think many of the most used Leman Russ variants took a big hit simply looosing Lumbering Behemoth and gaining Heavy instead. Before they could move 6"+D6" and 6" in the shooting phase, now it's just always 6". Before they could move and fire ordnance and another weapon at full BS and then snap fire the rest, meaning that they could also fire a plasma sponson on the move or two when stationary. Now they can never use heavy flamers or plasma cannons when equipped with a battle cannon or demolisher cannon. The only variants that got a buff is the Executioner (plasma) and Exterminator (autocannon).
I am really glad that I painted up an Executioner turret for my Russ with plasma sponsons, or otherwise it would be completely useless.

 SpaceMonk wrote:
Wow. Incubi Klaives are AP2

I find myself not caring that much. I mean yeah, they should have been AP2, but in the end does it really make a difference? As it's been pointed out already assaulting anything, especially with the DE codex as everything is made of paper, is just damn foolish when you can stay at range and more effectively get rid of those units with poison.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

Onlinemph wrote:
I see Kaldor Draigo took a nerfhammer to the face...

How is that?

Ok wtf, really? they removed the S10 vs Psykers and Daemons as well? wtf GW. 275 fething points.

No they didn't. The FAQ states to replace the first sentence. The S10 comes after that. The only thing it really says is that it's a sword.

Trasvi wrote:
Dunno if this has been said yet:

Tau FAQ wrote:
Page 30 – Armoury, Disruption Pod.
Change the last sentence to read “A vehicle with a disruption
pod has the Shrouded special rule against any weapons firing
from more than 12" away.”

3+ cover save on Tau Vehicles! 2+ if moving flat out! woohoo!

That is just insane and I have to wonder if they will FAQ it again. I mean, if it was just Stealth, even that would have been great - essentially giving us back 5th edition Disruption pod which many people bemoaned was already broken. Now, it's not like Tau are particularly broken in other respects, but man, does that make Tau vehicles incredibly frustrating to most opponents.

Overall, I'm kinda mixed about this FAQ. Sure, there are many very good rulings and changes. However, erratas are getting really long now and I'm left puzzled, why those obvious things were not in the rulebook in the first place?? It really feels like the rulebook was very much rushed out. Also, apparently now main rulebook sometimes actually DOES overrule Codex, such as in the case of DA Venerable Dread. Now I realize that lots of the issues will be cleared out when new Codex start to come out, but it is bit of a mess now.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It really only hurts rhinos. Every other transport commonly used by assault units is open topped or an assault vehicle. Why blood angels even exist anymore as a codex is beyond me. Grey knights and then sixth, someone really hates redmarines.

Eldar say hello.

 Kaldor wrote:
Well, yeah. That's what was going to happen if their transport WASN'T destroyed. Why should they get a benefit from having the vehicle they were in blown up? That makes no sense at all. Throwing your transports into the line of fire, hoping to have them blown up so you can assault next turn? That's so gamey and stupid it doesn't bare thinking about.

I'm going to chip in with "QFT". People really have to look at the whole "just standing there" from the other side. "Don't shoot that melta at this rhino. That may make it explode, stun guys inside, trap them inside a wreck, scatter them by huge explosion, kill some of them, cause them to panic by losses, force them to gtg and everybody knows that all this makes assaulting MUCH easier than just getting out of a working vehicle. Let's just stand here, it'll be safer."
This is very reasonable if we consider "no assaulting from vehicles".

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Just found out veil no longer is 2d6" to see them.... I don't know why, but this makes me so happy. Now they just have a 4+ cover save in the open, which I'm more than happy to FRFSRF to death.

Had a game where my IG literally couldn't do a thing to them, since I had to get within 12", and even then, it was no guarantee that most of my unit could see them. I'm going to have fun getting revenge for this one...

This was already in V1. Also, this is just kicking when they are already down

 Blackmoor wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The new rule has very little impact on Paladins, and my prediction is that you will see more of them in 6th, not less.

Do you even understand how Paladins work? What made them so good, and so survivable, was their ability to move wounds around to keep them plugging away at full strength. Without that, there is literally no reason to take them over the other options. If you need massed firepower, you can get three times as many psycannons in a list using purifier spam (A list that was always far more powerful than Paladinstar since the very beginning, and has remained utterly untouched). If you need massed 2+ armour, normal terminators will give you more bodies for your wounds.

No, Paladins are garbage now, and I would advise against taking them in any list when there are so many better options.

You do know you're talking to Blackmoor, right? Who made it to the final game of the Nova Open GT (8 games, winning his first 7) with a paladin-heavy list last year, and regularly finishes well in large tournaments with them?

He knows what he's talking about regarding paladins...

Yeah, I'm a little curious as to what he means by it.

I will be glad to answer that.

In 6th edition durability is very important. When you have a Necon Air Force flying around you need out last them because you will not be able to shoot many of them down. I played against 2 Necron flyers at the Nova Invitational and my paladins were the only thing to survive. Same with all of the other torrent of fire armies.

I want to go on record as saying that 2 wound terminators are hard to kill.

Now on to wound allocation.
In 6th edition assault is dead and in my 5 games I was only assaulted once by a unit of Wraiths which the paladins have no trouble beating.
Now since it is a shooting game think of paladins as a durable psycannon platform. So let’s say we take 5 wounds from shooting (which is very, very hard to do) in the past if you were able to make your 4+ LOS roll you were able to hand them off so that a squad of 5 paladins had one wound each (FYI, which was really hard to do anyways without losing a paladin or two along the way). So now what happens? You lose 2 paladins and have one with 1 wound. So ask yourself how does this impact your squad?

#1. You are not as good in assault. Here is some news for you, you will still kill most units in assault assuming they want to, or can even get to you. Remember 5th edition when everyone had power weapons that could kill paladins? That was so last edition.

#2. Shooting is diminished. Oh no, I shoot 2 less storm bolters! The paladins are still getting shots from 2 psycannons that can move and shot to full effect. You have to do 8 wounds to a 5-man paladin squad before you reduce their meaningful firepower.

Also you can still manipulate wounds by rotating your models around. If you have a paladin with one wound just move him back in the squad.

And a couple of other notes:
To the person who said that purifiers are better than paladins has never played that match-up before. I have played against 2 purifier armies at tournaments in the last 3 weeks with my Draigowing and Paladins win every time. It is all about 2 wounds with a 2+ save and it does not matter if you can spread the wounds around or not. They just can't do any damage while the paladins psycannons are killing a lot of Purifiers.

As far as demolisher cannons, why are you getting shot with them? They have a 24” range so just stay 30” away. When then come close hit them with all of your psycannons with prescience and you should be able to take them out or at least stop them from shooting.

Some people can read and learn, others just have to learn the hard way.

That's a fairly good explanation. I still don't really agree that they come out stronger, but I definitely see your point that they're still useful.

About the demolisher cannons: It's hard to stay away if they're planted on objectives, and getting pens on AV14 with psycannons isn't always easy.

Backfire wrote:
That is just insane and I have to wonder if they will FAQ it again. I mean, if it was just Stealth, even that would have been great - essentially giving us back 5th edition Disruption pod which many people bemoaned was already broken. Now, it's not like Tau are particularly broken in other respects, but man, does that make Tau vehicles incredibly frustrating to most opponents.

