GK FAQ is here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830601a_Grey_Knights_v1_0.pdf


Rulebook FAQ is here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830600a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_3.pdf


as usual some questions have been answered and some not and I'm sure there will still be arguments.

I really thought the falchions were going to give the +2 attacks.

Nothing else is that surprising.

I think the shunt/scout deal was the original intent but was removed due to public outcry.

Q. Taking Inquisitor Coteaz in your force turns
Henchman Warbands into troops choices. Does this
mean that they take up a force organisation slot and
can no longer be taken as an elites choice? (p33)
A. Yes to both questions.

Finally, that debate can end.

The only ruling that rankles me a bit is the one that says that Coteaz's 'I've been expecting you' rule is resolved "as soon as a valid target is placed on the board", but then says after the shots are resolved the unit "can complete its move".

This seems to imply that units moving on from a board edge from reserves are placed on the table and then moved, which seems to be contrary to how the rules for units arriving from reserves are written.


But besides that, I actually like pretty much everything else.

Off to get to work on the INAT FAQ update! Whee....

I'm disappointed about the shunt not being allowed for a scout move as it makes an already novelty unit in the Interceptors even less attractive.

The bit about the Plasma Siphon is insane if you are going against a Tau opponent; almost all of the Tau weapons are affected!

SonicPara wrote:I'm disappointed about the shunt not being allowed for a scout move as it makes an already novelty unit in the Interceptors even less attractive.

While somewhat disappointing, I'm honestly not surprised, as it gets around the built in drawback to the shunt.

I think the plasma thing is a little...generous.

I would have bet my ass that GK termis will be errated, so that they can´t embark a chimera.

NOW WTF GW IS WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC?

"No, termis! You don´t fit in a rhino, as it´s made for GIANT Spacemarines! Now embark your chimera! Little IGmen, out of there!"

-_______-

sry 4 nerdrage

SonicPara wrote:I'm disappointed about the shunt not being allowed for a scout move as it makes an already novelty unit in the Interceptors even less attractive.

Seriously? If they had ruled the other way then armies built around Interceptor squads and Dreadknights with personal teleporters that won the roll to go first could have all of those units getting guaranteed turn 1 assaults against the enemy with absolutely nothing the enemy could do against it besides staring their entire army in reserve.

And of course Daemon armies which would be completely denied the ability to land any units on turn 1 if the Grey Knights went first...


...yeah, those sound like fun novelties for the players involved in those games...

Q: For each Jokaero Weaponsmith in a henchman unit
after the first you add +1 to the Inconceivable
Customisation roll. Does this mean that if you have 6 or
more Jokaero in a unit that they will receive no
bonuses (as you cannot roll less than a 6 and duplicate
rolls are ignored)? (p50)
A: Yes.

Take 6 Jokaero - get no bonuses.
Take 5 Jokaero - get bonuses.

Wha...?

I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

That and the plasma ability is really giving the edge to GK over CSM, Tau and Eldar; because we know they really need it.

Ventusgermany wrote:I would have bet my ass that GK termis will be errated, so that they can´t embark a chimera.

NOW WTF GW IS WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC?

"No, termis! You don´t fit in a rhino, as it´s made for GIANT Spacemarines! Now embark your chimera! Little IGmen, out of there!"

-_______-

sry 4 nerdrage

If Ogryns, which take up 2 spots per model, can embark on Chimeras why couldn't Terminators? Let's face it, the restriction against Terminators riding in Rhinos/Razorbacks was more about making sure that marine armies functioned the way the fluff worked rather than what made 'sense'. The fact is Terminators should be able to ride in Rhinos/Razorbacks but GW wanted to make sure that the Land Raider was the ubiquitous transport for Terminators because that's what the fluff always said. But frankly, there's absolutely no reason that Termies shouldn't be able to ride in Chimeras when Ogryns can.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: For each Jokaero Weaponsmith in a henchman unit
after the first you add +1 to the Inconceivable
Customisation roll. Does this mean that if you have 6 or
more Jokaero in a unit that they will receive no
bonuses (as you cannot roll less than a 6 and duplicate
rolls are ignored)? (p50)
A: Yes.

Take 6 Jokaero - get no bonuses.
Take 5 Jokaero - get bonuses.

Wha...?

When I read the codex that always seemed entirely 100% intentional...and was actually good game design. If you take a bunch of Jokaeros in a unit you get the benefit of having a bunch of malleable weapon options in the same unit, but you lose out on their 'Inconceivable Customization' rule. Whereas if you only take 1 or 2, then you totally get the bonus. So it completely rewards a player for only taking a few Jokaeros in their unit, which is brilliant IMHO.

blood angel wrote:I really thought the falchions were going to give the +2 attacks.

Nothing else is that surprising.

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Would anyone mind copy & pasting the FAQ here for those who cannot access it from work? Thanks!

If this weren't actually posted on the GW site I'd say it was totally made up crap.

So I will say only that it looks like totally made up crap.

Between the Jokaero thing, overly generous Plasma and Daemon definitions, and other "we flipped a coin to decide" answers, this FAQ seems slapped together. Which makes sense considering the codex does too...I guess.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

Why? It makes complete sense. How would you have expected them to rule given that there is no clear RAW indication of what a 'daemon' is (given that their rule does not say that they have preferred enemy against any models with the Daemon special rule). Would you really have expected them to rule that Summoned Daemons in the CSM codex (for example) didn't count as 'daemons'?

That and the plasma ability is really giving the edge to GK over CSM, Tau and Eldar; because we know they really need it.

Well, given that no one will ever take that option in a tournament list, it won't make a lick of difference!

It has been a long time coming in calling anything not in the Codex: Chaos Daemon a Daemon. Aside from the Avatar which states it is a Daemon, this resolves the issue of what are Daemons.

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Was not expecting Obliterators to be counted as daemons :-\ Oh well at least there's an official definition now.

yakface wrote:Seriously? If they had ruled the other way then armies built around Interceptor squads and Dreadknights with personal teleporters that won the roll to go first could have all of those units getting guaranteed turn 1 assaults against the enemy with absolutely nothing the enemy could do against it besides staring their entire army in reserve.

And of course Daemon armies which would be completely denied the ability to land any units on turn 1 if the Grey Knights went first...


...yeah, those sound like fun novelties for the players involved in those games...

Yes it can be quite nasty but the GK player pays a hefty premium for Interceptors which are an inherently mediocre unit. They are obviously the parallel to assault marines but they are far more expensive, only have 2 attacks on the charge (no pistol/ccw combo), and are no more survivable. Sure you get the Force Weapons and Storm Bolters but, as you can see with most of the GK lists in the Army List forum, Interceptors end up being too pricey in the face of things like Purifiers. Don't get me wrong, I still use and love them but they struggle to accomplish much unless the opponent deploys forward.

As for the prospect of GKs getting turn 1 assaults being bad, it is still very possible. Even without this rule a GK player can give scout to a Stormraven and ensure a turn 1 assault for its payload which could very well be 12 Death Cult Assassins; a combo that ends up being only slightly more expensive than a kitted out unit of Interceptors and is undoubtedly more game-ruining. I'm not complaining, I will still use my teleporting units and have fun, its just a shame that the FAQ could remove any balance of power in C:GK and make the army one-dimensional in the competitive scene.

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Indeed. Turns out that now we're stuck paying for the only NFW without an actual bonus.

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

It just seems that GW included the +1A in the text without stating that it already included the +1A for wielding two of the same special weapon.

So no extra CC cheese for GKs. :(

yakface wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

Why? It makes complete sense. How would you have expected them to rule given that there is no clear RAW indication of what a 'daemon' is (given that their rule does not say that they have preferred enemy against any models with the Daemon special rule). Would you really have expected them to rule that Summoned Daemons in the CSM codex (for example) didn't count as 'daemons'?

So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

ETA (you edited your post after I replied):
I would have counted ALL C: CD, the Avatar, and Lesser and Greater Daemons in CSM.
Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have the Daemon Special Rule but they do have special summoning rules that refers to them as Daemons.

My defence of Daemon Princes in the past has been based around the agreement with most people who debated with me that surely possessed, oblits, etc don't count as daemons since they are described in the fluff as only being partially daemonic. But now, if my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a daemon, and everyone else was Human, the GK would get PE against me!

Platuan4th wrote:

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Indeed. Turns out that now we're paying for the only NFW without an actual bonus.

The bonus is the +1 attack, which could in theory make a difference if you decided to field CC- strike hard and forget about defense GKs.

Kirasu wrote:

blood angel wrote:I really thought the falchions were going to give the +2 attacks.

Nothing else is that surprising.

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Because people (incorrectly) thought that "+1 attack" was a special rule in addition to the 2 weapons bonus.

However, there was nothing in the rules to suggest that falchions had a "gain an extra attack" special rule.

Anyway, feeling vindicated on this.

SonicPara wrote:
Yes it can be quite nasty but the GK player pays a hefty premium for Interceptors which are an inherently mediocre unit. They are obviously the parallel to assault marines but they are far more expensive, only have 2 attacks on the charge (no pistol/ccw combo), and are no more survivable. Sure you get the Force Weapons and Storm Bolters but, as you can see with most of the GK lists in the Army List forum, Interceptors end up being too pricey in the face of things like Purifiers. Don't get me wrong, I still use and love them but they struggle to accomplish much unless the opponent deploys forward.

As for the prospect of GKs getting turn 1 assaults being bad, it is still very possible. Even without this rule a GK player can give scout to a Stormraven and ensure a turn 1 assault for its payload which could very well be 12 Death Cult Assassins; a combo that ends up being only slightly more expensive than a kitted out unit of Interceptors and is undoubtedly more game-ruining. I'm not complaining, I will still use my teleporting units and have fun, its just a shame that the FAQ could remove any balance of power in C:GK and make the army one-dimensional in the competitive scene.

The shunt move is infinitely interesting for objective grabbing...which given the FAQ ruling is clearly what it was intended to be. Allowing the shunt move to be used during Scout moves would have essentially completely ruined games against certain armies if they Grey Knight player won the roll to go first.

If GW had ruled that way they would have been freaking idiots (IMHO) and I'm frankly surprised you're advocating that they should have.

Why why my doomfists NOOOO

anyway, I like the hammer LOL

Sad to see they missed the opportunity to clarify what effect multiple castings of Hammerhand has on the same unit.


EDIT: Ooops. Just saw they addressed that one in the Rulebook FAQ.

GK-Faq:

Q: If a model with a Nemsesis force halberd has had his
Initiative reduced to a fixed number by an
ability/special rule, do they still get the +2 Initiative
from the Halberd? (p54)
A: No.

Tyranids Faq:

Q: If a model with Lash Whips is attacking a model
with an Initiative-boosting rule/piece of wargear (e.g.
Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee Mask etc.), which
order are the Initiatives modified?
A: The Lash Whips will reduce an enemy model’s
initiative to 1 before any other modifiers are
applied. So, a model with Furious Charge that
assaults a Tyranid with Lash Whips will strike at
Initiative 2, and an Eldar with a Banshee Mask will
strike at Initiative 10 in the first round of assault

Yeah, that is consistant...

Cilithan

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:
So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

No, it means that when a unit is described as being something...shocker...it actually *is* that thing. Yes, it is absolutely true that Black Templar Terminators are wearing Terminator Armor.


As soon as someone finds the part of the rulebook that clearly explains that a description of a unit is 'fluff' and therefore should be completely ignored for determining what a unit is, I will be in total agreement with you.

Happily, no such thing exists. So Nuglings are indeed Daemons of Nurgle, summoned Daemons are indeed Daemons and Terminators do indeed wear terminator armor.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

yakface wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

Why? It makes complete sense. How would you have expected them to rule given that there is no clear RAW indication of what a 'daemon' is (given that their rule does not say that they have preferred enemy against any models with the Daemon special rule.

So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

????

Oh no! Now my Daemon Princes are going to be treated as actual Daemons... /sarcasm.

Finally, this debate has been settled.

yakface wrote:The shunt move is infinitely interesting for objective grabbing...which given the FAQ ruling is clearly what it was intended to be. Allowing the shunt move to be used during Scout moves would have essentially completely ruined games against certain armies if they Grey Knight player won the roll to go first.

If GW had ruled that way they would have been freaking idiots (IMHO) and I'm frankly surprised you're advocating that they should have.

I just hate to see codices become one-dimensional is all really. They are pretty awesome for objective grabbing and I have used them that way before but it still isn't enough to make them as cost effective as Purifiers. Also with 1st turn assaults being perfectly legal in the manner I previously stated, I just don't see the big deal with allowing Interceptors the same opportunity.

yakface wrote: Terminators do indeed wear terminator armor.

That's a filthy, filthy lie!





We all know Terminators wear Tactical Dreadnought Armor!

No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

The Falchion thing surprised me, if only because it the rules could go either way, while game design, IMO, suggests that paying a premium for +1 attack (as opposed to a fist, +1 invulnerable, or +2 I) isn't worth it.

