Just saw that new FAQs for the armies and the rulebook are up, thought I'd share it :

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&multiPageMode=true&start=2

And lo and behold Abbadon can join units with a Mark of Chaos.

And the Helldrake can turn it's head, nice

Q: Blessings are manifested ‘at the start of the Psyker’s Movement
phase’ – does this mean they happen simultaneously with Reserves
rolls, Outflanking rolls etc and if so which is resolved first? (p68)
A: They do occur simultaneously – as such, the player whose
turn it is decides in what order these things occur as per
page 9 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

Hellooooooo casting blessing when coming in from reserves!

I can't see them - workblocked.

Are there any eldar changes?

THere are also some laughable answers for Fantasy no one ever asked O_o

Eldar changes:

Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

Page 99 – Noise Marines, Options.
Change the third bullet point to “One Noise Marine may
replace his boltgun with a blastmaster at 30 pts/model. If the
squad numbers ten or more models, an additional Noise
Marine may replace his boltgun with a blastmaster at 30
pts/model..”
'
BOOOM!

Q: Do models nominated as Plague Zombies from Codex: Chaos Space
Marines count as followers of Nurgle for the purposes of Epidemius’
Tally of Pestilence? (p52)
A: No.

Tau Change:

Q: If Seeker Missiles are fired at a Zooming Flyer or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, what To Hit roll do they require? (p31)
A: 6+

Good to see they answered this (though I disapprove of the answer)....

Q: Does Abaddon the Despoiler’s Mark of Chaos Ascendant prevent
him from joining friendly units chosen from Codex: Chaos Space
Marines that have a Mark of Chaos ? (p57)
A: No.

It is a good day.

Thanks

Still no word on phoenix lord usr's affecting squads. Grrr.

I don't get the tau changes. Great! Now to hit flyers with seekers, we need a 6+ for the marker light and the missile. What a pointless change.

Hmmmmm Noise Marines now get the option of taking a Blastmaster in a 5 man squad, and another at 10 or more, rather than 1 for every 10. Too bad they didn't drop their point cost any :/

The Heldrake's ranged weapon is counted as a turret now, but does that include the Baleflamer?

Great, literally right after I printed the bloody things.

Seraphicus from DV is a special character of the DA codex?

edit. Vindicare bypasses Look out, Sir. Ouch.

Backfire wrote:
Seraphicus from DV is a special character of the DA codex?

I know, right? They are like 'should have got onto that special edition while you had a chance guys'

Woohoo, BS and WS 5 on Templar VenDreads... Oh well, it's a buff.

You'll have to change your sig walrus.....

 motyak wrote:
You'll have to change your sig walrus.....

Guess I do!

Assassin smassassing:

"Q: If a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule, a unit of
Inquisitorial Henchmen with one or more Psykers in it, or any other
similar unit containing multiple Psykers is within 12” of a Culexus
Assassin, does the presence of that unit add +1 to the Animus
Speculum’s Assault value or +1 for each Psychic model present in the
unit? (p53)"
A: Such a unit contributes +1 to the Animus Speculum’s assault
value no matter how many Psykers it consist of, unless those
Psykers have the Independent Character special rule in which
case each such Psyker contributes a +1.

"Q: Does the Vindicare Assassin’s Deadshot special rule supersede the
Look Out, Sir special rule for the purposes of Wound allocation,
meaning that the player who owns the Vindicare Assassin is still
allowed to allocate the wounds from its shooting even if their opponent
makes and passes a Look Out, Sir roll? (p53)"
A: Yes.

Down with Culexus and up with the Vindicares!

Helldrake's baleflamer just got even better!!
I mean, really silly better. I'm glad I have two

And noise marines are now good..... hmmm

 lunarman wrote:
Helldrake's baleflamer just got even better!!

And noise marines are now good..... hmmm

That or sales were lagging...

 lunarman wrote:
Helldrake's baleflamer just got even better!!
I mean, really silly better. I'm glad I have two

Do you mean stayed as good as before?