I think you're exaggerating a little bit. Who cares if it makes them slightly more frustrating to deal with, no smart Tau player is going to be wasting points on them anyway because they're still way too overpriced and do practically nothing. You might see a devilfish or two, but that's it. Broadsides are still better than hammerheads and sky rays, devilfish cost about two and half rhinos base, and probably over 100 points once you upgrade them with a weapon that can actually do something, so only an insane person would waste points on them when they could be spent buying more suits (which are actually going to kill gak) or going towards an allied detachment of units from a good codex. Piranhas with 3+ saves sound kinda cute, but again, the points are better spent elsewhere...piranhas were only ever an attractive option when you had nothing else, now that you can cherry pick from other codices why bother?

If I were playing a different army I'd be way more worried about broadsides being able to split fire again than a useless piece of trash like a freaking devilfish with a 3+ save. And you know what, if the devilfish really bothers you that much, get within melta range and boom, it's gone, your pods do nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if you could one-shot the damn thing considering most melta-toters are at least BS4. Of course if you've run out of things to do and start shooting at the devilfish you've probably won the game anyway.

I dunno, it's entirely possible there's some "brilliant strategy" here that I'm simply overlooking, maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it Tau vehicles are either ineffectual at best or an outright waste of points at worst. With allies in the game I just don't see a point in using them when I can take a squad or two of GK's in psybacks instead.

Yeah, this is not overpowered at all, considering the base cost of Tau vehicles is still rooted in that 4th edition vehicle point cost mentality.

Its just funny that its the 5 point upgrade that makes them semi-useful.

But yeah, its more of a case that if you take Tau vehicles you're not feeling like you totally wasted your points any more, cause now they have a bit of mojo to be annoying. However, They're stlll not going to kill much for their points and they're still very, very vulnerable to close range shooting and assaults.

However, in a few cases, it is really nice. Like if you're playing where IA is allowed, this just made Tetras super-duper awesome (they were already awesome). And like you say including a cheap Devilfish for some mobile cover or a bit more mobility is not a terrible idea.

 Sidstyler wrote:

I dunno, it's entirely possible there's some "brilliant strategy" here that I'm simply overlooking, maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it Tau vehicles are either ineffectual at best or an outright waste of points at worst. With allies in the game I just don't see a point in using them when I can take a squad or two of GK's in psybacks instead.

Shoot squad at something, turbo-boost in Devilfish in front to act as a mobile wall afterwards. Reverse-JSJ.

rigeld2 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

furbyballer wrote:
Q: Does a Nemesis Dreadknight armed with a Nemesis greatsword have
4 Attacks at Strength 10 that, because of the Nemesis greatsword, can
re-roll To Hit, To Wound and Armour Penetration rolls?(p54)
A: Yes.

Yeah, I'm kind of WFT? about this. I understand the attacks and Greatsword benefits, but how is it strength 10? It still has to shoose between the Greatsword and the doomfist.

Attack with the Doomfist, get STR10. Because the sword benefits are tied to having it, not attacking with it, the Doomfist benefits.

Q: If a Striking Scorpion Exarch with a scorpion’s claw and scorpion
chainsword chooses to attack with the scorpion’s claw, does he still
benefit from the scorpion chainsword’s +1 Strength bonus? (p33)
A: No.

Just like the Scorpion Chainsword does, you mean?

Depends on the wording of the chainsword. I don't have the Eldar codex to check.

In 6th edition assault is dead and in my 5 games I was only assaulted once by a unit of Wraiths

Allan, It's almost as if you and I played in different tournaments

In 11 of my games I was in combat by turn 2 and the 12th was hammer and anvil deployment and it took me until turn 3 to get into combat. No-one in their right mind is going to assault a unit of Paladins but when you run a fluffy and balanced list like mine combat happens everywhere

No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

Designers Note: Wolf Guard, Nobz, Nobz Warbikers, and Crisis
Shas’vre that lead a unit (for example an Ork Nob leading Ork
Boyz, a Wolf Guard leading Grey Hunters) have the unit type
Infantry (Character).

I realize this is silly but has any one else noticed that RAW makes a Nob Biker leading a group of ork bikers into an Infantry model?

 Sigvatr wrote:
No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

ADLs? Night/Doom Scythes?
Aside from that, abundant Guass that doesn't care about AV or Tesla Destructors that can cause tons of hits?

Okay.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

Maybe GW expects everyone to buy and Ipad and then rebuy the online version of the BGB. Oh wait, has the online version of the BGB been updated yet?

on the clunky biker rule, is there ANYTHING in 40k today that would allow for a bike to be put into a transport? Just wondering if this change could be a glimpse into the future? Maybe Dark Angels get some sort of bike transport?

Davor wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

Maybe GW expects everyone to buy and Ipad and then rebuy the online version of the BGB. Oh wait, has the online version of the BGB been updated yet?

Is there even an online version of the BRB.

 ironicsilence wrote:
on the clunky biker rule, is there ANYTHING in 40k today that would allow for a bike to be put into a transport? Just wondering if this change could be a glimpse into the future? Maybe Dark Angels get some sort of bike transport?

Night Scythes can carry bikes---especially now that you can embark on it while zooming. I suppose it could save you from assault--although bikes are generally fast enough as is.

I think the new Night Scythe rule will be used for Immortals/Warriors though. One turn dump them, rapid fire a unit--next turn swoop them back up if they are threatened (and if your Scythe blows up, you just go back into reserve again).

I have a question about LOS.

I have a unit of 2 Carnifex's and a Tyranid Prime. The Prime is closest to the enemy and both Carnifex's are in base to base contact with the Prime. When the enemy shoots at the unit, with the Prime as the closest, where do the LOok Out Sir rolls go to? And can I alternate the wounds to both Carnifex's since they are equally close to the Prime.

Did anyone else notice:

Page 35 – Intercept.
The last sentence should be changed to: “In assaults, they
never require worse than 4+ to hit vehicles that do not have a
WS.”

Page 35 – Swooping Hawks, Intercept.
Replace the second sentence with “In assaults, they always treat
vehicles, except Walkers, as having Weapon Skill 0”.

Same FAQ. GG.

DarthDiggler wrote:
I have a question about LOS.

I have a unit of 2 Carnifex's and a Tyranid Prime. The Prime is closest to the enemy and both Carnifex's are in base to base contact with the Prime. When the enemy shoots at the unit, with the Prime as the closest, where do the LOok Out Sir rolls go to? And can I alternate the wounds to both Carnifex's since they are equally close to the Prime.

You can alternate since the two carnifex are equally "closest" to the character making the LOS! rolls.

rigeld2 wrote:
Depends on the wording of the chainsword. I don't have the Eldar codex to check.

Codex: Eldar, pg33
"Scorpion Chainsword: This is a one-handed weapon that adds +1 S to the model's attacks."
"Scorpion's Claw: The scorpion's claw takes the form of a powered claw-shaped gauntlet incorporated with a shuriken catapult. The claw may be used both as a power fist and a shuriken catapult in the same turn."

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

ADLs? Night/Doom Scythes?
Aside from that, abundant Guass that doesn't care about AV or Tesla Destructors that can cause tons of hits?

Okay.

Still no skyfire. Was hoping for Heavy Destroyers to get it order to justify their 60 points...damn. Do note that Doom Scythes are no longer allowed to lazor flyers.

Night Scythes are pretty solid against flyers, and ABs aren't bad. Tesla + TL = good number of hits, even without Skyfire. The Stormraven is undoubtedly better, but it's also twice the cost of a NS, you can get a max of three of them (okay, four if you ally GK), and you're not going to have crap for scoring units if you do spam them.

 disel24 wrote:
Am I the only one that feels that the FAQ for Nids made them a bit more viable considering that we now have a unit that can assualt when coming in from reserve?