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

yakface wrote:No, it means that when a unit is described as being something...shocker...it actually *is* that thing. Yes, it is absolutely true that Black Templar Terminators are wearing Terminator Armor.

As soon as someone finds the part of the rulebook that clearly explains that a description of a unit is 'fluff' and therefore should be completely ignored for determining what a unit is, I will be in total agreement with you.

Happily, no such thing exists. So Nuglings are indeed Daemons of Nurgle, summoned Daemons are indeed Daemons and Terminators do indeed wear terminator armor.

kronk wrote:????

Oh no! Now my Daemon Princes are going to be treated as actual Daemons... /sarcasm.

Finally, this debate has been settled.

I added this above but it will probably get lost in this fast moving thread.

I would have counted ALL C: CD, the Avatar, and Lesser and Greater Daemons in CSM.
Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have the Daemon Special Rule but they do have special summoning rules that refers to them as Daemons.

My defence of Daemon Princes in the past has been based around the agreement with most people who debated with me that surely possessed, oblits, etc don't count as daemons since they are described in the fluff as only being partially daemonic. But now, if my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a daemon, and everyone else was Human, the GK would get PE against me!


But in truth I actually have no problem with Daemon Princes being FAQ'd to Daemons. (Even though it was obvious to me that they weren't)
But the rest of the stuff is ridiculous imo.

I wish GW started using Keywords in their unit/weapon descriptions to help keep things clear.

Here is an interesting one

In the Tyranid FAQ, it states that Lash Whips modify someone's Base Int to 1, but then you can add modifiers on top of that. (the example was that people with furious charge will hit at Int 2)

In the GK FAQ, a model with a Halberd that has its base Int lowered to 1, will strike at Int 1. No bonuses added.


That is an interesting reversal.




What questions do you think they missed?

I think that there is still some confusion around Nemesis weapons against Complex Multi-wound Units.
(ei. currently wound allocated nobs would take more damage from nemesis weapons than identical ones, unless you get one wound at a higher INT first....)

SonicPara wrote:

yakface wrote:The shunt move is infinitely interesting for objective grabbing...which given the FAQ ruling is clearly what it was intended to be. Allowing the shunt move to be used during Scout moves would have essentially completely ruined games against certain armies if they Grey Knight player won the roll to go first.

If GW had ruled that way they would have been freaking idiots (IMHO) and I'm frankly surprised you're advocating that they should have.

I just hate to see codices become one-dimensional is all really. They are pretty awesome for objective grabbing and I have used them that way before but it still isn't enough to make them as cost effective as Purifiers. Also with 1st turn assaults being perfectly legal in the manner I previously stated, I just don't see the big deal with allowing Interceptors the same opportunity.

Breaking the game is a pretty steep price to pay to balance one unit though, isn't it?

It's not like interceptors are a seperate box set that GW needs to sell, either. If you really don't like 'em, switch the backpacks.

I agree it makes Falchions suck (then again Ive always assumed they do so no loss there). It's more sad that GW would make a rather cool option totally useless due to its point cost

Its like old terminator honors that were +10 pts per model. THe new rulebook FAQ states that the same psychic power stacks unless specifically disallowed

Platuan4th wrote:

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Nice catch!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

svendrex wrote:Here is an interesting one

In the Tyranid FAQ, it states that Lash Whips modify someone's Base Int to 1, but then you can add modifiers on top of that. (the example was that people with furious charge will hit at Int 2)

In the GK FAQ, a model with a Halberd that has its base Int lowered to 1, will strike at Int 1. No bonuses added.


That is an interesting reversal.

It's not a reversal, just an exception.

Lash Whips reduce Int to 1, but can be further modified. Halbreds can't modify a changed Int.

I think it's a "fluff" ruling, but it's not inconsistent, just clunkier than it needs to be. They're trying to make the halbred rules really mirror using a long polearm, which means that you can really only use it in the open. If anything, a lash whip would have an easier time tying up a halbred than a sword.

Things I find interesting:

No Scout Shunting
No +2 attacks for Falchions
Warbands do take up FoC slots
Dreadknights are Str. 6 with Nemesis Doomfists
and the halberds don't add +2 if the GK has had his I reduced to a fixed number.

All interesting stuff.

The Falchion ruling made sense to me because in CSM it costs the same upgrade a Termie to a champion and all you got was +1 attack just like the Falchion.


I can see why anyone would want to take a Daemon Hammer on a Dreadknight now. It's the only way to get him to be str 10.

I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

Also, huge FAQ answer here, imo:

Games Workshop wrote:Q: Can a psyker attempt to cast the same psychic
power more than once in a turn? (p50)

A: No, unless the psychic power itself specifically allows
it.

Polonius wrote:Breaking the game is a pretty steep price to pay to balance one unit though, isn't it?

It's not like interceptors are a seperate box set that GW needs to sell, either. If you really don't like 'em, switch the backpacks.

My issue with this train of thought is simply that I don't think it breaks the game. It hasn't when I've done it and it hasn't when it has been done to me. The fact that C:GK can get 12 death cult assassins in assault turn 1 and a Stormraven in the opponent's lines is a far more devastating combination yet it is perfectly legal and only a little more expensive than a kitted out Interceptor unit. When something like that is possible and legalized, why is the less effective shunting interceptor unit considered game breaking?

My aim is not to break 40K and ruin the experience for anyone, I just think that making codices one-dimensional damages the hobby. How many times can you play the exact same IG, GK, or SW lists until 40K isn't fun anymore?

DarthDiggler wrote:I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

No, he doesn't get +1 attack. Since the Greatsword has a special effect, you can consider it a special weapon similar to Thunderhammers and Lightning Claws. With special weapons, you only get +1 attack if you have two of them. In the case of the Dreadknight, the only way you get +1 attack for dual wielding is with the two Doomfists as you can't take two Greatswords or two Daemonhammers.

I would have like to of seen a ruling (even though I feel it's clear) on the psychic pilot rule:

Are vehicles psykers all the time or not?

I'm fairly certain it's answered in the rule itself that they're only psykers for the purposes stated, but I know it's one that's had some contention around it.

Other than that, good faq (including the BRB). Just nice to have answers, not sure I agree with them all, but I'll play it however told.

SonicPara wrote: How many times can you play the exact same IG, GK, or SW lists until 40K isn't fun anymore?

I'll let you know when it starts actually happening to me.

Although there are a few things on there surprising to me, there's no surprise that Falchions grant one extra attack, not two, as I've been trying to explain to others since the book was released.

One minor annoying surprise on the GK FAQ to me is that the author doesn't seem to know the difference between "affect" and "effect", he or she repeatedly uses "effect" and "effected" when the word that should be used is "affect" or "affected".

puma713 wrote:Things I find interesting:

No Scout Shunting
Warbands do take up FoC slots

Did you honestly think that GW was going to rule that you could take an utterly and completely broken army configuration that would lead to pretty much an automatic win against certain opponents?

I actually find it surprising that anyone would honestly believe GW would rule any other way on these two!

DarthDiggler wrote:
I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

it is a good question, but given the way the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons are written, it would seem that they get the +1A bonus for having two close combat weapons of any type (as opposed to regular models who only get that bonus in some cases if their special close combat weapons match). But it certainly couldn't hurt to be answered in an updated FAQ by GW, that's for sure!

yakface wrote:

puma713 wrote:Things I find interesting:

No Scout Shunting
Warbands do take up FoC slots

Did you honestly think that GW was going to rule that you could take an utterly and completely broken army configuration that would lead to pretty much an automatic win against certain opponents?

Mmm, no. Just said I found it interesting. Nothing more.

Polonius wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Nice catch!

I also see in the BRB FAQ that the same Power can't be used more than once unless the power specifically says you can.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:
I also see in the BRB FAQ that the same Power can't be used more than once unless the power specifically says you can.

Yep, no more Meph trying to recast Wings or Sword!

Not meaning to be entirely inflammatory <text redacted; the easiest way to avoid being inflammatory is not to say something --Janthkin>

SonicPara wrote:
My aim is not to break 40K and ruin the experience for anyone, I just think that making codices one-dimensional damages the hobby. How many times can you play the exact same IG, GK, or SW lists until 40K isn't fun anymore?

If you can't see the utility of including a squad or two of Interceptors and/or a Dreadknight with a personal teleporter for their ability to essentially completely redeploy once during the game, then oh well!

I mean sure, the Razorback/Dreadnought spam list will likely prove to me the most common, but that honestly doesn't change the fact that a one time 30" move on units that either are troops (or can be made to be a scoring unit) is a really good ability.



But yes, allowing those units to shunt during a Scout move would literally have made it possible for Daemon players to simply pack up their miniatures and walk away from the table if their Grey Knight opponent had a bunch of Interceptor Squads and won the roll to go first.

That alone is a good enough reason to rule against it.

Q: If a walker is the target of Unyielding Anvil, from
the Grand Strategy special rule, can it claim objectives
even though it is a vehicle? (p22)
A: Yes.

Ugh. Goddamnit GW.

Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat
weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1
for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close
combat weapons)? (p54)
A: No, they just give +1 Attack.

I'm happy about this ruling. This means I get to use all those falchions as Nemesis Force Swords for my old pewter GK rather than using them as the actual upgrade they represent. Thanks for the extra bits GW!

Q: What counts as a plasma weapon for the Ulumeathi
Plasma Syphon? (p62)
A: All Plasma weapons, as well as Eldar missile
launchers firing plasma missiles, burst cannons,
starcannons, all Tau pulse weapons and any weapon
described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special
rules.

While I love the idea of this wargear and I like that they made it useful, I don't know if I'm happen with how far-reaching this impact is. The Xenos player already has that sociopathic sense of "perceived oppression". This will not help things.

Also, they seem to have forgotten the errata that gives us a reason to take the psilencer.

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

Also, Kronk, is it wrong to want to know someone's opinion <snip>? For the most part, I stayed away from the debates re:Henchmen cause I could see how both sides could be right.

What about humanoids that contain blood plasma?! Is there even a reason to take a non-xenos inquisitor since they can take EVERY good option while the others have a monopoly on the bad options? (Besides the 15pt psycannon)

This is going to make for a very interesting game night at my league this week. I wonder how our grey knight player is gonna take this.

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

yakface wrote:If you can't see the utility of including a squad or two of Interceptors and/or a Dreadknight with a personal teleporter for their ability to essentially completely redeploy once during the game, then oh well!

I mean sure, the Razorback/Dreadnought spam list will likely prove to me the most common, but that honestly doesn't change the fact that a one time 30" move on units that either are troops (or can be made to be troops) is a really good ability.



But yes, allowing those units to shunt during a Scout move would literally have made it possible for Daemon players to simply pack up their miniatures and walk away from the table if their Grey Knight opponent had a bunch of Interceptor Squads.

That alone is a good enough reason to rule against it.

Yes it is a wonderful ability and I had previously mentioned that I have used them in the way you were suggesting: late game objective grabbers. My argument was simply not understanding why the alpha-strike tactic with Interceptors is game-breaking while the alpha-strike tactic with other units in a Stormraven is totally okay.

The bit about Daemons is a good catch, I completely forgot that Interceptors had Warp Quake. That would be quite unfair against Daemons though to be fair the outcome wouldn't be changed either way. If GK player gets first turn, they don't need to scout shunt to auto-win against Daemons. If they get second turn, they won't be able to activate Warp Quake before the Daemons show up in their turn 1. I understand your point and I understand the wargear's versatility, I just found it difficult to understand why people were so afraid of alpha-striking interceptors but not other more powerful alpha-strike options in C:GK. I'm not complaining about the ruling as I will still use my Interceptors and have fun with them, I just didn't understand why people were so scared of them before.

Anyways, I should probably cease bumping the thread with somewhat unrelated posts. Regardless of the rulings it is nice to see a FAQ out of GW relatively quickly.

Sweet, scoring Psyflemen

Everything else is...interesting. I never really shunted so that doesnt affect me. I always preferred halberds/hammers to other weapons. Ehh the plasma siphon may be taken more but I'd rather buff out my GM/Libby but there will forever be cries I suppose. Overall I find most of it unexpected

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

... I think we can leave the debate over whether or not another forum member will or will not post. Much obliged.

The BRB FAQ has an interesting thing in it as well.


Mostly that the same psy power cast multiple times DOES stack.


HAMMERHAND does stack....

However, Psykers can only cast an individual spell once per turn, unless it specifically says otherwise.

Q: What counts as a plasma weapon for the Ulumeathi
Plasma Syphon? (p62)
A: All Plasma weapons, as well as Eldar missile
launchers firing plasma missiles, burst cannons,
starcannons, all Tau pulse weapons and any weapon
described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special
rules.

Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

fox-light713 wrote:

Q: What counts as a plasma weapon for the Ulumeathi
Plasma Syphon? (p62)
A: All Plasma weapons, as well as Eldar missile
launchers firing plasma missiles, burst cannons,
starcannons, all Tau pulse weapons and any weapon
described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special
rules.

Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

The 2 Special Issues Weapons, too.

Platuan4th wrote:

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

This is...odd.

5 Tervigons casting Catalyst on a Carnifex brood.



Stacks in theory - does this mean rerolls on FNP?

Agh.

DarkStarSabre wrote:This is...odd.

5 Tervigons casting Catalyst on a Carnifex brood.



Stacks in theory - does this mean rerolls on FNP?

Agh.

Since the power specifically gives them FNP, a unit can't have FNP twice, and it isn't conducive to stacking like Hammerhand (+1 to strength, easy to figure stacking) then I would guess no.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Stacks in theory - does this mean rerolls on FNP?

Agh.

FNP is a Special Rule. It stacks as much as multiple sources of Furious Charge. So you have FNP and you have FNP. You fail an armor save. Do you have FNP? Yes? Then get a single roll of 4+ to negate the wound. End of resolution.'

Sneaky sneaky ninja posts...

The things that kill carnifexes ignore FNP generally, so it wont matter.. and why arent you doing that on a hive tyrant or something better??

Or like genestealers.. or anything other than a carnifex imo

Wow, no shunt scouting. I guess it keeps it from breaking the game.

Vehicles can score. Of bloody course....

No 2xS from Doomfists? Really? Weird.

Wow! Way to bend Tau over the bed with the plasma syphon! Seriously. "Hey guys. I'm sorry to say only your Missile Pods, Flamers, and Kroot guns are any good."

Pretty much the rest is obvious answers to dumb questions.

fox-light713 wrote:
Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

Again, nobody will ever take this option in a take-all-comers list so is it really so terrible? Besides, it only affects weapons within 12"...I mean, seriously this thing is 15 points on a Xenos-Hunter Inquisitor. Is is absolutely garbage. I don't even really hesitate to say that you will absolutely school anyone who is clueless enough to take this in their army!

Not to be a dick, but it's not like:
1) Grey Knights weren't too worried about tau before
2) People were using the single piece of wargear this rule effects a lot

yakface wrote:

fox-light713 wrote:
Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

Again, nobody will ever take this option in a take-all-comers list so is it really so terrible? Besides, it only affects weapons within 12"...I mean, seriously this thing is 15 points on a Xenos-Hunter Inquisitor. Is is absolutely garbage. I don't even really hesitate to say that you will absolutely school anyone who is clueless enough to take this in their army!

Indeed. The Tau player would seriously need to bunch up for even 2 Inqs with these things(and then, you're seriously affecting the rest of your army) to shut them down.

fox-light713 wrote:Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

Wow, so, pretty much the most common Tau weapons are unaffected? What a horrible tragedy! There's also certainly no way you could get around the TWELVE INCHES FROM ONE T3 MODEL range of the Siphion with your 30"+ guns! Truly, the Siphon allows an automatic win for the GK player. [/sarcasm]

Really, let me know when the Siphon starts affecting meltaguns and not a ridiculously small subset of weapons from a ridiculously small range.

Polonius wrote:Not to be a dick, but it's not like:
1) Grey Knights weren't too worried about tau before
2) People were using the single piece of wargear this rule effects a lot

And...

3) it has a 12" range on a Xenos Hunter Inquisitor.


Seriously people! This is a terrible piece of wargear!

Might not be a horrible option if you're already taking a grenade inquisitor, Its only 10 pts anyway so for 65pts you get a guy who is pretty good for meta-purposes. Just have him in the middle of your line in a transport, if it makes 1 plasma gun BS1 per game that probably already paid for itself

.. It's almost like an Ordo xenos Inquisitor might have be extra good against certain xenos if he has time to plan and prepare.

reds8n wrote:.. It's almost like an Ordo xenos Inquisitor might have be extra good against certain xenos if he has time to plan and prepare.

Oh, snap!

What about the Vindicare Turbo round?

3+4D6+Rending?

4D6+Rending?


Does it Work on a Monolith?



A quick note on the Scout Shunt.

Interceptors did not need the 30" move in order to cover the board with Warp Quake if they got the first turn. 12" scout move, 12" move. 12" range. That puts the edge of the Warp Quake at the edge of the table. (In a pitched battle) I am not sure about Spearhead deployment.

You CAN still have board wide warp quake (in certain cases) before the daemons can get anything on the table.

One would assume that they haven't answered that as the Monolith rules might be worded differently sooner rather than later ?

reds8n wrote: One would assume that they haven't answered that as the Monolith rules might be worded differently sooner rather than later ?

We can only hope.

svendrex wrote:What about the Vindicare Turbo round?

3+4D6+Rending?

4D6+Rending?


Does it Work on a Monolith?

Well, we at least got this in the BRB FAQ:

Q: How does Rending work if you get to roll multiple
dice for the Armour Penetration roll? (p31)
A: The player gets to add a D3 to the total for each
dice that comes up with a 6.

No clue about monoliths. And that really doesn't directly answer your 3+ or not question.

Kirasu wrote:The things that kill carnifexes ignore FNP generally, so it wont matter.. and why arent you doing that on a hive tyrant or something better??

Or like genestealers.. or anything other than a carnifex imo

Hypothetical situation to point out the farcical nature of stacking.

Don't jump down the throat.

And why am I putting it on a brood of Carnifexes?

You ever see a brood of 3 Carnifexes with FNP roll up towards an Eldar, Guard or SM medium firepower line?* Autocannons? Lasguns? Bolters? Shuriken Catapults? Shuricannons? HAH.


*Disclaimer: Due to carnifexes being ridiculously overpriced, broods largely redundant and trygons being better in every way...probably not.

DarkStarSabre wrote:
You ever see a brood of 3 Carnifexes

Nope.

Well that psychic thing was out of left field. I guess it does stop people form trying to recast if they fail.

yakface wrote:

fox-light713 wrote:
Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

Again, nobody will ever take this option in a take-all-comers list so is it really so terrible?

Im going to put this out there, but I imagine there are alot, if not the majority of players who dont play competivley. Which means they probably play in a gaming group of anywhere from 3-6 players or so.

Now if there happens to be a Tau player and a GK player in that group.. you can bet the GK player will probably try at some point to find a way to abuse the Siphon. Not to mention 12" is actualy the distance that tau have maximum firepower at (rapidfire Firewarriors and plasma). In particular it makes the plasma rifle, the best weapon tau have against GK, usless in its optimal range.

When it becomes un-fun or nearly pointless for one race to face another in casual gaming, well then thats a serious balance issue regardless of what occurs in a competitve enviroment. Its just another reason for me not to take my tau when my group organises games, and when that happens it just dosent bode well for the hobby in general.

I'm pleased to see that with the falchions and scoring dreadnoughts, GW have gone with the 'rule as is bleeding obvious if common sense is applied and overthinking is banned' version and not the strict RAW.

I'd be more pleased if they could just phrase their rules simply and clearly in the first place.

I'm not too surprised the scout shunt has been disallowed but i wouldn't have been amazed if that ruling had gone the other way.

yakface wrote:
But yes, allowing those units to shunt during a Scout move would literally have made it possible for Daemon players to simply pack up their miniatures and walk away from the table if their Grey Knight opponent had a bunch of Interceptor Squads and won the roll to go first.

Yeah, we'll still be doing that..., the FAQ doesn't change that.


Things that surprised me in the Grey Knight FAQ:

Dreadknight's Doomfist doesn't boost it's strength ("as its not a walker"). So what does it do for a non-walker, and why give it to them?

+2 Initiative for halberds being factored first (other modifiers trump them).

Vehicles being allowed to claim objectives - that's the first time they trumped the rulebook on that, I think. Though it makes Grand Strategy even better.

I think everything else is pretty much as expected.


In the overall FAQ:

What counts as a psychic shooting power?

Perhaps not a huge surprise (doe sit have a weapon profile, or say it is a shooting attack?), but might cause some revisions in the INAT. The phrasing in the Chaos Space Marine codex doesn't "specifically state" that Lash, Nurgle's Rot, Wind of Chaos are psychic shooting attacks. Same with the Eldar and Mindwar (Eldritch Storm has a profile, so definitely is), or Dark Angels and Mind Worm? I don't think this impacts any codexes besides those three, as the newer ones use the newer precise wording, and the other older ones don't use psychic powers.


Do Psychic Shooting attacks need to roll to hit? yes

If the powers that be decide Lash, etc. are still psychic shooting attacks (though this seems wrong), then we now need to roll to hit with it? How does this impact Eldritch Storm? The power says place a large blast marker. Do you now roll scatter to hit with it?

Coteaz's troop henchmen take up a FoC slot.

It feels good to be vindicated.

Redbeard wrote:

What counts as a psychic shooting power?

Perhaps not a huge surprise (doe sit have a weapon profile, or say it is a shooting attack?), but might cause some revisions in the INAT. The phrasing in the Chaos Space Marine codex doesn't "specifically state" that Lash, Nurgle's Rot, Wind of Chaos are psychic shooting attacks. Same with the Eldar and Mindwar (Eldritch Storm has a profile, so definitely is), or Dark Angels and Mind Worm? I don't think this impacts any codexes besides those three, as the newer ones use the newer precise wording, and the other older ones don't use psychic powers.

It doesn't impact the Eldar codex, actually:

Eldar FAQ

"Q. Which Eldar psychic powers are psychic shooting
attacks?
A. Destructor, Eldritch Storm and Mind War (though
they include a few exceptions to the normal shooting
rules, as specified in their description)."

Solourus wrote:
Im going to put this out there, but I imagine there are alot, if not the majority of players who dont play competivley. Which means they probably play in a gaming group of anywhere from 3-6 players or so.

Now if there happens to be a Tau player and a GK player in that group.. you can bet the GK player will probably try at some point to find a way to abuse the Siphon. Not to mention 12" is actualy the distance that tau have maximum firepower at (rapidfire Firewarriors and plasma). In particular it makes the plasma rifle, the best weapon tau have against GK, usless in its optimal range.

When it becomes un-fun or nearly pointless for one race to face another in casual gaming, well then thats a serious balance issue regardless of what occurs in a competitve enviroment. Its just another reason for me not to take my tau when my group organises games, and when that happens it just dosent bode well for the hobby in general.

And how exactly is this any worse then what a Daemon player has to face from any number of anti-daemon abilities, or assault armies that have to face sanctuary or deep strike armies vs. Warp quake?

The fact is, the grey knight player has to take a Xenos-hunter inquisitor to get this, which means they aren't taking any one of the better HQ choices they could take.

Serously, if anything this ruling made the plasma Syphon go from a complete joke to something you might take on a dare.

Platuan4th wrote:
It doesn't impact the Eldar codex, actually:

Eldar FAQ
...

Does that mean that Mind War needs to roll to hit now?

Plus as someone pointed out.

Ordo Xenos. Fighting aliens.

Tau. Xenos.

Do the math.

I'm a little surprised at the scoring Dreadnoughts. I *like* it but it seems off. Makes it even easier for GM lists to go for heavy mechanization. As for falchions, it's time to pop some hands off. Just from a text-editing sense I would've liked the book to say 'wielders of a pair of falchions get the +1A for wielding two CCW' or something so.

Hooray for 12" moving dreadknights with 2d6+Str AP.

The implications of the rulebook FAQ on hammerhand make IC+squad a little interesting. Now when you have a GM attached to paladins the question becomes hammerhand twice or hammerhand once and try to force weapon.

I'm glad GW had a reasonably quick turnaround time on the FAQ.

Redbeard wrote:

In the overall FAQ:

Do Psychic Shooting attacks need to roll to hit? yes

If the powers that be decide Lash, etc. are still psychic shooting attacks (though this seems wrong), then we now need to roll to hit with it? How does this impact Eldritch Storm? The power says place a large blast marker. Do you now roll scatter to hit with it?

In just about every game I've played, including tournament play, you've always used the scatter on Eldritch Storm. I'm not sure about Lash, but I don't think we've ever rolled to hit with Mind War though, like you were pointing out.

Solourus wrote:
When it becomes un-fun or nearly pointless for one race to face another in casual gaming, well then thats a serious balance issue regardless of what occurs in a competitve enviroment. Its just another reason for me not to take my tau when my group organises games, and when that happens it just dosent bode well for the hobby in general.

It's 12" from one model. It's very possible to place yourself so that you are within range of the inquisitors unit but not the Siphon, even at 12". Will it be something you have to tactically consider? Sure. But is not the unavoidable BS reduction people are making it out to be. It's basically the same thing as making sure your Crisis Suits are more than 12" away from enemy assault units at the end of your turn. Totally avoidable if you are actually paying attention to the game.

Redbeard wrote:
Dreadknight's Doomfist doesn't boost it's strength ("as its not a walker"). So what does it do for a non-walker, and why give it to them?

Good question - I'd assumed that they meant them to be S10, even though that made no sense when they could be "upgraded" to a hammer.

Redbeard wrote:
In the overall FAQ:

What counts as a psychic shooting power?