 Ledabot wrote:
I don't get the tau changes. Great! Now to hit flyers with seekers, we need a 6+ for the marker light and the missile. What a pointless change.

The only hope is that they'll give skyfire to the Skyray, like the entry in IA3 Taros Campaign.

That change doesn't cover Remora's though, as either the Remora's network markerlights and their seekers do have skyfire.
Or both the Tigershark and Manta and to a lesser extent the Barracuda.

Poor Air Caste...

 Malthor wrote:
Eldar changes:

Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

Seriously what the hell is up with this? How can they possibly even make this ruling (that and who the hell is stupid enough to even ask this question in the first place)? The only justification I can think of is that they don't consider units inside of transports to be on the board and thus they can't cast powers, but that should be in the main FAQ since that effects EVERY PSYKER IN THE GAME. I mean Eldar (particularly Mech Eldar) have been kicked pretty hard by 6th edition, this ruling just makes things worse and makes absolutely no sense.

Looking through it there are a crazy number of major rules changes moonlighting as clarifications. That Vindicare ruling breaks the game and should really have just been a complete re-write of his rules - its essentially saying that you can allocate wounds, take LOS, then allocate wounds AGAIN.

I had to laugh at the DA FAQ, there is a full page of Errata there which is easily the most I have seen that I can remember even including edition change over type things.

GW Has enough time to change the way wounds are allocated but not make it clear i i can enfeeble multiple times? this really cheeses me off. A yes or no is all i am looking for. yet, they have the time to completely change the way wounds are allocated. GAH!!!! crap!!!

Powerguy wrote:
GK changes:

Looking through it there are a crazy number of major rules changes moonlighting as clarifications. That Vindicare ruling breaks the game and should really have just been a complete re-write of his rules - its essentially saying that you can allocate wounds, take LOS, then allocate wounds AGAIN.

Well they needed a boost...

...

 Swissivy wrote:

Powerguy wrote:
GK changes:

Looking through it there are a crazy number of major rules changes moonlighting as clarifications. That Vindicare ruling breaks the game and should really have just been a complete re-write of his rules - its essentially saying that you can allocate wounds, take LOS, then allocate wounds AGAIN.

Well they needed a boost...

...

Not arguing that, the issue is that it would have been much much easier to simply add 'wounds from the Vindicare cannot be reallocated using Look Out Sir' to the end of the Deadshot rule with an errata. This is a perfect example of why GW are terrible at writing a clean ruleset, by changing the actual rule they would have a specific exception overriding a standard rule (no using LOS overrides normal LOS rules), but instead we are left with 'you can LOS his wounds and then somehow I magically reallocate wounds back to him again'. The wording they have used results in a pointless loop actually, since you allocate the wound, LOS it, then the Vindicare uses its Deadshot rule to reallocate it (the important bit being that it is still allocating the wound), then you LOS it again and keep going in this loop until you fail it.

Still no definite answer on TH/SS CML Deathwing though, unless we already have a definite answer?

Powerguy wrote:

Not arguing that, the issue is that it would have been much much easier to simply add 'wounds from the Vindicare cannot be reallocated using Look Out Sir' to the end of the Deadshot rule with an errata. This is a perfect example of why GW are terrible at writing a clean ruleset, by changing the actual rule they would have a specific exception overriding a standard rule (no using LOS overrides normal LOS rules), but instead we are left with 'you can LOS his wounds and then somehow I magically reallocate wounds back to him again'. The wording they have used results in a pointless loop actually, since you allocate the wound, LOS it, then the Vindicare uses its Deadshot rule to reallocate it (the important bit being that it is still allocating the wound), then you LOS it again and keep going in this loop until you fail it.

Sarcasm aside, I do agree with you. Sometimes even the QnA "yes" or "no" is not so clear as it should be... :(

We already know that we can take upgrades in any order we wish.

Points for Seraphicus is pretty neat. Being able to give the Halberd of Caliban to any DW model (not necessarily even in the command squad) is pretty odd, but what the hell. I'm disappointed that the plasma-landspeeder is indeed Heavy 3 and not Heavy 3 Blast; that pretty much nails that thing down as an overpriced, less durable, underpowered Vindicator.