Also somone mentioned that Nids FMC got nerfed...how?

I can't see how it did anything for their viability. As has been mentioned, the Ymgarls never lost the ability to assault out of reserve. The issue with them is they are 23 points a pop and take an Elite slot. As far as FMCs, the fact that they clarified that getting grounded causes you to lose swooping hurts bad. My area has been playing this way from the beginning and, since everyone (not playing nids) uses a quad gun, Flyrants are pretty much toast within 2 turns.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:


No, you re-read the rules...

I will reiterate...last paragraph, page 71 under "Vehicles & Ordnance".

"Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons"
Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance
weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon
can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn"

Nothing in the Heavy or Relentless rules override this (seeing as heavy and relentless are near identical, just a 6" movement restriction).

My bad. Typical of the rulebook that you need 3 different sections all in different places to get a full picture of the implications of a rule.

Eh, sorry for the snarky remark...I was in a bad mood at work yesterday.

And yes, that aspect of the rulebook infuriates me. Luckily I use a searchable rulebook so it's easy to find certain things really quick.

DarthDiggler wrote:
I have a question about LOS.

I have a unit of 2 Carnifex's and a Tyranid Prime. The Prime is closest to the enemy and both Carnifex's are in base to base contact with the Prime. When the enemy shoots at the unit, with the Prime as the closest, where do the LOok Out Sir rolls go to? And can I alternate the wounds to both Carnifex's since they are equally close to the Prime.

You would use the rules for random selection to determine the closest model as per the default rules in shooting. Use that model unroll all wounds in the wound pool is empty or the Carrie firs.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Backfire wrote:
That is just insane and I have to wonder if they will FAQ it again. I mean, if it was just Stealth, even that would have been great - essentially giving us back 5th edition Disruption pod which many people bemoaned was already broken. Now, it's not like Tau are particularly broken in other respects, but man, does that make Tau vehicles incredibly frustrating to most opponents.

I think you're exaggerating a little bit. Who cares if it makes them slightly more frustrating to deal with, no smart Tau player is going to be wasting points on them anyway because they're still way too overpriced and do practically nothing.

As I said, I don't mean it makes Tau broken as an army or anything like that. But people whined about old Disruption pod plenty enough, in practice I found that a Hammerhead was quite difficult to kill by long-range shooting. It seldom killed 170pts worth of stuff, but it sure soaked lot of attention. Late 5th edition Tau armies seldom completely gave up vehicles, even if the Mech Tau was dead and I don't expect it will change. In "Big Guns Never Tire" mission, Hammerhead is a scoring unit, for example.

 Kaldor wrote:

gigasnail wrote:
except that's exactly what it means, you are sitting there, twiddling your thumbs, for your next turn, and then your opponent's next shooting phase. getting a transport trashed takes the unit it carried out of the fight for too long. assault already has been nerfed to hell and back; it didn't need this additional kick in the jimmy.

Well, yeah. That's what was going to happen if their transport WASN'T destroyed. Why should they get a benefit from having the vehicle they were in blown up? That makes no sense at all. Throwing your transports into the line of fire, hoping to have them blown up so you can assault next turn? That's so gamey and stupid it doesn't bare thinking about.

Actually I did this all the time in 4th ed with my Chaos. I wanted my rhinos to blow up, didn't care about entaglement, because now my summoning icon was on the table and you had 1-2 less units able to shoot at them to try and kill it before my Daemonettes showed up to wreck face. Its amazing how many people fell for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

Backfire wrote:
That is just insane and I have to wonder if they will FAQ it again. I mean, if it was just Stealth, even that would have been great - essentially giving us back 5th edition Disruption pod which many people bemoaned was already broken. Now, it's not like Tau are particularly broken in other respects, but man, does that make Tau vehicles incredibly frustrating to most opponents.

I think you're exaggerating a little bit. Who cares if it makes them slightly more frustrating to deal with, no smart Tau player is going to be wasting points on them anyway because they're still way too overpriced and do practically nothing.

As I said, I don't mean it makes Tau broken as an army or anything like that. But people whined about old Disruption pod plenty enough, in practice I found that a Hammerhead was quite difficult to kill by long-range shooting. It seldom killed 170pts worth of stuff, but it sure soaked lot of attention. Late 5th edition Tau armies seldom completely gave up vehicles, even if the Mech Tau was dead and I don't expect it will change. In "Big Guns Never Tire" mission, Hammerhead is a scoring unit, for example.

There are those of us who still use a lot of tanks in a Tau army. I personally run two hammerheads and one unit of broadsides. There are also those of us who don't use allies because I want to play a tau army, not a tau and those other guys army, so we need to get the most of what we can.

In addition if the meta proves true that mech will become less prominant in 6th, the submunition rounds of the Hammerhead might just become very useful again.

Did they manage to give the venerable dreadnoughts some extra hull points or are they all still being placed in the trashcan of unusable (to costly) units?

 Pyriel- wrote:
Did they manage to give the venerable dreadnoughts some extra hull points or are they all still being placed in the trashcan of unusable (to costly) units?

Hmmmm...they aren't THAT bad imo. My team partner usually fields them and they serve him well, both dakkabots and his occasional blenderbot. Sure, they are costly, but they did quite well in tourneys.

"Hey Necron Monolith, how are ya doing in 6th?"

"Uhm, well, I took a pretty hard hit, I'm struggling, but at least I now get a 5++."

- FAQ v1.1 hit -

"Necron Monolith, you've been quiet for a while. Everything ok?"

"..."

"Monolith? You there? Monolith? MONOLITH? MONOLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITH!"

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

I disagree, they have the same weak armour, the same few hullpoints and cost way more.
Their special ability that they pat all those points for does not protect those hull points thus the ven is exactly as easy to kill as the normal dread.
I just dont get it, how can that big crap fall through the cracks?

My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

 Pyriel- wrote:
I disagree, they have the same weak armour, the same few hullpoints and cost way more.
Their special ability that they pat all those points for does not protect those hull points thus the ven is exactly as easy to kill as the normal dread.
I just dont get it, how can that big crap fall through the cracks?

Why you would even take a normal dread now is beyond me.

 Sigvatr wrote:
My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

Were you ever allowed to begin with? Not by raw...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:
Did they manage to give the venerable dreadnoughts some extra hull points or are they all still being placed in the trashcan of unusable (to costly) units?

Hmmmm...they aren't THAT bad imo. My team partner usually fields them and they serve him well, both dakkabots and his occasional blenderbot. Sure, they are costly, but they did quite well in tourneys.

"Hey Necron Monolith, how are ya doing in 6th?"

"Uhm, well, I took a pretty hard hit, I'm struggling, but at least I now get a 5++."

- FAQ v1.1 hit -

"Necron Monolith, you've been quiet for a while. Everything ok?"

"..."

"Monolith? You there? Monolith? MONOLITH? MONOLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITH!"

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

200 point AV 14 all around not worth it? My land raiders weep for thee.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

ADLs? Night/Doom Scythes?
Aside from that, abundant Guass that doesn't care about AV or Tesla Destructors that can cause tons of hits?

Okay.

Still no skyfire. Was hoping for Heavy Destroyers to get it order to justify their 60 points...damn. Do note that Doom Scythes are no longer allowed to lazor flyers.