Perhaps not a huge surprise (doe sit have a weapon profile, or say it is a shooting attack?), but might cause some revisions in the INAT. The phrasing in the Chaos Space Marine codex doesn't "specifically state" that Lash, Nurgle's Rot, Wind of Chaos are psychic shooting attacks. Same with the Eldar and Mindwar (Eldritch Storm has a profile, so definitely is), or Dark Angels and Mind Worm? I don't think this impacts any codexes besides those three, as the newer ones use the newer precise wording, and the other older ones don't use psychic powers.


Do Psychic Shooting attacks need to roll to hit? yes

If the powers that be decide Lash, etc. are still psychic shooting attacks (though this seems wrong), then we now need to roll to hit with it? How does this impact Eldritch Storm? The power says place a large blast marker. Do you now roll scatter to hit with it?

Hmm. Isn't JotWW a PSA? It now needs to hit a targetted unit before they can draw a line?

Redbeard wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
It doesn't impact the Eldar codex, actually:

Eldar FAQ
...

Does that mean that Mind War needs to roll to hit now?

Yes. Technically, Mind War has needed to roll to hit since 2009 when that FAQ came out. Also, according to the same FAQ, Mind War allows cover saves:

Q. Does Mind War allow cover saves?
A. Yes, this could represent the target diving behind
cover, out of sight of the Farseer and therefore
breaking the deadly mind-lock.

Slinky wrote:Good question - I'd assumed that they meant them to be S10, even though that made no sense when they could be "upgraded" to a hammer.

I always understood that it has Doomfists simply because they have similar sized hands to a Dreadnought. It would have been clearer to just say that it has two CCWs but then again everything needs "Nemesis" attached to it so I suppose that is another reason right there.

SonicPara wrote:

Slinky wrote:Good question - I'd assumed that they meant them to be S10, even though that made no sense when they could be "upgraded" to a hammer.

I always understood that it has Doomfists simply because they have similar sized hands to a Dreadnought. It would have been clearer to just say that it has two CCWs but then again everything needs "Nemesis" attached to it so I suppose that is another reason right there.

Them being Nemesis means that they're Force Weapons, probably why it was given the Doomfists despite not getting 2x S from them.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:
So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

ETA (you edited your post after I replied):
I would have counted ALL C: CD, the Avatar, and Lesser and Greater Daemons in CSM.
Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have the Daemon Special Rule but they do have special summoning rules that refers to them as Daemons.

My defence of Daemon Princes in the past has been based around the agreement with most people who debated with me that surely possessed, oblits, etc don't count as daemons since they are described in the fluff as only being partially daemonic. But now, if my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a daemon, and everyone else was Human, the GK would get PE against me!

historicaly in GW terms all of those things other than mandrakes and the mandrake character were classified as daemons for past GK stuff. Any chaos lord with more than 50 points in daemonic gifts was considered a daemon prince, which was considered a daemon raw. None of this is a surprise at all. Actually I think the mandrake stuff is kind of interesting from a fluff standpoint.

yakface wrote:

Solourus wrote:
Im going to put this out there, but I imagine there are alot, if not the majority of players who dont play competivley. Which means they probably play in a gaming group of anywhere from 3-6 players or so.

Now if there happens to be a Tau player and a GK player in that group.. you can bet the GK player will probably try at some point to find a way to abuse the Siphon. Not to mention 12" is actualy the distance that tau have maximum firepower at (rapidfire Firewarriors and plasma). In particular it makes the plasma rifle, the best weapon tau have against GK, usless in its optimal range.

When it becomes un-fun or nearly pointless for one race to face another in casual gaming, well then thats a serious balance issue regardless of what occurs in a competitve enviroment. Its just another reason for me not to take my tau when my group organises games, and when that happens it just dosent bode well for the hobby in general.

And how exactly is this any worse then what a Daemon player has to face from any number of anti-daemon abilities, or assault armies that have to face sanctuary or deep strike armies vs. Warp quake?

The fact is, the grey knight player has to take a Xenos-hunter inquisitor to get this, which means they aren't taking any one of the better HQ choices they could take.

Serously, if anything this ruling made the plasma Syphon go from a complete joke to something you might take on a dare.

When did I say it was any worse than what deamons get?

Your allso still thinking in terms of competitive armys. Alot of people dont read fourms or optimize their lists. Sure there are better competitive choices in the metagame. But if your playing casualy then this is a peice of wargear that is just not fun to play against.

Any wargear or rules that make the game less fun to play detracts from the hobby overall. Sure if you play in a competitive enviroment then this is unlikely to effect you in the slightest. Your probably not even taking tau, and no one will be taking the siphon. But I think we have established that im not refering to competitive play.

Its just bad game design.

Cerebrium wrote:Plus as someone pointed out.

Ordo Xenos. Fighting aliens.

Tau. Xenos.

Do the math.

Your a genius. Here lets try somethign else.

Eldar: See the future.

Ergo they wouldent fight a battle they were not going to win...

Eldar should never lose a battle!

I'm not sure why people are so shocked by the Halberd ruling.... Halberds give +2I, as we all know, and it is a modifier. SO the logic runs kind of like this, in order of how it goes off:

I = GK initiative
(I)+2 = GK init. with Halberd (checked at start of game)
*0+1 = Init. modifier for Lash Whip (Checked at start of CC round)
((I)+2)*0+1 = GK init under the influence of Lash whip

as opposed to

I = Howling Banshee init.
*0+1 = Init modifier for Lash whip (Checked at start of CC round)
*0+10 = Init modifier for mask (Checked at initiative count 10)
((I)*0+1)*0+10 = HB initiative under influence of whip and mask

How is this difficult?

Wow really? Huh, who woulda thought they would do that today.

Edit: Ok I read this crap.

My tau a screwed fighting these guys now it seems.

Fluff equals rules it seems, more reason to take the chaos lords I like.

Solourus wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Plus as someone pointed out.

Ordo Xenos. Fighting aliens.

Tau. Xenos.

Do the math.

Your a genius. Here lets try somethign else.

Eldar: See the future.

Ergo they wouldent fight a battle they were not going to win...

Eldar should never lose a battle!

First of all, <snarky text redacted --Janthkin>

Second of all, there's a difference between Eldar being able to see the future and not fighting and Ordo Xenos being slightly better at fighting xenos. It's like saying Grey Knights shouldn't have any bonuses to fighting daemons.

Slinky wrote:I'd assumed that they meant them to be S10, even though that made no sense when they could be "upgraded" to a hammer.

Don't forget: Hammer forces a surviving model to go at init 1 the following round, iirc.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: For each Jokaero Weaponsmith in a henchman unit
after the first you add +1 to the Inconceivable
Customisation roll. Does this mean that if you have 6 or
more Jokaero in a unit that they will receive no
bonuses (as you cannot roll less than a 6 and duplicate
rolls are ignored)? (p50)
A: Yes.

Take 6 Jokaero - get no bonuses.
Take 5 Jokaero - get bonuses.

Wha...?

This kinda has me scratching my head too..

I thought 5+ you didn't actually get anything from the chart. or does that mean you auto get 2 rolls on the chart? (I feel kinda dumb asking this)

On the upside Whoo Hoo Core choices with Coteaz!

Dronze wrote:I'm not sure why people are so shocked by the Halberd ruling.... Halberds give +2I, as we all know, and it is a modifier. SO the logic runs kind of like this, in order of how it goes off:

I = GK initiative
(I)+2 = GK init. with Halberd (checked at start of game)
*0+1 = Init. modifier for Lash Whip (Checked at start of CC round)
((I)+2)*0+1 = GK init under the influence of Lash whip

as opposed to

I = Howling Banshee init.
*0+1 = Init modifier for Lash whip (Checked at start of CC round)
*0+10 = Init modifier for mask (Checked at initiative count 10)
((I)*0+1)*0+10 = HB initiative under influence of whip and mask

How is this difficult?

Because people don't want to/shouldn't have to break out pen and paper to figure out their unit's Initiative and why it is reduced in mathematical operations.

Cerebrium wrote:

Solourus wrote:

Cerebrium wrote:Plus as someone pointed out.

Ordo Xenos. Fighting aliens.

Tau. Xenos.

Do the math.

Your a genius. Here lets try somethign else.

Eldar: See the future.

Ergo they wouldent fight a battle they were not going to win...

Eldar should never lose a battle!

First of all,<text redacted --Janthkin>

Second of all, there's a difference between Eldar being able to see the future and not fighting and Ordo Xenos being slightly better at fighting xenos. It's like saying Grey Knights shouldn't have any bonuses to fighting daemons.

Hey, its late here give a man a break.

Besides it wouldent have hurt you to post a reasonable comment like you just did now instead of a rather condicending 3 second post. I gave my response the same amount of attention as you did your first post. It also was intended to be taken sarcasticly and not literaly.

I am betting Monoliths were not addressed in the FAQ 'cause of the probable Necron reboot incoming.

puma713 wrote:

Dronze wrote:I'm not sure why people are so shocked by the Halberd ruling.... Halberds give +2I, as we all know, and it is a modifier. SO the logic runs kind of like this, in order of how it goes off:

I = GK initiative
(I)+2 = GK init. with Halberd (checked at start of game)
*0+1 = Init. modifier for Lash Whip (Checked at start of CC round)
((I)+2)*0+1 = GK init under the influence of Lash whip

as opposed to

I = Howling Banshee init.
*0+1 = Init modifier for Lash whip (Checked at start of CC round)
*0+10 = Init modifier for mask (Checked at initiative count 10)
((I)*0+1)*0+10 = HB initiative under influence of whip and mask

How is this difficult?

Because people don't want to/shouldn't have to break out pen and paper to figure out their unit's Initiative and why it is reduced in mathematical operations.

A little bit of simple Order of operations after going through and running the numbers to make their army list? It's already established that the people who play this game *should* have a basic aptitude for simple arithmetic... and if they don't, then they need to be closing Armybuilder and pen-and-papering their lists up for a bit.

Okay I see the vindicare and the monolith not being answered. That is fine.


But there are still several people who are not sure whether is is 3+4D6 (what I think it is) or just 4D6.

My theory is that they didn't want to feth up the future Necrons codex in this FAQ, so they're just waiting for the new codex.

daedalus wrote:My theory is that they didn't want to feth up the future Necrons codex in this FAQ, so they're just waiting for the new codex.

And that means more editing work for the 1.1 FAQ when they release it a bazillion years into the future.

svendrex wrote:
A quick note on the Scout Shunt.

Interceptors did not need the 30" move in order to cover the board with Warp Quake if they got the first turn. 12" scout move, 12" move. 12" range. That puts the edge of the Warp Quake at the edge of the table. (In a pitched battle) I am not sure about Spearhead deployment.

You CAN still have board wide warp quake (in certain cases) before the daemons can get anything on the table.

Which is still lame. Honestly, I'm not sure who thought Warp Quake was a good idea.

<notification: keep comments civil and on-topic, please, as this thread is likely to be a fairly popular one>

svendrex wrote:Okay I see the vindicare and the monolith not being answered. That is fine.


But there are still several people who are not sure whether is is 3+4D6 (what I think it is) or just 4D6.

Maybe they didn't answer because it will be answered very soon when they release the new Necron Codex! You heard it here first.


And I know the Plasma Syphon can devastate tau armies, but who would honestly take one in a competitive list. That's pretty much the only time it can be effective now, and that's if you can get within 12 inches. And if you can get within 12 inches of a tau unit they're practicality screwed anyways.

Anyone want 20 Purifiers with Falchions? Oh yeah and my entire Daemon and Chaos Marine armies? I'm glad there is finally a FAQ I guess...

Yay - I was right about the falchions. (5pts for +2 attacks... who was smoking what when that was interpreted!)

BladeWalker wrote:Anyone want 20 Purifiers with Falchions? Oh yeah and my entire Daemon and Chaos Marine armies? I'm glad there is finally a FAQ I guess...

If you're giving them away? Sure. I'll even pay shipping.

Any other armies you have that I can convince you that the faq nerfed?

Q: Can a psyker attempt to cast the same psychic
power more than once in a turn? (p50)
A: No, unless the psychic power itself specifically allows
it

So this is at ends with the CSM faq stating Ahriman can cast the same non-shooting powers multiple times....

WarOne wrote:

daedalus wrote:My theory is that they didn't want to feth up the future Necrons codex in this FAQ, so they're just waiting for the new codex.

And that means more editing work for the 1.1 FAQ when they release it a bazillion years into the future.

Grey Knight Codex release: April 2, 2011

Grey Knight Codex FAQ Posted: June 13, 2011

After two months and 11 days of players with the codex in their hands and asking questions, they posted an FAQ. Sounds about right.

Zid wrote:
Q: Can a psyker attempt to cast the same psychic
power more than once in a turn? (p50)
A: No, unless the psychic power itself specifically allows
it

So this is at ends with the CSM faq stating Ahriman can cast the same non-shooting powers multiple times....

General vs specific.