Glad to see them clear up Abbadon, although the wording of the FAQ could have been better. I would've liked to see them add a special rule for Abbadon instead of making it sound like there was never a problem to begin with, but eh... unless there are more multi-mark models that come out it doesn't really matter.

The shooting wound pool and range bit is new. I don't have a rulebook on me to check the original wording, but that definitely sounds like a change in direction for 40k. I'm sure I haven't been playing that way though. Not having majority toughness affect challenges is a welcome clarification as well.

Well the Ork one hasn't really had much of an improvement. But really, the two that stick out are the melee weapon clarifications. Tankhammers and Big Choppas being AP- ... really? C'mon that's ludicrous. A Big Choppa could have easily been AP4 - good against pesky guardsmen, doesn't bash in the SMs and we get some extra strength. As for Tankhammers, I'm smashing you in the face/chest/leg/arm/privates with a rocket; how does this not breach your armour?

On the upside, burna's power weapon is AP3 - sliced Marines

NOTE: I may have missed those in the last FAQ... if they were there and I missed them, oh well.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

You can't kill models that are out of range. That's pretty significant, particularly for multi-flamer units.

The ways it is worded, you just need to be in range of at least 1 model. So make sure someone fires a gun w more range...

Can Markerlights affect flyers?
I vaguely remember a thread on here about it where I'm sure the general census was it could but obviously hits on 6s.
I couldn't find it in the last FAQ and doing ctrl f and searching for markerlights but it doesn't say talk about it (that I could see anyway).

Puscifer wrote:
Still no definite answer on TH/SS CML Deathwing though, unless we already have a definite answer?

I don't see any confusion with the new codex rules for it. What is the issue?

edit: ah... some made up controversy about the order of upgrades...

Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No argument here - my Tyranids, in particular, will enjoy this ruling.

But it creates a new question - does that mean that "Look Out, Sir!" can't reallocate a wound out of range? If so, hello character sniping.

 Lansirill wrote:
Being able to give the Halberd of Caliban to any DW model (not necessarily even in the command squad) is pretty odd, but what the hell.

Think you've misinterpreted that. It means that if you have more than one Deathwing Command Squad, only one of them can contain a Deathwing Champion with the Halberd of Caliban.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No its a terrible ruling because:

A) It changes the actual rule in the rulebook (which should never be done unless there is a REALLY good reason to do so, and certainly shouldn't be done through the FAQ section, but rather should be an errata/amendment).

B) It adds an additional 'gamey' element in that you now want to include one longer range firing weapon in your unit just so you have a higher max range to extend where you can pull casualties from.

C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Janthkin wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No argument here - my Tyranids, in particular, will enjoy this ruling.

But it creates a new question - does that mean that "Look Out, Sir!" can't reallocate a wound out of range? If so, hello character sniping.

Look out sir has always allowed the wound to be kicked out to a model regardless if it was out of line of sight, out of range or even if the shot was focus fired out of cover and LoS kicked the wound onto a model into cover.

In other words, for the LoS rule to work the way you're suggesting would mean it would have to say that it allocates the wound to the closest model to the character within the normal restrictions for allocating wounds. Because if you were to play this way there would be all sorts of times where LoS simply would not function at all.

 yakface wrote:
A) It changes the actual rule in the rulebook (which should never be done unless there is a REALLY good reason to do so, and certainly shouldn't be done through the FAQ section, but rather should be an errata/amendment).

Says the guy who wrote the INAT FAQ.

Yes, I agree with you than an FAQ is no place to change rules (other than through actual errata), but this is something that should have been in the rules to begin with. Not in range? Cannot be removed as a casualty. Really simple.

 yakface wrote:
B) It adds an additional 'gamey' element in that you now want to include one longer range firing weapon in your unit just so you have a higher max range to extend where you can pull casualties from.

I don't think that's going to be a big a deal as you'd think. I don't expect we'll see too many squads of 9 Bolter Marines with 1 Missile Launcher being to score extra kills.

 yakface wrote:
C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).