I've seen this repeated a couple of times and I'd like to point out that the Death Ray can hit Hovering flyers and Gliding FMCs. It can't hit Zooming flyers or Swooping FMCs.

Necron FAQ 1.1 pg.4 (right column)
Q: Can a Doom Scythe’s death ray hit enemy Flyers and/or Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p50)

A: The Death Ray can hit Flyers in Hover Mode (friendly or enemy) and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures (friendly or enemy). It cannot hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures

-Yad

Kevlar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

Were you ever allowed to begin with? Not by raw...

Yes you were, all that was required was to move over the model and skimmers moved over "all" models. Nothing stopped sweep attacks from a skimmer chariot from hitting flyers pre-FAQ. What is your "raw" reasoning that they couldn't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

ADLs? Night/Doom Scythes?
Aside from that, abundant Guass that doesn't care about AV or Tesla Destructors that can cause tons of hits?

Okay.

Still no skyfire. Was hoping for Heavy Destroyers to get it order to justify their 60 points...damn. Do note that Doom Scythes are no longer allowed to lazor flyers.

I've seen this repeated a couple of times and I'd like to point out that the Death Ray can hit Hovering flyers and Gliding FMCs. It can't hit Zooming flyers or Swooping FMCs.

Necron FAQ 1.1 pg.4 (right column)
Q: Can a Doom Scythe’s death ray hit enemy Flyers and/or Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p50)

A: The Death Ray can hit Flyers in Hover Mode (friendly or enemy) and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures (friendly or enemy). It cannot hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures

-Yad

I don't think the hover/gliding aspects were "ever" in question about the death ray hitting them. It was only ever zooming/swooping that caused the debates.

Kevlar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

Were you ever allowed to begin with? Not by raw...

The FAQ actually says you can't sweep against a Zooming flyer. Says nothing about a flyer that is Hover mode. So sweep away

Q: Can a character on a Chariot that is also a Skimmer make a Sweep Attack
against a Zooming Flyer? (p82)
A: No.

-Yad

 Pyriel- wrote:

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

I think they are really awesome because you can deepstrike them pretty much anywhere without the fear of misshap. The only way a Monolith can misshap is if it scatters off the board. Read up on the deepstriking skimmers rule, it states that if a skimmer is forced to end it's move ontop of enemy models you simply move it the shortest way possible so it's 1" away from them. Skimmers can land on pretty much any terrain as it is so the only way to misshap with a Monolith is to scatter off the board.

I think I'll place my Monolith right on top of that deathstar unit over there... Portal of Exile and a nice Particle Whip should do nicely...

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

I think they are really awesome because you can deepstrike them pretty much anywhere without the fear of misshap. The only way a Monolith can misshap is if it scatters off the board. Read up on the deepstriking skimmers rule, it states that if a skimmer is forced to end it's move ontop of enemy models you simply move it the shortest way possible so it's 1" away from them. Skimmers can land on pretty much any terrain as it is so the only way to misshap with a Monolith is to scatter off the board.

I think I'll place my Monolith right on top of that deathstar unit over there... Portal of Exile and a nice Particle Whip should do nicely...

That's how movement works, yes, but not deep strike. You roll to mishap before you ever start your deep strike movement with the monolith, as it's not on the board nor has it ended it's move it will still mishap as normal.

"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because
at least one model would land partially or fully off the table,
in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."

I bolded the important bit.

Also, you can't fire the portal of exile and particle whip in the same shooting phase.

"If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

RAW vs RAI I guess.
Is deepstrike a type of move?
Does a deepstriking unit count as having moved when it comes in?
So if a skimmer that deepstrike lands on impassible terrain it mishaps because the skimmer rule doesn't work when deepstriking?
Which rules apply and which ones dont when you deepstrike? The Skimmer rule doesn't apply, which others dont apply? What parts of rules apply? Does some parts of a units rule apply and other not? Do you get to cherry pick?

Can you name 1 instance where a skimmer is forced to end it's move ontop of friendly models? Other than deepstrike? Tank shock is the only instance I can think of for enemy models.

I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

 insaniak wrote:
I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

Lifta droppa?

Bottom of page 36, it says that vehicles count as moving at Cruising Speed when they deepstrike. Personally, if my opponent was deep striking a Monolith on top of my units, I would fallow the skimmer movement rule. It would just be stupid not to.

Think about it, if a huge monolith started slowly floating down on top of you, would you stand there and go "don't worry, it'll stop", or would you get the hell out of the way?

 insaniak wrote:
I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

Passing over models and getting immobilized by terrain.

Also, locked velocity flyers act as skimmers for that purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Raikoh wrote:
Bottom of page 36, it says that vehicles count as moving at Cruising Speed when they deepstrike. Personally, if my opponent was deep striking a Monolith on top of my units, I would fallow the skimmer movement rule. It would just be stupid not to.

Think about it, if a huge monolith started slowly floating down on top of you, would you stand there and go "don't worry, it'll stop", or would you get the hell out of the way?

Yes, WHEN they deep strike. You have not completed deep striking until after you have rolled your mishap if you mishap. The rule for mishaps says "if you WOULD end up in...." It does not say "if you DO end up in..."

I'd believe it works either way, the writing in the book and these FAQs is very schizophrenic. I very much doubt Matt Ward is the only person writing these, but I very much doubt he is aware that there's someone else.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Yes, WHEN they deep strike. You have not completed deep striking until after you have rolled your mishap if you mishap. The rule for mishaps says "if you WOULD end up in...." It does not say "if you DO end up in..."

Yupp yupp, using the same argument Plague Bearers could never use their FNP in 5E because they did not have an armour save...

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Yupp yupp, using the same argument Plague Bearers could never use their FNP in 5E because they did not have an armour save...

That's not even remotely the same argument.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

I bought my rulebook at a local games store to, you know, support the local club and stuff.

So it cost me $125, instead of the $70 I could have got it for online. But, it's a pretty great product so I don't really care. The production values are high, the rules are tight, over-all I'm pretty happy. Now they dump these FAQ's on us and I need to print out a sheaf of paper to take with me to each game, because my $125 book is already invalidated?

What a joke. If you're changing the wording so soon after the release, I think that warrants a free book exchange IMO. I should be able to take my now outdated and invalid book to a GW store and swap it for one with the current rules.

 Kaldor wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

I bought my rulebook at a local games store to, you know, support the local club and stuff.

So it cost me $125, instead of the $70 I could have got it for online. But, it's a pretty great product so I don't really care. The production values are high, the rules are tight, over-all I'm pretty happy. Now they dump these FAQ's on us and I need to print out a sheaf of paper to take with me to each game, because my $125 book is already invalidated?

What a joke. If you're changing the wording so soon after the release, I think that warrants a free book exchange IMO. I should be able to take my now outdated and invalid book to a GW store and swap it for one with the current rules.

And that's exactly how its been since 2nd edition. A sheaf of FAQs to fix the game.

And then there was the time when GW decided to stop making FAQs because it was too confusing, not everyone had access, etc. and they caught a raft of stuff for it.

Now they do the FAQs more quickly, and make substantive changes to improve things, and people complain and give them a raft of stuff about it.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'd rather the FAQs to make the game better.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

I bought my rulebook at a local games store to, you know, support the local club and stuff.

So it cost me $125, instead of the $70 I could have got it for online. But, it's a pretty great product so I don't really care. The production values are high, the rules are tight, over-all I'm pretty happy. Now they dump these FAQ's on us and I need to print out a sheaf of paper to take with me to each game, because my $125 book is already invalidated?