Ahriman has a specific exemption to the more general rule and more general faq answer.

kronk wrote:

WarOne wrote:

daedalus wrote:My theory is that they didn't want to feth up the future Necrons codex in this FAQ, so they're just waiting for the new codex.

And that means more editing work for the 1.1 FAQ when they release it a bazillion years into the future.

Grey Knight Codex release: April 2, 2011

Grey Knight Codex FAQ Posted: June 13, 2011

After two months and 11 days of players with the codex in their hands and asking questions, they posted an FAQ. Sounds about right.

Ah, but their history of releasing REVISED codex FAQs isn't so hot. My poor Tyranids....

I feel bad for Tau. I'm allowed to feel bad for Tau, even if it isn't the end of the world or anything .

Phototoxin wrote:Yay - I was right about the falchions. (5pts for +2 attacks... who was smoking what when that was interpreted!)

You also lost other benefits, such as a power fist, or +1 invulnerable, or +2 Int.

Yes, paying 5pts for two attacks is cheap, but not if you give up other benefits.

Solourus wrote:Your a genius. Here lets try somethign else.

Eldar: See the future.

Ergo they wouldent fight a battle they were not going to win...

Eldar should never lose a battle!

The Eldar can't see the future perfectly. They try to work it to their advantage, but don't always get it right.

Daemons are always daemons though.

Call my naive, but are people really taking that many strike squads?

Between terminators, Crowe, Draigo, and Grand Strategy, I rarely see more than one strike squad per GK army.

I'll admit that it's a dumb nerf to demons (and pods), but I wonder how workable it is.

Question:

Isn't Nurgle Rot considered a Psychic Shooting Attack? Could be wrong. If so, how does that work since you have to "roll to hit" with it? It isn't like you aim it or anything, it just hits people around you.

Polonius wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Yay - I was right about the falchions. (5pts for +2 attacks... who was smoking what when that was interpreted!)

You also lost other benefits, such as a power fist, or +1 invulnerable, or +2 Int.

Yes, paying 5pts for two attacks is cheap, but not if you give up other benefits.

Falchions add more power weapon attacks I guess, but the Halberd just looks so much better with the +2I....

WarOne wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Yay - I was right about the falchions. (5pts for +2 attacks... who was smoking what when that was interpreted!)

You also lost other benefits, such as a power fist, or +1 invulnerable, or +2 Int.

Yes, paying 5pts for two attacks is cheap, but not if you give up other benefits.

Falchions add more power weapon attacks I guess, but the Halberd just looks so much better with the +2I....

Why pay 5 ponits for +1a when you can pay 4 points for +1a, and a massive bonfire in assault, with more special weapons?

Seems counter-intuitive...

Geee thank you GK codex and FAQ for now making Eldar Seer councils 100% useless.

Q: What counts as a plasma weapon for the Ulumeathi
Plasma Syphon? (p62)
A: All Plasma weapons, as well as Eldar missile
launchers firing plasma missiles, burst cannons,
starcannons, all Tau pulse weapons and any weapon
described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special
rule

BS1 Fire warriors for the lulz. Makes a lot of sense to me fluff wise, but talk about kicking a codex while it's down.

Janthkin wrote:

kronk wrote:

WarOne wrote:

daedalus wrote:My theory is that they didn't want to feth up the future Necrons codex in this FAQ, so they're just waiting for the new codex.

And that means more editing work for the 1.1 FAQ when they release it a bazillion years into the future.

Grey Knight Codex release: April 2, 2011

Grey Knight Codex FAQ Posted: June 13, 2011

After two months and 11 days of players with the codex in their hands and asking questions, they posted an FAQ. Sounds about right.

Ah, but their history of releasing REVISED codex FAQs isn't so hot. My poor Tyranids....

Yep, and I am not looking forward to the numerous posts that will soon spam YMDC asking whether or not Tyranid psychers are suppose to roll to hit, even though the PSA specifically states that the "Unit is hit with...", "The unit is automatically hit with...", or "unit takes...hits".

You know GW, some questions don't need to be answered...ever. This is one of them. SITW was another.

I'm mostly happy. The problem entries are pulse weapons as plasma, stacking hammerhand, and the falchions.

Pulse weapons as plasma is just stupid. The Tau have actual plasma guns, keep it to just them.

Why did hammerhand need to stack? Why take anything else if it does?

Falchions are pretty useless now. Just too expensive. They may have been underpriced for +2 A though, maybe. Didn't look at that question enough.

Good riddance Might of Titan/Hammerhand spamming. A mass of Death Cult is ugly enough without Coteaz or a Librarian hitting them 3 times with MoT/HH to make them S7. At least now they are limited to S6 unless he takes a 3rd techmarine.

yakface wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

it is a good question, but given the way the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons are written, it would seem that they get the +1A bonus for having two close combat weapons of any type (as opposed to regular models who only get that bonus in some cases if their special close combat weapons match). But it certainly couldn't hurt to be answered in an updated FAQ by GW, that's for sure!

Yakface will you guys be addressing this in the INAT FAQ?

Phototoxin wrote:Yay - I was right about the falchions. (5pts for +2 attacks... who was smoking what when that was interpreted!)

<snarky comment redacted; stay on topic! --Janthkin>

Soulx wrote:

svendrex wrote:Okay I see the vindicare and the monolith not being answered. That is fine.


But there are still several people who are not sure whether is is 3+4D6 (what I think it is) or just 4D6.

Maybe they didn't answer because it will be answered very soon when they release the new Necron Codex! You heard it here first.

They didn't answer it because it's a none issue:

Necron Codex Page 21 - "In Practice, any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no mater what"

So, unless I've missed something, you don't get the +D3 for rending on a Monolith no mater when it's added.

Destrado wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Yay - I was right about the falchions. (5pts for +2 attacks... who was smoking what when that was interpreted!)

Curiously enough I don't see any of the people who were riding on others' arguments of +2 saying something now. Oh well.

Unfortunately, GW's ruling this way doesn't necessarily make you right or make them wrong. Prior to GW's FAQ ruling, the pro +2 attack arguement was well laid out and easy to follow. I was following the arguement on both sides and I never saw a concise arguement for the the pro +1 attack side.

Trying to rub their noses in this ruling does not make them wrong prior to it and does nothing to spur healthy debate.

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:Unfortunately, GW's ruling this way doesn't necessarily make you right or make them wrong. Prior to GW's FAQ ruling, the pro +2 attack arguement was well laid out and easy to follow. I was following the arguement on both sides and I never saw a concise arguement for the the pro +1 attack side.

I saw a lot of arguments both ways, both it was mostly one doing the name-calling. It didn't prove them wrong either. But maybe we'll discuss this in a GK FAQ discussion, elsewhere.

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:Trying to rub their noses in this ruling does not make them wrong prior to it and does nothing to spur healthy debate.

What? They're not even here.

Why didn't they address the crucible of malediction problem? That has been on every forum for weeks!

Scoring Walkers? ...what?
No Scout Shunt? ...what?!
Stacking Hammerhand!? ...sigh.
No S10 NDK!? ...oh, silly GW.

Oh well. At least the questions are answered.

Pg 2 of the rulebook faq states that you can use all grenades carried in an assault, so an ordo xenos can potentially dump rad, psychotrope and psyk-out i think in one go if they assault. Doesn't this make them a touch over powered? (Feel free to correct me on the list my codex is on loan at a mates)

So what's the point in giving the Dreadknight dreadnought close combat weapons that it can't use?

They nerfed the crap out of the poor DK, it went from bad to sucktastic.

Thousand Nuns wrote:Pg 2 of the rulebook faq states that you can use all grenades carried in an assault, so an ordo xenos can potentially dump rad, psychotrope and psyk-out i think in one go if they assault. Doesn't this make them a touch over powered? (Feel free to correct me on the list my codex is on loan at a mates)

GMs and Techmarines can do this too and I find those more scary than OXI.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Thousand Nuns wrote:Pg 2 of the rulebook faq states that you can use all grenades carried in an assault, so an ordo xenos can potentially dump rad, psychotrope and psyk-out i think in one go if they assault. Doesn't this make them a touch over powered? (Feel free to correct me on the list my codex is on loan at a mates)

GMs and Techmarines can do this too and I find those more scary than OXI.

Oh joy thanks for pointing them out as well. I'll be looking forward to that i've got two regular gaming buddies who've just started GK armies.

Griever wrote:So what's the point in giving the Dreadknight dreadnought close combat weapons that it can't use?

They nerfed the crap out of the poor DK, it went from bad to sucktastic.

As previously noted, they are Nemesis weapons; without them, the Dreadknight wouldn't have a Force weapon.

So what's the point in giving the Dreadknight dreadnought close combat weapons that it can't use?

I believe it still counts as a power weapon because of the DCCW rules, a very useful thing.

They nerfed the crap out of the poor DK, it went from bad to sucktastic.

Nerfed? Hardly. Though S10 would be nice for GK players, the Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature and as such gets 2D6 for armor penetration in most situations. Dreadnoughts get S10, but only get one 1D6 penetration, so it kind of balances it out. And that's the key word there, balance. S10 plus 2D6 would have been excessive for opponent players. The big Hammer gives a higher strength, but it costs more points.

Griever wrote:So what's the point in giving the Dreadknight dreadnought close combat weapons that it can't use?

They nerfed the crap out of the poor DK, it went from bad to sucktastic.

Bad? You need to look at Nid codex if you want to see bad. Your 120 point monster makes a mockery of our Tyranofexes, Harpies, and Carnifexes. Even our Hive Tyrants look overpriced when compared to a DK.

Thousand Nuns wrote:

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Thousand Nuns wrote:Pg 2 of the rulebook faq states that you can use all grenades carried in an assault, so an ordo xenos can potentially dump rad, psychotrope and psyk-out i think in one go if they assault. Doesn't this make them a touch over powered? (Feel free to correct me on the list my codex is on loan at a mates)

GMs and Techmarines can do this too and I find those more scary than OXI.

Oh joy thanks for pointing them out as well. I'll be looking forward to that i've got two regular gaming buddies who've just started GK armies.

That IC ends up being pretty darn expensive. It just ends up being a unit you need to shoot rather than try to beat in CC. There are plenty of those already anyhow, no big deal.

If you can only cast a psychic power once does that mean Eldar can only fortune once?

wyomingfox wrote:
Bad? You need to look at Nid codex if you want to see bad. Your 120 point monster makes a mockery of our Tyranofexes, Harpies, and Carnifexes. Even our Hive Tyrants look overpriced when compared to a DK.

Exactly, just compared to the Carnifex the DK is much more survivable with way better weapon options. And Carnifexes can't take a jump pack option either....

targetawg wrote:

That IC ends up being pretty darn expensive. It just ends up being a unit you need to shoot rather than try to beat in CC. There are plenty of those already anyhow, no big deal.

dude, you can stack them all on an inquisitor and he turns out to be like 75 points, with (now stacking) hammerhand on him he's just barely over 100 and sure it'll go down if someone gets a good strength swing in on him, but good luck surviving all the s6 i6 halbards at -1toughness, psychotrope, blind, ect.

It's rough, but on average i can see them eating a sacrificial unit then dying in the followung turns shooting.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:If you can only cast a psychic power once does that mean Eldar can only fortune once?

Unless they are Eldrad Ulthran, yes.

Wouldnt having 2 different Farseers get around that issue? And if you only have one farseer, you couldnt cast it twice before anyways.

I like how they made a giant laundry list of what counts as Daemons...but forgot to include one of the most obvious choices...the Daemon Lords from IA books...LOL. DUMB!

Noir Eternal wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Bad? You need to look at Nid codex if you want to see bad. Your 120 point monster makes a mockery of our Tyranofexes, Harpies, and Carnifexes. Even our Hive Tyrants look overpriced when compared to a DK.

Exactly, just compared to the Carnifex the DK is much more survivable with way better weapon options. And Carnifexes can't take a jump pack option either....

Flying Carnifexes give such a funny image in my head...

CaptKaruthors wrote:I like how they made a giant laundry list of what counts as Daemons...but forgot to include one of the most obvious choices...the Daemon Lords from IA books...LOL. DUMB!

The standard FAQs never address FW stuff.

fox-light713 wrote:

Q: What counts as a plasma weapon for the Ulumeathi
Plasma Syphon? (p62)
A: All Plasma weapons, as well as Eldar missile
launchers firing plasma missiles, burst cannons,
starcannons, all Tau pulse weapons and any weapon
described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special
rules.

Wow, that's just, wow. Way to **** over tau with 90% of the their weaponry. The only weapons I can think of that arn't effected are rail guns, missile pods, seeker missiles, possibly Ion Cannons, kroot weapons, and vespid weapons. The tau Plasma rifle was an obvious one, but gees just wow.

Actually Kroot rifles are effected too: they shoot Pulse rounds, just like Pulse Rifles.
Really, this was just a stupid ruling on already stupid wargear, because there is no category called "Plasma weapons", meaning that players have to rely on fluff description, which breaks the practice of ignoring the fluff regards the rules and opens a whole new can of worms.