Given 40K involves pre-measuring now, couldn't you just place each template, see who's in range and who isn't, and go from there?

 yakface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not being able to kill models that are out of range is a good thing. Anything that gets us further away from 5th's so called 'true' LOS is a plus in my books.

No its a terrible ruling because:

A) It changes the actual rule in the rulebook (which should never be done unless there is a REALLY good reason to do so, and certainly shouldn't be done through the FAQ section, but rather should be an errata/amendment).

B) It adds an additional 'gamey' element in that you now want to include one longer range firing weapon in your unit just so you have a higher max range to extend where you can pull casualties from.

C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).

Frankly, I find it less "gamey" than only killing models in LoS. 1 model is in range of 10 marines, so suddenly all 29 of his out-of-range buddies are jeopardized, even though some may be more than double the possible range away?

It does leave some questions unanswered. What about rapid-fire weapons, for example? If you're double-tapping, does that mean nothing over 12" can be allocated to, even though the gun has a longer range available?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 yakface wrote:
C) It is significantly more confusing to identify what models are in range than before in certain situations (like if the entire firing unit is firing flamers, for example).

Given 40K involves pre-measuring now, couldn't you just place each template, see who's in range and who isn't, and go from there?

Yeah, the flamer example is a bad one - it's pretty easy to determine by waving the template around for a moment, something you're doing anyway to count up hits.

Q: Some units have rules that mean their selection permits other
units from that detachment to be selected as if they belonged to
different parts of their Codex army list (Heavy Support choices
chosen as Troops for example). If such a permissive unit is killed, do
these rules immediately cease to apply (e.g. units chosen as Troops
that were not Troops originally cease to count as such and so cannot
be Scoring units, or worse become illedgal units due to excess choices
from one or more sections of the army list)? (p109)
A: No.

Just... wut.

 Exhumed wrote:

Q: Some units have rules that mean their selection permits other
units from that detachment to be selected as if they belonged to
different parts of their Codex army list (Heavy Support choices
chosen as Troops for example). If such a permissive unit is killed, do
these rules immediately cease to apply (e.g. units chosen as Troops
that were not Troops originally cease to count as such and so cannot
be Scoring units, or worse become illedgal units due to excess choices
from one or more sections of the army list)? (p109)
A: No.

Just... wut.

Its GW, you expected something logical

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yes, I agree with you than an FAQ is no place to change rules (other than through actual errata), but this is something that should have been in the rules to begin with. Not in range? Cannot be removed as a casualty. Really simple.

That is the opposite of simple actually. As it stands in the rulebook now, the in/out of range check is done for the FIRING MODELS. You just check to see if any firing model is out of range of all models in the target unit and if they are, then they don't fire. THAT is simple and maintains the overall mechanic for range in the game without making things into a nightmare.

As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

I don't think that's going to be a big a deal as you'd think. I don't expect we'll see too many squads of 9 Bolter Marines with 1 Missile Launcher being to score extra kills.

It happens all the time. Like My Ork Shootas with their 18 range often only have range to a small percentage of enemy models within a unit, but now as long as I have a Big Shoota still firing at 36" I'm all cool. I know lots of people that had been dropping out Big Shootas out of their Boyz squad to save points and protect against Precision Shots, but now this new ruling definitely makes that a less optimal choice.

Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved
in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit? (p64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value.

Q: If a unit of models that are Psykers and armed with force
weapons are affected by the You! You’re a Traitor! result of the
Hallucination psychic power from the Telepathy discipline, does
this force them to spend warp charge points (if they have any
available) and activate their force weapons for the hits they inflict
upon their own unit? (Reference section).
A: Yes.

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged
weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted
Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s
base nearest to the target unit.

@yakface - it sounds like nothing changed to me, but maybe I've been playing it wrong?

Models could only be allocated wounds if any firing model in the unit had range and los (barring barrage), correct?

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Well, you're talking about doing casualty removal based on 'groups' of similarly ranged attacks, which is fine, but is technically still an abstraction that can allow a firer to kill a model that is out of his particular range (as long as it is within range of another firing model that has the same range).