What a joke. If you're changing the wording so soon after the release, I think that warrants a free book exchange IMO. I should be able to take my now outdated and invalid book to a GW store and swap it for one with the current rules.

And that's exactly how its been since 2nd edition. A sheaf of FAQs to fix the game.

And then there was the time when GW decided to stop making FAQs because it was too confusing, not everyone had access, etc. and they caught a raft of stuff for it.

Now they do the FAQs more quickly, and make substantive changes to improve things, and people complain and give them a raft of stuff about it.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'd rather the FAQs to make the game better.

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

 Cruentus wrote:
And then there was the time when GW decided to stop making FAQs because it was too confusing, not everyone had access, etc. and they caught a raft of stuff for it.

Well, yeah... If you stop releasing the fixes for your broken game without actually fixing the game first, that's going to happen...

 insaniak wrote:
I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

You can be flying over a unit with a skimmer tank and then attempt to tank shock an enemy unit on the other side, but then get stunned via Death or Glory, which stops the skimmer's movement 'over' another unit.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

Including 4th? Wow. That's an accomplishment.

 Nagashek wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

Including 4th? Wow. That's an accomplishment.

Hahaha damn straight! 4th was probably the true worst, yet it never gained a re-release.

I for one, as a mostly casual player am fairly happy about the FAQs. They're pretty much all clarifying what was supposed to be there in the book but was yeah, badly written.

The only one I'm a bit wary on really is the Look Out Sir to the closest model. The way I see it (though, of course, the You Make Da Call lawyers would disagree, but meh, casual player), that's the only proper change to the rules, which I find a bit odd.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

It does seem pretty bad, doesn't it?

I can't see them re-releasing the core rules within the next 2 or 3 years though.

Maybe after that... maybe?

Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

Wow... Dark Angels' venerable dreadnoughts got a big boost. Codex stats for a bargain price'

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

Here's an interesting quandry in the Sisters FAQ:

Q: Can allied Independent Characters benefit from Acts of Faith if the have joined an affected Sisters of Battle unit?
A: No

Q: Do Acts of Faith affect allied who have joined or been joined by Sisters of Battle independent characters or units?
A: Yes

So which is it? Are allies affected or not?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Here's an interesting quandry in the Sisters FAQ:

Q: Can allied Independent Characters benefit from Acts of Faith if the have joined an affected Sisters of Battle unit?
A: No

Q: Do Acts of Faith affect allied who have joined or been joined by Sisters of Battle independent characters or units?
A: Yes

So which is it? Are allies affected or not?

Both.
They do if they were already joined when AoF manifested.
Joining a unit that is already under effect of AoF does not transfer it to joining IC.

I would agree but all of the AoFs that I can think of happen in the shooting or assault phase and the joining occurs in the movement phase. Also none of the AoFs last longer than the phase that they are used so there shouldn't be any lag effects.
Maybe GW is thinking ahead (for once) and just putting this in there for future AoFs.

Why you would even take a normal dread now is beyond me.

That you write this garbage right after I explicitly explained why is beyond me.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

For one: GW has a long and storied history of using FAQ's to fix things that weren't broken, break things that were fixed, give people rules that they never had, and taking rules that were core aspects. All of this while leaving things unanswered that had been at the forefront of community consternation for some time. Delivering "more" of this is not necessarily an improvement. Especially now when they have to patch their earlier patches, and when these conflicting patches cause greater issues than if they'd just left well enough alone. I will grant you that at least TRYING means more to me than DOING NOTHING. It counts, even if it's causing new issues.

Secondly, enjoy your illusion of constant updates. I expect this to follow the exact same pattern as WHF8: New book, universal FAQ, then a universal patch to the FAQ and core rules that fixes practically nothing and breaks more, then SILENCE until you get your new book. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat. It'll give me a chance to use up some of that extra salt from Stickmonkey rumors...

Just realized:

Page 22 – Drop Pod Assault.
Replace this entry with the following rules:
“Drop Pod Assault: Drop Pods must enter play using the Deep
Strike rules. At the beginning of your first turn, choose half of
your Drop Pods (rounding up) to make a ‘Drop Pod Assault’.
Units making a Drop Pod Assault arrive on their controlling
player’s first turn. The arrival of the remaining Drop Pods is
rolled for as normal. A unit that Deep Strikes via Drop Pod
cannot charge in the turn it arrives.
Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the
battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered
an Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any
way.
Inertial Guidance System: Should a Drop Pod scatter on top of
impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe) then
reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order
to avoid the obstacle. Note that if a Drop Pod scatters off the
edge of the board then they will suffer a Deep Strike Mishap as
per the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”

So no more Drop Pods for Black Templars Terminators, as they were granted permission to take them from the Drop Pod Assault rules.

The hell? Is GW on crack or do they just have a Vendetta (huehuehue) against Black Templars? Did a Templar burn down someone's collection of 40k fluff or something?

 Nagashek wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

For one: GW has a long and storied history of using FAQ's to fix things that weren't broken, break things that were fixed, give people rules that they never had, and taking rules that were core aspects. All of this while leaving things unanswered that had been at the forefront of community consternation for some time. Delivering "more" of this is not necessarily an improvement. Especially now when they have to patch their earlier patches, and when these conflicting patches cause greater issues than if they'd just left well enough alone. I will grant you that at least TRYING means more to me than DOING NOTHING. It counts, even if it's causing new issues.

Secondly, enjoy your illusion of constant updates. I expect this to follow the exact same pattern as WHF8: New book, universal FAQ, then a universal patch to the FAQ and core rules that fixes practically nothing and breaks more, then SILENCE until you get your new book. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat. It'll give me a chance to use up some of that extra salt from Stickmonkey rumors...

It doesn't matter if they're not broken, they're re-balancing the game and making tweaks to make sure it's fresh and doesn't conform. The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it. I just bought and painted 1850 worth of draigowing the past month, so I'm acutely aware of how annoying having to start over is, but I'm thrilled they're paying this much attention.

Also, continual patch is the way the games industry works by the way. Play league of legends? Balancing every three weeks. Play EVE Online? Patches every 2-3 months. This is how games are made today.

I can't tell you if GW are going to continue doing this. I hope they are, because it would mean a drastic improvement of the product. So far they have and you can either enjoy the fact that they're doing well or be bitter and whine about how it might not last.

Regardless of what, GW seems to have made huge strides this past year and listen to the whining on this board is godawful.

A lot of these internal balance issues should have been resolved before publication. Wholesale rule changes, (not FAQ clarifications) should not be being made this close to the original release. It goes to show insufficient play testing or lack of care considering the resources available to GW.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
A lot of these internal balance issues should have been resolved before publication. Wholesale rule changes, (not FAQ clarifications) should not be being made this close to the original release. It goes to show insufficient play testing or lack of care considering the resources available to GW.

No this happens pretty much in any live product ever. Welcome to games.

It does raise questions regarding the playtesting and GW's methodology for releases. Warmachine .2 was playtested in beta by the community for a while before book release, it allowed the company to have much of the crap ironed out by the very people they then sold the book to, that seems like a great idea.

Hellblades are swords :(
Kinda glad i didnt give any letters axes.

Just a shame since the last series of letters looked amazing, but had an axe :(

 Jackal wrote:
Hellblades are swords :(
Kinda glad i didnt give any letters axes.