I am also surprised why people think that nobody will ever take Plasma Siphon. Ordo Xenos Inquisitor with Siphon costs only 35 points. Sure he's pretty useless character by himself, but I can see him being potentially useful protecting a Paladin Deathstar. OK, the range is just 12" but still.

By the way, how do Markerlights stack with Plasma Siphon?

Other comments...

The GK codex was sloppily written rules-wise. Unfortunately some questions remain unanswered. Such as Vindicares Turbo-penetrator. Answer for "I've been expecting you" query made things just even more muddy. Whole definition of "Plasma weapon" remains equally muddy. I mean, almost everything has "plasma" in it. Railgun slugs have plasma around them when they fly through atmosphere.

hilarious.. so many argued for +2A from falchions and now disappointed )))
but another big question: CoM vs GK units\Transport still unresolved.

Mind War, Paroxysm, and JotWW require a to-hit roll now. Interesting.

DarknessEternal wrote:Mind War, Paroxysm, and JotWW require a to-hit roll now. Interesting.

I think you might have missed a paragraph:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP value) and any psychic power that specifically states that it is a psychic shooting attack.

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

veritechc wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Mind War, Paroxysm, and JotWW require a to-hit roll now. Interesting.

I think you might have missed a paragraph:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP value) and any psychic power that specifically states that it is a psychic shooting attack.

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

All three of those are specifically called Psychic Shooting Attacks in their descriptions.

Ummm no. Codex still trumps rulebook and its relevant rule book FAQ. The Tyranid codex specifically states that I "automaticall hit" an enemy unit. So again, no, I don't need to roll to hit.

wyomingfox wrote:

Griever wrote:So what's the point in giving the Dreadknight dreadnought close combat weapons that it can't use?

They nerfed the crap out of the poor DK, it went from bad to sucktastic.

Bad? You need to look at Nid codex if you want to see bad. Your 120 point monster makes a mockery of our Tyranofexes, Harpies, and Carnifexes. Even our Hive Tyrants look overpriced when compared to a DK.

130 points for the DK, I think. Also, Dreadknights come pretty bare, and now don't even hit at st 10. All the upgrades come at a decent price, except one. The Personal Teleporter makes any Dreadknight very expensive, and only so-so in usefullness.

Very dissapointed with the Falchions ruling. Makes them next to useless for the points cost now considering you give up either I6 of a S8(10) hammer. Ah well....

L. Wrex

targetawg wrote:I would have like to of seen a ruling (even though I feel it's clear) on the psychic pilot rule:

Are vehicles psykers all the time or not?

I'm fairly certain it's answered in the rule itself that they're only psykers for the purposes stated, but I know it's one that's had some contention around it.

Other than that, good faq (including the BRB). Just nice to have answers, not sure I agree with them all, but I'll play it however told.

I don't understand this question. It specifically says they count as psykers for psychic tests and PotW. A specific ruling here. They're not psykers normally. How is this a question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:If you can only cast a psychic power once does that mean Eldar can only fortune once?

They've never been able to. Under spirit stones is specifically says that you can't use the same power twice in one turn.

DarknessEternal wrote:

veritechc wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Mind War, Paroxysm, and JotWW require a to-hit roll now. Interesting.

I think you might have missed a paragraph:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP value) and any psychic power that specifically states that it is a psychic shooting attack.

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

All three of those are specifically called Psychic Shooting Attacks in their descriptions.

Mind War is used in the shooting phase but is not specifically a Psychic Shooting Attack.

Now Jaws of the World Wolf is a Psychic Shooting Attack so it looks like to me you have to pass a Psychic test and then roll to hit.

Paroxysm states it is a Psychic Shooting Attack that automatically hits so no roll to hit there.

yakface wrote:The only ruling that rankles me a bit is the one that says that Coteaz's 'I've been expecting you' rule is resolved "as soon as a valid target is placed on the board", but then says after the shots are resolved the unit "can complete its move".

This seems to imply that units moving on from a board edge from reserves are placed on the table and then moved, which seems to be contrary to how the rules for units arriving from reserves are written.

That one jumped out at me, also. I suspect that they meant the 'complete its move' bit to apply to Deep Strikers and not to units moving normally, but it does read as an odd twist on the rules for moving onto the table.
Edit: No, that doesn't work. Deep Strikers can't move... Curse you early morning!

So, no, no idea what they meant with that one.


The ruling on scoring vehicles is a change to the RAW, but not at all unexpected.

Likewise:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:My defence of Daemon Princes in the past has been based around the agreement with most people who debated with me that surely possessed, oblits, etc don't count as daemons since they are described in the fluff as only being partially daemonic. But now, if my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a daemon, and everyone else was Human, the GK would get PE against me!

Oblits are a new addition to the list, but Daemon Princes and Possessed counted as Daemons in the last Chaos codex, so it really shouldn't have surprised anyone that they would still be included.

Regardless of opinions on specific rulings, going by the sorts of discussions I can recall seeing in YMDC since the codex's release, this would seem to be perhaps the most comprehensive first FAQ GW have released in some time. So kudos to them for that.

veritechc wrote:
Mind War is used in the shooting phase but is not specifically a Psychic Shooting Attack.

Yes, it is, and has been since the Eldar Codex FAQ(which apparently no one else bothered to read).

veritechc wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

veritechc wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Mind War, Paroxysm, and JotWW require a to-hit roll now. Interesting.

I think you might have missed a paragraph:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP value) and any psychic power that specifically states that it is a psychic shooting attack.

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

All three of those are specifically called Psychic Shooting Attacks in their descriptions.

Mind War is used in the shooting phase but is not specifically a Psychic Shooting Attack.

Now Jaws of the World Wolf is a Psychic Shooting Attack so it looks like to me you have to pass a Psychic test and then roll to hit.

Paroxysm states it is a Psychic Shooting Attack that automatically hits so no roll to hit there.

Mind War was FAQed to be a PSA along with E. Storm.

So now that it is official that you must roll to hit with JotWW, does this allow the Aegis to kick in for some protection from it?

NecronLord3 wrote:So now that it is official that you must roll to hit with JotWW, does this allow the Aegis to kick in for some protection from it?

Thats wierd though since I don't have to target a model other then my own. Does the Rune Priest manage to miss himself?

andrewm9 wrote:Does the Rune Priest manage to miss himself?

Why not? Certain RPGs let you roll to hit and miss the ground.

andrewm9 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:So now that it is official that you must roll to hit with JotWW, does this allow the Aegis to kick in for some protection from it?

Thats wierd though since I don't have to target a model other then my own. Does the Rune Priest manage to miss himself?

Per the SW FAQ, the first enemy unit that has a model under the line is the target unit.

So I was looking through the updates, and this caught my eye:

The Assault Phase
Q: Can a model equipped with multiple grenades use
all of them in the same Assault phase? (p36)
A: Yes.

At first glance (without having a book on hand to see what its referencing p.36 for), I read that you can use multiple grenade types in assault. For instance, frag has S4, and Krack S6. So you can use both at once in an assault against a vehicle? Or if you have frag, krak and melta you can use all 3?

Am I misreading that?

WarOne wrote:It has been a long time coming in calling anything not in the Codex: Chaos Daemon a Daemon. Aside from the Avatar which states it is a Daemon, this resolves the issue of what are Daemons.

It should but it won't because will argue it doesn't extend to other codeces. I agree with the list except for Oblits. When did marines infected with a technovirus become demons?

Q: Do psychic shooting attacks need to roll to hit? (p50)
A: Yes.

Honestly, I think you guys are reading way too much into this FAQ. PSA inherently follow the rules for "Shooting/Ranged" attacks. Shooting attacks all require the firing model to make a "to hit roll" unless the rules for the specific weapon state otherwise (examples: Templates, Blast Weapons, ect.). This FAQ is simply stating the obvious procedure that we already knew. There are numerous PSA and weapons that have their own rules for "hitting"...Paroxysm, JOWW, Psychic Powers that use templates, ect. IMO, this FAQ changes nothing.

Dracos wrote:So I was looking through the updates, and this caught my eye:

The Assault Phase
Q: Can a model equipped with multiple grenades use
all of them in the same Assault phase? (p36)
A: Yes.

At first glance (without having a book on hand to see what its referencing p.36 for), I read that you can use multiple grenade types in assault. For instance, frag has S4, and Krack S6. So you can use both at once in an assault against a vehicle? Or if you have frag, krak and melta you can use all 3?

Am I misreading that?

Yes. Against vehicles, using grenades reduces you to one attack (presumably using the best grenade you have, if you have kraks and meltas). This question is more about, say, a GK Grand Master assaulting into demons in cover. he can throw frags, psyk-outs, rads, and psychostroke grenades all at the same time.

Alendrel wrote:

Dracos wrote:So I was looking through the updates, and this caught my eye:

The Assault Phase
Q: Can a model equipped with multiple grenades use
all of them in the same Assault phase? (p36)
A: Yes.

At first glance (without having a book on hand to see what its referencing p.36 for), I read that you can use multiple grenade types in assault. For instance, frag has S4, and Krack S6. So you can use both at once in an assault against a vehicle? Or if you have frag, krak and melta you can use all 3?

Am I misreading that?

Yes. Against vehicles, using grenades reduces you to one attack (presumably using the best grenade you have, if you have kraks and meltas). This question is more about, say, a GK Grand Master assaulting into demons in cover. he can throw frags, psyk-outs, rads, and psychostroke grenades all at the same time.

It might be about the GK stuff, but this is included in the General FAQ, dude and is extremely specific: Yes, you can use all of them in the same assault phase.

That's huge!

Let's revisit this thread in 2 months when everyone claiming that their Grey Knights were nerfed come back and say that their games go by a little smoother due to rules clarifications.

I'm a bit surprised that Oblits and Possessed vehicles are demons now. Oblits are a meld of marine, demon, and machine so I can kinda see it. But a possessed rhino is still a rhino. Also, mandrakes being demons is pretty weird and unnecessary considering how bad they are in CC right now.

I had no idea pulse rifles were plasma weapons.

Now that PSA's require a to hit roll, people are saying Mind War, Catalyst and Jaws all require to hit rolls. Is this true? None of those powers have a profile like a ranged weapon, and (to my knowledge) are not specifically called PSA's in their respective codices. And I'm pretty sure Catalyst only affects friendly Nids, and you never shoot at your own guys in 40k.

Noisy_Marine wrote: And I'm pretty sure Catalyst only affects friendly Nids, and you never shoot at your own guys in 40k.

The Nids codex does indeed have Psychic Powers that are PSA's that hit your own unit. That's why you can't assault enemies after using them (like Onslaught). I don't think Catalyst is a PSA though. Even if it was, all of them are "automatically hit", so they wouldn't need to roll to hit anyway.

Noisy_Marine wrote: But a possessed rhino is still a rhino.

Actually, a Possessed Rhino is a Rhino Possessed and melded with a daemon, not a simple Rhino.

wyomingfox wrote:

andrewm9 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:So now that it is official that you must roll to hit with JotWW, does this allow the Aegis to kick in for some protection from it?

Thats wierd though since I don't have to target a model other then my own. Does the Rune Priest manage to miss himself?

Per the SW FAQ, the first enemy unit that has a model under the line is the target unit.

If the target is the first model, does it automatically hit everything else as long is it hits the first target?

As noted in the codex, it is a PSA. As noted in the BRB FAQ, it requires a to-hit roll. As noted in the SW FAQ, the first model along the line is the *sole* target. Based on the codex and SW FAQ, it's basically a crevasse opening up in the earth (hence the initiative test), but I have to see if it hits? What happens if it misses...does the line instead open up in a different direction? Fluff = rules now, right?

I'm confused...

Best to take it to YMDC.

spyguyyoda wrote:What happens if it misses...does the line instead open up in a different direction? Fluff = rules now, right?

It means if you miss, it opens straight down. Therefore, by fluff=rules, your Rune Priest is swallowed if you miss.

I'm just confused. This did clear some things up, but it sure didn't answer everything.

Edit: @ platuan4th: Thanks, that clears it right up

spyguyyoda wrote:I'm just confused. This did clear some things up, but it sure didn't answer everything.

Edit: @ platuan4th: Thanks, that clears it right up

PSA per the BRB (not the FAQ) have always followed the rules for shooting attacks unless the rules for the weapon/power stated otherwise. Shooting attacks per the BRB (not the FAQ) have always required a "to hit roll" unless the rules for the weapon/power stated otherwise.

This FAQ does not superceed the codices. It does not even supercede the rules for those weapon types listed in the BRB. All it does is restate what the rules for PSA have always stated. JOTWW states for you to draw a line 24" for which all models that pass though the line are affected. The SW FAQ further specifies that you must select a target in LOS (which must be the fist model that the line passes through) and that all other models are automatically hit beyond it.

So if you didn't need to roll to hit prior to the FAQ (because of an exception written into the powers rules), and all the FAQ did was restate the obvious, then you still don't need to roll to hit.