The only true way to ensure that a model can't kill an enemy model out of his line of sight would be to basically fire every model separately.

As if Wolf Scouts weren't bad enough:

Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character join a
squad of Wolf Scouts and benefit from the Outflank special rule
because at least one model has the ability? (p27)
A: Yes.
Q: If so, do they roll to see where they enter play using the Wolf Scouts’
Behind Enemy Lines special rule or the normal Outflank special rule?
(p27).
A: The normal Outflank special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Does the The Leaders of the Pack special rule still apply to Space
Wolves taken as an Allied detachment? (p81)
A: Yes.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
@yakface - it sounds like nothing changed to me, but maybe I've been playing it wrong?

Models could only be allocated wounds if any firing model in the unit had range and los (barring barrage), correct?

No, the way it is written in the rulebook is you only check range to the firing models. If they are within range of ANY model in the unit being shot at, then they could cause casualties onto any model in the targeted unit (so long as that model was within LOS of at least one firing model).

So basically LOS and range work kind of opposite in the rulebook. You just check to see which models in the unit being fired at are completely out of LOS (and those models can't be casualties) but for range you just check to see which firing models are completely out of range of any models in the targeted unit (and those models don't fire).

But that's changed now with this FAQ.

 yakface wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Well, you're talking about doing casualty removal based on 'groups' of similarly ranged attacks, which is fine, but is technically still an abstraction that can allow a firer to kill a model that is out of his particular range (as long as it is within range of another firing model that has the same range).

The only true way to ensure that a model can't kill an enemy model out of his line of sight would be to basically fire every model separately.

But that's not what the FAQ tells us to do.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

The limitation is "any." So if one model has range to a target model, the target can be allocated to, period. It's essentially identical to the LoS restriction - if one model can see you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you. Now, if one model has range to you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you.

Yeah, I'm initially going with J here. It seems like it is ANY and is just answering a question from the rulebook not stealth changnig things like they did with LOS.

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

 yakface wrote:
As soon as you change that to require checking range to see what models in the enemy unit each firing model can reach all of a sudden you have to keep track of every single model's firing separately to ensure that each firing model isn't killing a model out of its range, or if you want to simplify it a bit more, you still have to make complex rules covering the 'out of range' rule for each weapon with a different range in the firing unit.

No, you really don't. 95% of the time, you check the guy with the longest-range gun standing closest to the target; if it's in his range, it can die.

Well, you're talking about doing casualty removal based on 'groups' of similarly ranged attacks, which is fine, but is technically still an abstraction that can allow a firer to kill a model that is out of his particular range (as long as it is within range of another firing model that has the same range).

The only true way to ensure that a model can't kill an enemy model out of his line of sight would be to basically fire every model separately.

But that's not what the FAQ tells us to do.

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

The limitation is "any." So if one model has range to a target model, the target can be allocated to, period. It's essentially identical to the LoS restriction - if one model can see you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you. Now, if one model has range to you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you.

We seem to be talking past each other.

I was responding to H.M.B.C.'s claim that the rules should just be written to deny models from out of range from being casualties, full-stop. And I was pointing out that the only way to actually achieve that ideal would be to resolve every firing model one at a time (in a theoretical sense).

I was not implying that the FAQ was saying this in the least.

Powerguy wrote:

 Malthor wrote:
Eldar changes:

Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

Seriously what the hell is up with this? How can they possibly even make this ruling (that and who the hell is stupid enough to even ask this question in the first place)? The only justification I can think of is that they don't consider units inside of transports to be on the board and thus they can't cast powers, but that should be in the main FAQ since that effects EVERY PSYKER IN THE GAME. I mean Eldar (particularly Mech Eldar) have been kicked pretty hard by 6th edition, this ruling just makes things worse and makes absolutely no sense.