Just a shame since the last series of letters looked amazing, but had an axe :(

Kinda of expected, really, since the current model itself shows a sword.
But then again, the old (and superior versions, imo) had an axe.
I'd hate to see the reaction of an old demon player who had the old bloodletters.

I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed. What is the point in giving full reserve armies an auto lose at the end of turn 1? It should be at the end of Turn 2 or after that you lose if you are tabled so you can use Flyers, Deep Strikers, and other dynamic parts of the game properly. It sucks the flavor out of my armies if I have to hide a unit or two on the board during deployment just so I can run the rest of my army the way I want. It's not like full reserve armies were top tier anyway, I just played it that way for fun... now I just lose at the end of Turn 1.

My Grey Knight Stormraven army and my Red Hunters (BA) all jump pack DoA army are not pleased. My Daemons are ROFLing at them since Daemonic Assault is way cooler while my Black Legion are pouting until their new book comes out.

 Stoffer wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
A lot of these internal balance issues should have been resolved before publication. Wholesale rule changes, (not FAQ clarifications) should not be being made this close to the original release. It goes to show insufficient play testing or lack of care considering the resources available to GW.

No this happens pretty much in any live product ever. Welcome to games.

Trying to be patronizing. Ha ha funny guy.

There is not one game I have bought in the past 24 years that had a rule completely changed to the extent of the sudden LOS change GW has pulled within 3 months of release. Rules clarifications via FAQ's yes, full rules changes, no.

I'm not saying the change is good or bad. Just saying GW has become exceptionally lazy and standards are dropping When it comes to rules and publications. Look at the demon supplement, notice any problems there? What about the fact the publish photos of blu tacked models falling over, or the bendy lightning claws in the veteran bits packs.

These aren't oversights, when it reaches this extent its corporate attitude.

Awaits stoffers no doubt insightful and hilarious response.

 Stoffer wrote:

 Nagashek wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

For one: GW has a long and storied history of using FAQ's to fix things that weren't broken, break things that were fixed, give people rules that they never had, and taking rules that were core aspects. All of this while leaving things unanswered that had been at the forefront of community consternation for some time. Delivering "more" of this is not necessarily an improvement. Especially now when they have to patch their earlier patches, and when these conflicting patches cause greater issues than if they'd just left well enough alone. I will grant you that at least TRYING means more to me than DOING NOTHING. It counts, even if it's causing new issues.

Secondly, enjoy your illusion of constant updates. I expect this to follow the exact same pattern as WHF8: New book, universal FAQ, then a universal patch to the FAQ and core rules that fixes practically nothing and breaks more, then SILENCE until you get your new book. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat. It'll give me a chance to use up some of that extra salt from Stickmonkey rumors...

It doesn't matter if they're not broken, they're re-balancing the game and making tweaks to make sure it's fresh and doesn't conform. The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it. I just bought and painted 1850 worth of draigowing the past month, so I'm acutely aware of how annoying having to start over is, but I'm thrilled they're paying this much attention.

Also, continual patch is the way the games industry works by the way. Play league of legends? Balancing every three weeks. Play EVE Online? Patches every 2-3 months. This is how games are made today.

Does EVE online charge you $200 for its mandatory patches? Does League of Legends? Does League of Legends even CHARGE you?!? Poor examples. Try this: WoW pushes out a patch after a new expansion drops. This expansion wipes any characters that players have on their accounts that are Warlocks, forcing you to reroll your warlock from scratch and put in another 48hours of solid play time to max your level, redo your professions, and start gearing for endgame content. You can only start rerolling your Warlock if you purchase a WoW subscription for the next 14 mos.

On top of that, they "fixed" the problem where a Paladin's Seal of Justice procced for 5k points of damage too many by removing the Divine Shield from the game. Also the log-in servers crash every Friday at 1800 and have since release, leaving many people unable to play for hours at a time, but they are consumed by tweaking Cooking and can't be bothered to fix it.

Now you have some idea how people who played certain, once viable GW builds feel when those builds are rendered unplayable, illegal, or just plain unfun. In order to fix what is newly broken or illegal, one must invest MORE money into the hobby, then invest more TIME into the hobby, just to be able to PLAY as much as they used to. I've been playing WoW since patch 1.6. $15 a month since 2006. Core game. 3 expansions. That's about $1240. That covers the cost of one of my NINE armies between WHFB and WH40k. I get to play WoW a few hours each day. I get to play or paint Warhammer a couple hours once a week. If GW wants to start modelling itself after online gaming, it's going to need to lowering its costs. I've been playing my Dark Eldar since last October, so less than a year. 6 years for the cost of WoW versus less than one year of Dark Eldar. My Dark Eldar army is now needing a $200 repair bill to be viable, and I'm staring as much in now worthless models that can gather dust, and that's even if the new build can compete against how everything else works in 6e.

"It doesn't matter if it's not broken?" Do you even know how that sounds? Here's one, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Or "Fix what IS broke first." Anything else is a waste of time.

 Pyriel- wrote:

Why you would even take a normal dread now is beyond me.

That you write this garbage right after I explicitly explained why is beyond me.

I don't see how complainin about the venerable is a defense of the non venerable dread. Other than double autocanons no dread variant is particularly useful or viable anymore (and even that ones losing its usefulness). They pay too much for a close combat statline that is borderline useless.

I have a question for those poor people who bought the LE Rulebook. Did that lacquered book sleeve come with an additional LE sleeve or compartment for the ream of FAQ pages?

This is more sad due to the fact that this is a 25th anniversary rules set. Have to agree with the crowd that says they needed some due diligence before releasing such a limited and revered product.

 Stoffer wrote:

 Nagashek wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

For one: GW has a long and storied history of using FAQ's to fix things that weren't broken, break things that were fixed, give people rules that they never had, and taking rules that were core aspects. All of this while leaving things unanswered that had been at the forefront of community consternation for some time. Delivering "more" of this is not necessarily an improvement. Especially now when they have to patch their earlier patches, and when these conflicting patches cause greater issues than if they'd just left well enough alone. I will grant you that at least TRYING means more to me than DOING NOTHING. It counts, even if it's causing new issues.

Secondly, enjoy your illusion of constant updates. I expect this to follow the exact same pattern as WHF8: New book, universal FAQ, then a universal patch to the FAQ and core rules that fixes practically nothing and breaks more, then SILENCE until you get your new book. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat. It'll give me a chance to use up some of that extra salt from Stickmonkey rumors...

It doesn't matter if they're not broken, they're re-balancing the game and making tweaks to make sure it's fresh and doesn't conform. The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it. I just bought and painted 1850 worth of draigowing the past month, so I'm acutely aware of how annoying having to start over is, but I'm thrilled they're paying this much attention.

Also, continual patch is the way the games industry works by the way. Play league of legends? Balancing every three weeks. Play EVE Online? Patches every 2-3 months. This is how games are made today.

I can't tell you if GW are going to continue doing this. I hope they are, because it would mean a drastic improvement of the product. So far they have and you can either enjoy the fact that they're doing well or be bitter and whine about how it might not last.

Regardless of what, GW seems to have made huge strides this past year and listen to the whining on this board is godawful.

If they made huge strides in this past year they wouldn't have thrown the game balance out the window with sixth by making anything close combat oriented useless, and released a rulebook that required dozens of pages of FAQs to be playable without constant rules disputes. People defending GWs rules reminds me of battered housewife syndrome, no matter how many times they feth everything up royally they'll always have a loyal core of people who just don't know the difference between whats good and bad.