Except you do now need to roll to hit with Jaws - you need to roll to hit your target.

You have nothing in Jaws saying it autohits, so it doesn.t

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you do now need to roll to hit with Jaws - you need to roll to hit your target.

You have nothing in Jaws saying it autohits, so it doesn.t

Well, Psychic powers which are Template attacks (like Warp Rift, Hellfire) also are "Psychic shooting attacks". So do they require to-hit roll or not? Because BRB says that templates don't, but FAQ says that PSA's need, which to believe...?

I agree with wyomingfox: powers like Jaws, or Mind Worm etc. specify how they work, and nowhere they do mention rolling to hit or wound, hence they don't.

You look for the roll to hit, notice that it is type "template", and look up the rules that tell you waht to do instead.

Same as Eldritch storm being blast means it has (always, since start of 5th ed) scattered.

The rulebook sets out the basic rules you must follow. without permission to ignore them (Jaws does not state it automatically hits the target model, but then this would be a suprise if it did - the power as written has no target) you cannot ignore them.

You are required to roll to hit unless you are told otherwise. Jaws for the TARGET is not told it automatically hits, so it doesnt.

kronk wrote:

It might be about the GK stuff, but this is included in the General FAQ, dude and is extremely specific: Yes, you can use all of them in the same assault phase.

That's huge!

It is a general rules mechanics issue, but the GKs are the ones that can currently make the most use of it.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:Wow, no shunt scouting. I guess it keeps it from breaking the game.

Vehicles can score. Of bloody course....

No 2xS from Doomfists? Really? Weird.

Wow! Way to bend Tau over the bed with the plasma syphon! Seriously. "Hey guys. I'm sorry to say only your Missile Pods, Flamers, and Kroot guns are any good."

Pretty much the rest is obvious answers to dumb questions.

Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army couldn't be in any fashion broken. Needed, though, given how much Tau armies have been dominating the tourney scene for the last 10 years

nosferatu1001 wrote:You look for the roll to hit, notice that it is type "template", and look up the rules that tell you waht to do instead.

Same as Eldritch storm being blast means it has (always, since start of 5th ed) scattered.

The rulebook sets out the basic rules you must follow. without permission to ignore them (Jaws does not state it automatically hits the target model, but then this would be a suprise if it did - the power as written has no target) you cannot ignore them.

Umm no, Jaws specifies how the player must use the power. I mean, it doesn't even say what happens if it misses, if it has no specific target, how can it "miss"?

And how about Murderous Hurricane and Thunderclap, they are PSA's too. Can they miss too?

And what about old 4ed books which have Psychic shooting attacks which are not called "psychic shooting attacks". Does Lash need BS test, or Mind Worm?

Backfire the SW FAQ lists the target as the first model affected by the power.

Well, without the word "automatic" in the description of MH and TC, I would say you roll to hit and to wound.

Gah, why does answering one question cause 3 more?

It was a question that NEVER needed to be asked as it was already answered by the existing rules in the BRB. It's redundant

Nagashek wrote:
Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army could be in any fashion broken.

you measure 12" from the inquisitor, and everything inside resolves at bs1.
it isnt by unit, it is by model, it really isnt that bad to negate.

spyguyyoda wrote:Well, without the word "automatic" in the description of MH and TC, I would say you roll to hit and to wound.

But the Murderous Hurricane specifies that the power causes HITS: and until now, the consensus with Thunderclap has been that it does not scatter because it is not actually Blast weapon. Has all this suddenly changed?

Codex trumps BRB. Follow the rules listed in the codex and the related SW FAQ word for word.

It's about damned time that a Daemon Prince counts as a daemon.

Dracos wrote:So I was looking through the updates, and this caught my eye:

The Assault Phase
Q: Can a model equipped with multiple grenades use
all of them in the same Assault phase? (p36)
A: Yes.

At first glance (without having a book on hand to see what its referencing p.36 for), I read that you can use multiple grenade types in assault. For instance, frag has S4, and Krack S6. So you can use both at once in an assault against a vehicle? Or if you have frag, krak and melta you can use all 3?

Am I misreading that?

The way a buddy explained it to me:

"Think of it like this....You get one "attack" with a grenade, that requires dice rolling. If you have other grenades that modify stats, etc. then you can still use those.

For example if you have both offensive and defensive grenades, you could, if you were assaulted by a dreadnought and a unit of beserkers use your defensive grenades to deny the forces that assaulted you their bonus attack, as well as use a krak grenade to attack the dreadnought.

The GK needed this ruling because they have like 5 different types of grenades. Some modify initiative, some modify number of attacks, etc."

wyomingfox wrote:Backfire the SW FAQ lists the target as the first model affected by the power.

Yes, I know that, it says "in effect treated him as the target model" ...

Obviously that is based on the BRB saying that Psychic shooting attacks need valid targets (ie, LOS), just like attacking with a ranged weapon. But what about the Thunderclap then? It says nothing about target even though it is specified as a psychic shooting attack. I assume you can use it even if there are no enemy models anywhere near.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

You ever see a brood of 3 Carnifexes

SW players with JotWW would love to play that.

Until now me and everyone else at the FLGS played Nemesis Doomfists as S10 weapons...now they're only S6 I can see no one (and I mean no one) ever take a 2xDoomfist build, statistically the greatsword is so much better it isn't funny.

2.25 hits with 3 base attacks is better than 2 hits with 4 base attacks but mainly because of the rerolls to wound and armour penetration. Why did I even magnetise the sword hand...

If the Doomfists were S10, it would balance it out a hell of a lot more than making every GK player pay 15pts for the greatsword. However it seems they are trying to push the Daemonhammer now...much as I hate to admit it (mainly because it looks stupid) it looks like a viable option now.

As for the daemons thing: so does this mean their Preferred Enemy (daemons) works against all those units or is this only for the Daemonbane ability?

As for the plasma syphon...goddam. They want me to look through every army book weapon entry and find *any reference to plasma-based weaponry*. I had a friend accurately predict Tau weaponry would be included in the FAQ and I can say I was skeptical, oh how I was wrong to the lengths GW will go to make me have to get my hands on every codex they sell.

Sothas wrote:

targetawg wrote:I would have like to of seen a ruling (even though I feel it's clear) on the psychic pilot rule:

Are vehicles psykers all the time or not?

I'm fairly certain it's answered in the rule itself that they're only psykers for the purposes stated, but I know it's one that's had some contention around it.

Other than that, good faq (including the BRB). Just nice to have answers, not sure I agree with them all, but I'll play it however told.

I don't understand this question. It specifically says they count as psykers for psychic tests and PotW. A specific ruling here. They're not psykers normally. How is this a question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:If you can only cast a psychic power once does that mean Eldar can only fortune once?

They've never been able to. Under spirit stones is specifically says that you can't use the same power twice in one turn.

As I said several times in my post, I feel it's clear as well.

However, if you've seen the 101 threads in YMDC and on other forums about whether or not they count as psykers for crucible and other anti-psyker items, you'd understand why the clarification would have been nice. Heck, half the FAQ was just clarifications of things that were pretty clear by RAW.

Backfire wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Backfire the SW FAQ lists the target as the first model affected by the power.

Yes, I know that, it says "in effect treated him as the target model" ...

Obviously that is based on the BRB saying that Psychic shooting attacks need valid targets (ie, LOS), just like attacking with a ranged weapon. But what about the Thunderclap then? It says nothing about target even though it is specified as a psychic shooting attack. I assume you can use it even if there are no enemy models anywhere near.

See this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/375822.page#2935752

I personally dont have a problem with any of the rulings except the NDF. Page 54 of the Grey Knights codex states that "A Nemisis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons." Page 73 of the main rule book states "A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubbles the walkers strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)." Now I understand they are classifying the DK as a montrous creature (looks like a gd walker to me) but the weapon states it specifically doubles the strength to a maximum of 10. How are they now justifying it doesnt?

mjl7atlas wrote:I personally dont have a problem with any of the rulings except the NDF. Page 54 of the Grey Knights codex states that "A Nemisis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons." Page 73 of the main rule book states "A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubbles the walkers strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)." Now I understand they are classifying the DK as a montrous creature (looks like a gd walker to me) but the weapon states it specifically doubles the strength to a maximum of 10. How are they now justifying it doesnt?

You answered your own question: It doubles the walker's strength and a Dreadknight isn't a Walker, it's a Monstrous Creature.

mjl7atlas wrote:I personally dont have a problem with any of the rulings except the NDF. Page 54 of the Grey Knights codex states that "A Nemisis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons." Page 73 of the main rule book states "A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubbles the walkers strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)." Now I understand they are classifying the DK as a montrous creature (looks like a gd walker to me) but the weapon states it specifically doubles the strength to a maximum of 10. How are they now justifying it doesnt?

It doubles the strength of the walker. It's not a walker.

This, like the personal teleporter, was likely just a case of the DK being designed late, and them sloppily applying already written items. "Well, it needs a punchy Nemesis weapon. Hey, doomfists are Nemesis weapons that punch! Brill!"

Nagashek wrote:Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army couldn't be in any fashion broken. Needed, though, given how much Tau armies have been dominating the tourney scene for the last 10 years

Please tell me how the hell you are going to fit 1000 pts of shooting tau models within 12"? If you're within 12" you're going to get assaulted and very very deaded by Grey Knights the next turn with the exception being JSJ. Just means you can't rapid fire them. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for Tau but your crying the sky is falling because you are overlooking the fact that it only applies to models that are within 12" of one model out of the entire Grey Knight army. If a Tau player is deliberately fighting within 12" of the only model/unit in the GK army that negates most of his weaponry then he is doing it wrong.

insaniak wrote:

yakface wrote:The only ruling that rankles me a bit is the one that says that Coteaz's 'I've been expecting you' rule is resolved "as soon as a valid target is placed on the board", but then says after the shots are resolved the unit "can complete its move".

This seems to imply that units moving on from a board edge from reserves are placed on the table and then moved, which seems to be contrary to how the rules for units arriving from reserves are written.

That one jumped out at me, also. I suspect that they meant the 'complete its move' bit to apply to Deep Strikers and not to units moving normally, but it does read as an odd twist on the rules for moving onto the table.
Edit: No, that doesn't work. Deep Strikers can't move... Curse you early morning!

So, no, no idea what they meant with that one.

I suspect they were attempting to address the webway portal. So I guess as you start sliding your models across the table to represent their move---the minute your 'slide' starts and they are valid-----they get shot?

The problem I have with the NDF change is that they basically gave the dreadkknight a fancy power weapon even though they are already monstrous creatures. It is a very backwards/confusing way to give them two NFWs.

Does this mean I can't combat squad sterns out of a drop pod any more? Or was that ruled on long ago? The ruling says that units ariving in vehicles that arrive by deep strike and that have to deploy from them count as having deep struck themselves (rather then deploying from a cruising speed vehicle as i previously thought).

Sev wrote:

Nagashek wrote:Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army couldn't be in any fashion broken. Needed, though, given how much Tau armies have been dominating the tourney scene for the last 10 years

Please tell me how the hell you are going to fit 1000 pts of shooting tau models within 12"? If you're within 12" you're going to get assaulted and very very deaded by Grey Knights the next turn with the exception being JSJ. Just means you can't rapid fire them. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for Tau but your crying the sky is falling because you are overlooking the fact that it only applies to models that are within 12" of one model out of the entire Grey Knight army. If a Tau player is deliberately fighting within 12" of the only model/unit in the GK army that negates most of his weaponry then he is doing it wrong.

The problem with this is that most tau use of firewarriors is riding in devil fish, if you disembark your range is limited to 12" which means. Fish of fury won't work on plasma siphon. The tau tactic of dealing with 3+ saves is to drop 1 or 2 firewarriors in double-tap range and make the opponent roll dice till he dies. Preferably with marker light support. This brings up an even more interesting question of how does the marker light interact w/ plasma siphon [BS3 +2 Markerbonus=BS 5 -> set to BS1 by siphon or BS3 -> Set to BS1 by siphon then +BS from markerlights] In order to use firewarriors with any semblance of effectiveness against the syphon you will have to set up a gunline and trade S5 fire with enemies That have more shots, better saves, higher toughness and better accuracy. Grey knights are BUILT to fight gunline armies, the mass accurate S5 fire they can put down will chew up a T3 4+ armor infantry list. The siphon is not unbeatable, but it neuters a large amount of a tau list.

After thinking about it though, plasma siphon is by model and and distance from the inquisitor. Another counter could be to set up 12" away from the squad the inquisitor is in but out of 12" (You gotta have a good eye for the 1" mark here) from the inquisitor himself. Then double to my hearts content. And if the inquisitor is by himself. There are plenty of heavy weapons that can a single t3 model. With this in mind I think I'll have to conclude that the siphon isn't really that OP after all.

That said, Yakface does have a point, the siphon is not likely to see play in a major tournament. But you can troll the local tau player pretty bad with it. On the plus side, my tau are relieved that the turn one shunt assault with multiple dread knights and interceptor squads before I have even moved is pretty bad.