That's kind of how psykers + transports work for all other units.

 kenshin620 wrote:

 Exhumed wrote:

Q: Some units have rules that mean their selection permits other
units from that detachment to be selected as if they belonged to
different parts of their Codex army list (Heavy Support choices
chosen as Troops for example). If such a permissive unit is killed, do
these rules immediately cease to apply (e.g. units chosen as Troops
that were not Troops originally cease to count as such and so cannot
be Scoring units, or worse become illedgal units due to excess choices
from one or more sections of the army list)? (p109)
A: No.

Just... wut.

Its GW, you expected something logical

It's... logical, but just incredibly stupidly written.

Oh snap. Dammit, don't we have enough real disputes! Now we H made us have a theoretical one. lol

 yakface wrote:
We seem to be talking past each other.

I was responding to H.M.B.C.'s claim that the rules should just be written to deny models from out of range from being casualties, full-stop. And I was pointing out that the only way to actually achieve that ideal would be to resolve every firing model one at a time (in a theoretical sense).

I was not implying that the FAQ was saying this in the least.

And I was talking on-topic.

I like this ruling - it's easy enough to implement, does mesh with the line of sight rules, and adds some additional tactical elements to movement, without bogging us down in too many details. In essence, it remains a unit-based rule - the unit has a maximum kill range for ranged attacks.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Powerguy wrote:
I mean Eldar (particularly Mech Eldar) have been kicked pretty hard by 6th edition, this ruling just makes things worse and makes absolutely no sense.

That's kind of how psykers + transports work for all other units.

So noted, but keep in mind that Eldar have been able to do this even when other psykers since 4th edition.

 Janthkin wrote:

Yakface wrote:

I was not implying that the FAQ was saying this in the least.

And I was talking on-topic.

I like this ruling - it's easy enough to implement, does mesh with the line of sight rules, and adds some additional tactical elements to movement, without bogging us down in too many details. In essence, it remains a unit-based rule - the unit has a maximum kill range for ranged attacks.

Yeah, but we already have people in YMDC saying that the only 'sensible' way to play it is to resolve casualties in range groupings...so since this FAQ answer effectively changes the RAW without actually doing a full job of it (via an errata) people are left wondering about the 'intent' of the FAQ answer and therefore there are already splinters forming as to how to play this.

So if they did want to actually change the rule to this then they should have done it more thoroughly because it is a change. As they've done it now it leaves people wondering if this is just an answer based on ignorance surrounding what the rulebook actually says or even if the answer is supposedly implying that you resolve casualties using weapon range groupings.

The Dark Eldar one doesn't seem to have changed at all.

Except there might be an additional explanation, of how and when Lady Malys Precognisant ability works, from last time. I say might because I'm not sure if it was in the last one.

 pretre wrote:
As if Wolf Scouts weren't bad enough:

Q: Can a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character join a
squad of Wolf Scouts and benefit from the Outflank special rule
because at least one model has the ability? (p27)
A: Yes.
Q: If so, do they roll to see where they enter play using the Wolf Scouts’
Behind Enemy Lines special rule or the normal Outflank special rule?
(p27).
A: The normal Outflank special rule.

They still have Acute Senses.

TBH I don't get the big hoo-hah about how Wolf Scouts are "bad" because they can't assault from reserves anymore. They're still outflanking meltaguns that'll almost certainly end up where you want them; they're only bad compared to how ludicrous they were in 5th IMO.

 yakface wrote:
Yeah, but we already have people in YMDC saying that the only 'sensible' way to play it is to resolve casualties in range groupings...so since this FAQ answer effectively changes the RAW without actually doing a full job of it (via an errata) people are left wondering about the 'intent' of the FAQ answer and therefore there are already splinters forming as to how to play this.

So if they did want to actually change the rule to this then they should have done it more thoroughly because it is a change. As they've done it now it leaves people wondering if this is just an answer based on ignorance surrounding what the rulebook actually says or even if the answer is supposedly implying that you resolve casualties using weapon range groupings.

People in YMDC reading too much into an FAQ ruling? You don't say!

It's possible it's just too early in the morning for me, but I don't see any ambiguity here - models which are not in range of any firing model cannot be allocated to, period. The existing rules for wound allocation pooling cover how wounds get into the pool for allocation; that part didn't change..