The Only way I would even listen to an argument like this is if you were a Tyranid player. You most likely built a gimmick army and now you are upset you can't pull shenanigans on people. T

This just in build solid armies that are balanced and you wont have anything to worry about. Now that GW puts out FAQ's in a quicker pace this will save you time and money.

 MDizzle wrote:
The Only way I would even listen to an argument like this is if you were a Tyranid player. You most likely built a gimmick army and now you are upset you can't pull shenanigans on people. T

This just in build solid armies that are balanced and you wont have anything to worry about. Now that GW puts out FAQ's in a quicker pace this will save you time and money.

Yes, blood angels using rhinos is gimmicky. Clearly I never should have done the thing that is described in the codex as how the army operates. Clearly they got the fast rhinos so that they could put sternguard in them, not assault troops.

But seriously. Where were the buffs to assault armies? They got worse with overwatch, lessened cover, less useful transports, weapon ap changes, atsknf changes, rapid fire changes, scenario changes, night fight changes, the addition of flyers, the addition of flying monstrous creatures, reserve changes, flanking changes, infiltrate changes.

Where did they get better to make up for the fact that they got nerfed in almost every part of the game they participated in? Hmm? Where?

 MDizzle wrote:
The Only way I would even listen to an argument like this is if you were a Tyranid player. You most likely built a gimmick army and now you are upset you can't pull shenanigans on people. T

This just in build solid armies that are balanced and you wont have anything to worry about. Now that GW puts out FAQ's in a quicker pace this will save you time and money.

Actually I love the FAQ clarification, it doesn't invalidate any of my armies or builds. What I hate is that my $100 dollar, ten pound monstrosity just gained more weight At this rate we will be up to 15lbs in no time

What kills me more is that they didn't even put the "fix" in the starter set. So now I have to print tiny faq pages or clumsily fold them in half to put them in my now no longer convenient "little" rulebook

@ShumaGorath Rhinos do not an army make bro you can do lots of nasty stuff with BA. As for the assault nerf I was they type of guy that would build lists with no shooting and just assault only. Assault is nerfed big time GW wants to take the game in a new direction now with assaults you have to pick your spots and choose your units wisely and they can have a great effect if people are not prepared for it.

@ShumaGorath Rhinos do not an army make bro you can do lots of nasty stuff with BA.

If I convert 50 models to have jump packs that I have to buy on ebay yeah, the army would become barely functional and still non viable. Doesn't sound worth the effort when one flyer can kill all the assault marines in the world without fear of reprisal.

As for the assault nerf I was they type of guy that would build lists with no shooting and just assault only. Assault is nerfed big time GW wants to take the game in a new direction now with assaults you have to pick your spots and choose your units wisely and they can have a great effect if people are not prepared for it.

No, what you do is you don't pick assaults at all. There's nothing forcing players into take sub optimal choices except for the fact that they already purchased them. When the best builds for blood angels feature no assaulting troops I hang up my hat and wait for them to fire mister ward.

 Nagashek wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:

 Nagashek wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

For one: GW has a long and storied history of using FAQ's to fix things that weren't broken, break things that were fixed, give people rules that they never had, and taking rules that were core aspects. All of this while leaving things unanswered that had been at the forefront of community consternation for some time. Delivering "more" of this is not necessarily an improvement. Especially now when they have to patch their earlier patches, and when these conflicting patches cause greater issues than if they'd just left well enough alone. I will grant you that at least TRYING means more to me than DOING NOTHING. It counts, even if it's causing new issues.

Secondly, enjoy your illusion of constant updates. I expect this to follow the exact same pattern as WHF8: New book, universal FAQ, then a universal patch to the FAQ and core rules that fixes practically nothing and breaks more, then SILENCE until you get your new book. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat. It'll give me a chance to use up some of that extra salt from Stickmonkey rumors...

It doesn't matter if they're not broken, they're re-balancing the game and making tweaks to make sure it's fresh and doesn't conform. The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it. I just bought and painted 1850 worth of draigowing the past month, so I'm acutely aware of how annoying having to start over is, but I'm thrilled they're paying this much attention.

Also, continual patch is the way the games industry works by the way. Play league of legends? Balancing every three weeks. Play EVE Online? Patches every 2-3 months. This is how games are made today.

Does EVE online charge you $200 for its mandatory patches? Does League of Legends? Does League of Legends even CHARGE you?!? Poor examples. Try this: WoW pushes out a patch after a new expansion drops. This expansion wipes any characters that players have on their accounts that are Warlocks, forcing you to reroll your warlock from scratch and put in another 48hours of solid play time to max your level, redo your professions, and start gearing for endgame content. You can only start rerolling your Warlock if you purchase a WoW subscription for the next 14 mos.

On top of that, they "fixed" the problem where a Paladin's Seal of Justice procced for 5k points of damage too many by removing the Divine Shield from the game. Also the log-in servers crash every Friday at 1800 and have since release, leaving many people unable to play for hours at a time, but they are consumed by tweaking Cooking and can't be bothered to fix it.

Now you have some idea how people who played certain, once viable GW builds feel when those builds are rendered unplayable, illegal, or just plain unfun. In order to fix what is newly broken or illegal, one must invest MORE money into the hobby, then invest more TIME into the hobby, just to be able to PLAY as much as they used to. I've been playing WoW since patch 1.6. $15 a month since 2006. Core game. 3 expansions. That's about $1240. That covers the cost of one of my NINE armies between WHFB and WH40k. I get to play WoW a few hours each day. I get to play or paint Warhammer a couple hours once a week. If GW wants to start modelling itself after online gaming, it's going to need to lowering its costs. I've been playing my Dark Eldar since last October, so less than a year. 6 years for the cost of WoW versus less than one year of Dark Eldar. My Dark Eldar army is now needing a $200 repair bill to be viable, and I'm staring as much in now worthless models that can gather dust, and that's even if the new build can compete against how everything else works in 6e.

"It doesn't matter if it's not broken?" Do you even know how that sounds? Here's one, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Or "Fix what IS broke first." Anything else is a waste of time.

Games workshop doesn't charge you for changes to the game either, they charge you for models which you can choose to buy, or not to buy. Your old models aren't obsolete, they might just be a bit less efficient which makes people like you upset, because you feel you have some sort of entitlement to win forever because you bought a certain model x years ago.Anyway, back to the point. Much like the games you mention, 40k runs by the exact same principle that changes not only help the balance of the game, but are good for business. League of Legends for example: You can buy their champions, but there are no guarantees that your particular champion will stay useful. In fact, they do patches to re-balance champions at least once a month, so you'll be "inspired" to try other champions. That's healthy for two reasons; 1. It makes the game seem fresh for the player, extending the lifetime of the product continually. 2. it makes you buy more champions. Sound familiar? That's because 40k works that way as well.

WoW isn't a good enough example because they don't really have the width in classes to do that, but if they had, you could be pretty certain they'd do the same. Oh and also, you pay a monthly fee to play wow AND you have to buy their stupid expansions. If you want to talk about being "forced to pay", WoW is a great example. 40k certainly isn't, if you have an army done, that army can play (with different efficiency, granted) for years.

Dumb companies balance because things are broken, smart companies balance because that's how you keep your game alive for 25 years. League of Legends is currently one of the most popular games in the world. They are so because of their frequent updates, not based on "things being broken", but shifting the balance of power constantly, meaning that no gamer can ever "settle" and be at the highest efficiency with a single hero for the rest of his life. It's smart and while you may be upset that it hurts your wallet from time to time, that's how good companies operate.