I thought tau dealt with term spam and MEQ with plasma fusion commanders and by pecking them at range with missile pods? Last I saw most tau players take bare minimum fire warriors in transports and hide them. Fire warrior heavy lists weren't winning anything, let alone tournaments against new armies before this.

Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

Darkwynn wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I'm with you on this one.

ShumaGorath wrote:I thought tau dealt with term spam and MEQ with plasma fusion commanders and by pecking them at range with missile pods? Last I saw most tau players take bare minimum fire warriors in transports and hide them. Fire warrior heavy lists weren't winning anything, let alone tournaments against new armies before this.

Head over to my metagame, where 72 Fire Warriors are using weight of numbers to shoot to death anything within 30". Not to mention, nine Broadsides to ensure tanks aren't an issue.

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Hrm, I always thought that was a rather generous wishful reading of something that to most players simply meant "the termi's effectively have 3A" and not something that meant the termi's effectively had 4A. The vast majority of people I ever saw read that did not interpret it as +2A.



That said, some weird stuff, the option to use both Frag and Krak grenades in the same turn in a vehicle assault gives SM units yet another tool, even if somewhat minor, to use against vehicles.



The Nemesis Doomfist thing just screams that Mat Ward really didn't quite understand the rules very well when designing that unit, though the rule does make sense from a RAW perspective. Why not just call it a Close Combat weapon? No, instead Mr. Ward needs to rename a DCCW to a Nemesis Doomfist that has the same effect as a Close Combat weapon would have.



The decision to go back and remake Obliterators Daemons again, when their current fluff and wargear/special rules really distanced itself from that, is somewhat odd. Likewise the inclusion of the DE units.



Jokaero limitations are somewhat silly, a rather awkward balance mechanism if that's what it really is as opposed to just lazy rules which is how it feels.




That said, mostly good stuff aside from these things. I'm *really* glad I won't have to deal with Scout Shunting units anymore, that was horrifically broken.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I thought tau dealt with term spam and MEQ with plasma fusion commanders and by pecking them at range with missile pods? Last I saw most tau players take bare minimum fire warriors in transports and hide them. Fire warrior heavy lists weren't winning anything, let alone tournaments against new armies before this.

Head over to my metagame, where 72 Fire Warriors are using weight of numbers to shoot to death anything within 30". Not to mention, nine Broadsides to ensure tanks aren't an issue.

That probably wouldn't handle my meta very well. It's polarized to either mass mechanized gunline (ig) or second turn assaults (nids, shrike, BA). I routinely fight (and lose to) lists that can drop 30+ heavy bolter shots a turn in addition to nine plasma canons and whatever the manticores roll out. Even my average list with it's paltry 20 missile launchers and total willingness to sit on the opposite board edge would probably nickle and dime that to death.

That said i've seen the terror of 72 fire warriors against certain armies. It can be scary.

So far I have not seen even a single plasma syphon make it onto the table. Sure the old 'fish of fury' is a favoured tactic of mine, but it's not difficult to railgun or submunitions that henchman/inquisitor squad to death. If the inquisitor stays back: the plasma syphon is no issue. If it goes forward (most likely in a chimera or choice rhino) it can be blown to pieces.

My only issue is how broad the term 'plasma' is and how lazy GW were in just rattling off everything off the top of their heads and leaving it so open ended. If they had a definitive list rather than: "okay guys, these are all we can thing of. If you find anything else which could be plasma based, argue and ruleslawyer until one of you throws you throws your syphon inquisitor across the room" I would be perfectly fine with this. I just don't think leaving interpretations of rules like that so open is healthy.

Pretty much none of the FAQ really affects my current purifiers list...however I think servitors mindlocking even when there is a techmarine in the squad is obscene. You need to buy an inquisitor anyway to get the henchmen squad in the first place. How does allowing a techmarine to take over the mindlock break or skew the rules in any way?

Sorry for being arrogant and not reading through all 8 pages of this thread as I´m going to sleep now but can anyone sum thing sup for me, like can the librarian cast 3 consecutive summoning psychic powers after another to summon 3 squads on the same turn for example?

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

To me, a GK player, it was pretty clear that the +1 from the specific rules was because there were two of them.

But that is finally settled....however, some of he stuff in the main faq....GW, please hire some good writers and editors....

Vaktathi wrote:
The Nemesis Doomfist thing just screams that Mat Ward really didn't quite understand the rules very well when designing that unit, though the rule does make sense from a RAW perspective. Why not just call it a Close Combat weapon? No, instead Mr. Ward needs to rename a DCCW to a Nemesis Doomfist that has the same effect as a Close Combat weapon would have.

Because then it wouldn't have the Daemonbane and Force Weapon rules. To be fair, giving them any of the other NFW options might have caused other balance problems.

Jokaero limitations are somewhat silly, a rather awkward balance mechanism if that's what it really is as opposed to just lazy rules which is how it feels.

Look at it this way, you get too many monkeys together and you'll be lucky if all they do is make their guns pretty.



On a sidenote, I'm glad that the FAQ came out, my GK list was still in the planning stages and now I have a better idea of what options to take/not take.

Wyomingfox - you;'re wrong: Specific beats general, not codex beats rulebook.

Plasma siphons require you to take a xenos inquisitor, instead of a libby + GKGM. You'll never see a siphon in competitive games, as theyre on a junk model.

Darkwynn - by definition BOTH the doomfist and sword are special CCW, as they are both weapons that do something other than hit people in CC. Doomfists are power weapons and the Sword rerolls hits and misses / AP. So this would mean you have two different CCW and NEVER get the bonus attack.

Trouble is you hop on over to the DCCW section where it states you get +1A for every CCW you have, and this is likely more specific (models with 2 different CCW vs models with 2 different CCW, one of which is a DCCW) so you would still get the attack.

So it essentially makes all DK 10 points more expensive (auto include, effectively) and a hell of a lot sillier looking, as the hammer is NOT big enough!

Vaktathi wrote:

The decision to go back and remake Obliterators Daemons again, when their current fluff and wargear/special rules really distanced itself from that, is somewhat odd. Likewise the inclusion of the DE units.

I suspect that Obliterators will be very different from what we know them today in the next Chaos Dex. Perhaps they will finally make the leap to monstrous creature to prove how much better than space monkeys they are.

thehod wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

You ever see a brood of 3 Carnifexes

SW players with JotWW would love to play that.

So many people fail to read the disclaimer after that.

Inferno Pistol stats anyone? I cant believe they forgot....again....

Vaktathi wrote:
Why not just call it a Close Combat weapon? No, instead Mr. Ward needs to rename a DCCW to a Nemesis Doomfist that has the same effect as a Close Combat weapon would have.

You do realize that both flavors of Dreadnought have Doomfists, too, right? It's NOT something special for Dreadknights.

Also, it doesn't have the same effect as a CCW for the Dreadknight, unless GW suddenly ruled that ALL CCWS are also Force Weapons.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I'm with you on this one.

It's not a powerfist or lightning claw, so it should allow for +1A. Even prior to the ruling on it not doubing strength (which I kind of agree with, even though it does contradict with how the old wraithlord rules used to work), it was still only a dreadnought CCW, and not a powerfist or lightning claw. Unless there is something I am missing, I think it should allow for +1A as an off-hand weapon.

Eldanar wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I'm with you on this one.

It's not a powerfist or lightning claw, so it should allow for +1A. Even prior to the ruling on it not doubing strength (which I kind of agree with, even though it does contradict with how the old wraithlord rules used to work), it was still only a dreadnought CCW, and not a powerfist or lightning claw. Unless there is something I am missing, I think it should allow for +1A as an off-hand weapon.

I don't see why not, as a Dread CCW and Force Weapon still grants a Furioso Librarian +1 attack for 2 CCWs.

Platuan4th wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I don't see why not, as a Dread CCW and Force Weapon still grants a Furioso Librarian +1 attack for 2 CCWs.

Thats where some players are getting confused though

The Nemises Doom Fist is a special weapon as it is both a Nemises Force Weapon (Allowing Insta-death and Daemon Banish) and a DCCW!
The Great Sword is also a Nemises Force weapon but is not the EXACT same type as a Doom Fist

2 different Special Weapons means you do NOT get +1 attack.

The Nemises Doom Fist is not just a CCW like with the Librarian Furioso. The two models here are not comparable because of that!!

I understand the argument with the Falcions more than this one because at least they were same type special weapons and the FAQ ruling IMHO is a reaction of how GW wants them to be played and not necessarily how the strict RAW would read without the FAQ. Which is completely fine by me because this is GW's game and not mine so they can do whatever they want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wyomingfox - you;'re wrong: Specific beats general, not codex beats rulebook.

OK, but in most cases, the codex is more specific than the rulebook. And many of the PSA rules in the codices are also more specific than the rulebook.

For example, in the case of Murderous Huricane, following the rules for shooting attacks, since it is a PSA: You first declare your enemy target and check LOS and range. Next, assuming the target is within range and LOS, you would normally role to hit (again following the rules for shooting attacks -- which again, the BRB FAQ redundantly reiterates). Except the codex tells you to do something else entirely. The codex specifically states that the "Unit Takes 3D6 Strength 3 Hits". You do not role TO hit because the codex specifically states that the unit TAKES the hits in the present. The codex is more specific than the BRB so its rulings takes presedencse as an exception.

A second example would be Thunder Clap, again following the rules for shooting attacks: You first declare your target and check LOS and range. Except the codex specifically states that the target is the RP. Next you would roll to hit. Except the codex tells you to instead place a blast marker over the RP and every enemy model touching the marker "takes a strength 3 hit". Again, you do not role TO hit because the codex specifically states that enemy models touched by the blast marker TAKE a hit. The codex is more specific than the BRB so its rulings takes presedencse as an exception.

Q: If a unit is the target of Unyielding Anvil, from the
Grand Strategy special rule, and it splits into combat
squads, can both combat squads claim objectives? (p22)
A: Yes.

I found this a bit naughty, as I assume you split the squad up before deployment, and they are treated as individual squads for objective holding, kill points etc...
so essentially you can give this to two units with one use. Sorry if this has been addressed already but I am steadily working through the threads. If it isn't a cock up it seems a bit cheeky and overpowered!

Stewedavers wrote:I found this a bit naughty, as I assume you split the squad up before deployment, and they are treated as individual squads for objective holding, kill points etc...
so essentially you can give this to two units with one use. Sorry if this has been addressed already but I am steadily working through the threads. If it isn't a cock up it seems a bit cheeky and overpowered!

No, just the inevitable result of applying the Combat Squad rules; Combat Squads are declared at deployment, not before.

I suspect that Obliterators will be very different from what we know them today in the next Chaos Dex. Perhaps they will finally make the leap to monstrous creature to prove how much better than space monkeys they are.

Yeah that'll justify another point increase on them.



Man Lash of Submission got nerfed!? Roll to hit? Meh.


Until GW adds NFW to the list of "special CC weapons" I'd say a NFW and a Great Sword get +1A for having 2 CC weapons.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

I suspect that Obliterators will be very different from what we know them today in the next Chaos Dex. Perhaps they will finally make the leap to monstrous creature to prove how much better than space monkeys they are.

Yeah that'll justify another point increase on them.



Man Lash of Submission got nerfed!? Roll to hit? Meh.


Until GW adds NFW to the list of "special CC weapons" I'd say a NFW and a Great Sword get +1A for having 2 CC weapons.

Wow I didn't pick up on that. Onslaught, Lash and such other powers that don't actually do damage but are classified as such nerfed. Tyranids just got a little more worn down because of this.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

I suspect that Obliterators will be very different from what we know them today in the next Chaos Dex. Perhaps they will finally make the leap to monstrous creature to prove how much better than space monkeys they are.

Yeah that'll justify another point increase on them.

I will also probably mean another price increase on the new Obliterator models. I take this ruling as a positive though. It means that a new Chaos Dex is coming and that is good.

You know ... all the chaos cult troops have to be partially demonic ... why aren't they on the list of demons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

veritechc wrote:I will also probably mean another price increase on the new Obliterator models. I take this ruling as a positive though. It means that a new Chaos Dex is coming and that is good.

It could be good. Depends on whether the new codex is awesome like the 3.5 codex or sucks donkey balls like the Nid codex.

And I'd rather not see Oblits costing around $30 each, even if they are no longer metal.

Probably not the best sign for a FAQ in that there's still serious questions being raised as a result IMHO...

That is why the InatFAQ exists.

Is Lash classified as a PSA in its own entry?

Kurgash wrote:Wow I didn't pick up on that. Onslaught, Lash and such other powers that don't actually do damage but are classified as such nerfed. Tyranids just got a little more worn down because of this.

The FAQ changed nothing for Nids as either our PSA hit either automatically (because the codex says so) or required you to roll to hit in the first place.

puma713 wrote:Is Lash classified as a PSA in its own entry?

Quick! Someone grab a CSM codex! I'd grab mine but its buried under a bunch of crap.