 Red Corsair wrote:
This is more sad due to the fact that this is a 25th anniversary rules set. Have to agree with the crowd that says they needed some due diligence before releasing such a limited and revered product.

Surely no GW product has ever been revered.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:

 Nagashek wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

I kinda find it funny, 5th was complaining how little things were faq'ed, how they often had to figure out things on their own or roll them off.

And now they do more FAQ's people bitch about to many FAQ's, really now? Have any of you played DA or BT when they were stuck in limbo with their ORIGINAL space marine stats when C:SM and others were getting boosted? And it took them a long time to update them to the new stuff?

For one: GW has a long and storied history of using FAQ's to fix things that weren't broken, break things that were fixed, give people rules that they never had, and taking rules that were core aspects. All of this while leaving things unanswered that had been at the forefront of community consternation for some time. Delivering "more" of this is not necessarily an improvement. Especially now when they have to patch their earlier patches, and when these conflicting patches cause greater issues than if they'd just left well enough alone. I will grant you that at least TRYING means more to me than DOING NOTHING. It counts, even if it's causing new issues.

Secondly, enjoy your illusion of constant updates. I expect this to follow the exact same pattern as WHF8: New book, universal FAQ, then a universal patch to the FAQ and core rules that fixes practically nothing and breaks more, then SILENCE until you get your new book. If I'm wrong I'll eat my hat. It'll give me a chance to use up some of that extra salt from Stickmonkey rumors...

It doesn't matter if they're not broken, they're re-balancing the game and making tweaks to make sure it's fresh and doesn't conform. The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it. I just bought and painted 1850 worth of draigowing the past month, so I'm acutely aware of how annoying having to start over is, but I'm thrilled they're paying this much attention.

Also, continual patch is the way the games industry works by the way. Play league of legends? Balancing every three weeks. Play EVE Online? Patches every 2-3 months. This is how games are made today.

I can't tell you if GW are going to continue doing this. I hope they are, because it would mean a drastic improvement of the product. So far they have and you can either enjoy the fact that they're doing well or be bitter and whine about how it might not last.

Regardless of what, GW seems to have made huge strides this past year and listen to the whining on this board is godawful.

If they made huge strides in this past year they wouldn't have thrown the game balance out the window with sixth by making anything close combat oriented useless, and released a rulebook that required dozens of pages of FAQs to be playable without constant rules disputes. People defending GWs rules reminds me of battered housewife syndrome, no matter how many times they feth everything up royally they'll always have a loyal core of people who just don't know the difference between whats good and bad.

People who don't understand that patches/updates are a good thing remind me that people don't understand games or game companies at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, sorry for derailing, back to FAQ talk again

People who don't understand that patches/updates are a good thing remind me that people don't understand games or game companies at all.

That's like thanking a car company for paying for your mechanic when you have to go there two weeks after buying the car. And then two weeks after that. Sure, eventually you expected to have to use the service, things change and you wan't updates to make it all run smoothly.

It's not supposed to happen immediately though, that's a sign that you got ripped off.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Hellblades are swords :(
Kinda glad i didnt give any letters axes.

Just a shame since the last series of letters looked amazing, but had an axe :(

Kinda of expected, really, since the current model itself shows a sword.
But then again, the old (and superior versions, imo) had an axe.
I'd hate to see the reaction of an old demon player who had the old bloodletters.

1st bloodletters had swords
2nd bloodletters had swords
3 rd bloodletters had axes
4th. Blood letters had swords
The axes were a abnormality.

 Stoffer wrote:

Games workshop doesn't charge you for changes to the game either, they charge you for models which you can choose to buy, or not to buy. Your old models aren't obsolete, they might just be a bit less efficient which makes people like you upset, because you feel you have some sort of entitlement to win forever because you bought a certain model x years ago.Anyway, back to the point. Much like the games you mention, 40k runs by the exact same principle that changes not only help the balance of the game, but are good for business. League of Legends for example: You can buy their champions, but there are no guarantees that your particular champion will stay useful. In fact, they do patches to re-balance champions at least once a month, so you'll be "inspired" to try other champions. That's healthy for two reasons; 1. It makes the game seem fresh for the player, extending the lifetime of the product continually. 2. it makes you buy more champions. Sound familiar? That's because 40k works that way as well.

WoW isn't a good enough example because they don't really have the width in classes to do that, but if they had, you could be pretty certain they'd do the same. Oh and also, you pay a monthly fee to play wow AND you have to buy their stupid expansions. If you want to talk about being "forced to pay", WoW is a great example. 40k certainly isn't, if you have an army done, that army can play (with different efficiency, granted) for years.

Dumb companies balance because things are broken, smart companies balance because that's how you keep your game alive for 25 years. League of Legends is currently one of the most popular games in the world. They are so because of their frequent updates, not based on "things being broken", but shifting the balance of power constantly, meaning that no gamer can ever "settle" and be at the highest efficiency with a single hero for the rest of his life. It's smart and while you may be upset that it hurts your wallet from time to time, that's how good companies operate

The biggest trend I'm seeing here is people complaining how little GW involve their own customers in these balancing processes. As I'm sure you're aware, it's becoming more and more common for games companies to involve fans with the development process to some degree (be that via community forums, beta tests, drunken pub crawls and so on). GW have always been incredibly insular with regards to their development processes, and that results in many situations that could easily be avoided. Sometimes you need to use a wider audience to bounce ideas off or to error-check things for broken-ness. Even putting aside situations with poor or ambigious rule phrasing, you end up with subtley broken codexes that game designers can easily miss.
The sad thing is that GW have a great opportunity in front of them - there's a rabid fanbase just begging to 'work' for free on improving their products. Instead they're too worried about leaking next month's releases to ask for that free help.

And in the spirit of community involvement please read my spergy thread
(not stalking you honest )

 MDizzle wrote:
The Only way I would even listen to an argument like this is if you were a Tyranid player. You most likely built a gimmick army and now you are upset you can't pull shenanigans on people. T

This just in build solid armies that are balanced and you wont have anything to worry about. Now that GW puts out FAQ's in a quicker pace this will save you time and money.

This is just not true. In many cases, it was the guy playing a balanced/fluffy list that got stomped. The player running a 27+lance list for DE is still sitting pretty. The poor folks who bought 30+ finecast wracks for their nifty, original Cult of skin army are hosed.


I have to agree with Nagashek here. I personally welcome more frequent FAQs and rules updates, but so far they do feel fragmentary and inadequate. Here's hoping it improves.

As for the comparison with video games, GW still loses. FAQs and patches are both free, but in video games they mostly mean a change of play style and time investment. In wargames they can (and often do) also bring about massive expenses.

And please, let's not go the "no one is forcing you to buy new models or play the game" route. We can assume that encouraging people to stay in the hobby with the least amount of effort and expense is generally a good thing, right?

You don't see MMOs going "we'll triple the durability damage rate on all gear, make character death incur a 4-hour no-play penalty lock on the character and remove all summon stones and teleports from the game. Let's see if our customers are really dedicated." But that seems to be a surprisingly acceptable mentality here.

Says you I think the guy running the 27 lances is a bad list in this edition everyone's local meta is different maybe he pwnes you with a 5th ed list be he will have to change soon enough. Like I said if you build an extreme army you are going to get FAQed.