@Almightywalrus: They are bad in 6th because they are basically one shot meltaguns. You outflank, shoot something and get shot off the board. At least before, you could be protected in assault or destroy a second target.

Acute senses is a benefit from 5th, but not being able to bring an IC along on Behind ENemy Lines is another nerf.

I haven't run them since 6th dropped anyways, so it doesn't matter if they continue to nerf them.

Big one for Nid players like me: Mycetic Spores can now disembark units 6", which makes massed devourers, the Doom, etc far deadlier.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Big one for Nid players like me: Mycetic Spores can now disembark units 6", which makes massed devourers, the Doom, etc far deadlier.

Please release the model.

 pretre wrote:
@Almightywalrus: They are bad in 6th because they are basically one shot meltaguns. You outflank, shoot something and get shot off the board. At least before, you could be protected in assault or destroy a second target.

Acute senses is a benefit from 5th, but not being able to bring an IC along on Behind ENemy Lines is another nerf.

I haven't run them since 6th dropped anyways, so it doesn't matter if they continue to nerf them.

And I agree with this - Wolf Scouts are sub-par in 6th because they're relying on a lot of luck to cause any damage before they die.

 Malthor wrote:
Eldar changes:

Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No.

Ouch. I gave up playing Eldar to swith to Daemons over a year ago, but this still hurts. I used the vehicle's hull to extend the pitiful range of Guide and Fortune.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure if anyone posted this yet but from the first page of the BRB FAQ, the section on Vector Strike:

Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

 Swissivy wrote:
Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

There is only one wound pool. Different AP, etc, weapons get split into groups within the wound pool, but everything is still in one wound pool.

The ONLY thing this ruling does is put a max range on a firing unit's ability to cause damage equal to the max range of any weapon in the unit being fired.

 yakface wrote:

 Swissivy wrote:
Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

There is only one wound pool. Different AP, etc, weapons get split into groups within the wound pool, but everything is still in one wound pool.

The ONLY thing this ruling does is put a max range on a firing unit's ability to cause damage equal to the max range of any weapon in the unit being fired.

so to use the flamer example, if I have a squad with 4 flamers in it and 1 pistol and the squad fires at a 10 man squad but the flamer template can only reach 4 of the 10 models, since the remaining 6 models would be in range of the pistol...the flamer wounds would bleed into the rest of the squad?

 yakface wrote:

 Swissivy wrote:
Does this mean that if my whole squad is shooting at another unit which only has one model is in range the whole wound pool goes to the single model and once he dies the remaining wounds in the wound pool are wasted and we only go on with another wound pool of a longer range weapon (so probably a single rocket from a tac squad missile launcher)?

There is only one wound pool. Different AP weapons get split into groups within the wound pool, but everything is still in one wound pool.

The ONLY thing this ruling does is put a max range on a firing unit's ability to cause damage equal to the max range of any weapon in the unit being fired.

Then this means that I can allocate bolter wounds to the whole targeted unit which has only one model in 24' range just because I have a missile launcher... Right?

Yes, that is how the FAQ question/answer is written.

I was really hoping to see a clarification on if Imotek's lightning strikes from Lord of the Storm affected Swooping FMCs and Zooming Flyers.

Hmmm, what if I LOS a wound to the closest model but said model happens to be out of range of the firing unit?
o.Ô

Player not found wrote:
Hmmm, what if I LOS a wound to the closest model but said model happens to be out of range of the firing unit?
o.Ô

The same thing that happens if you LoS a wound onto a model that is completely out of line of sight...it still affects that model as the LoS rule is a more specific rule regarding how wounds get reallocated (its not following the normal rules for allocation).

Workblock.......so all BT got was BS5 on Dreads?!?

Q: Can a model with the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Zooming Flyers? (p80)
A: No.

Well that makes sense, unless the model with the repair ability is inside a zooming transport in need of repair.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Workblock.......so all BT got was BS5 on Dreads?!?

No. WS5 as well.



They removed the possibility to benefit from more than one Vow at 2k+ points games though.

Or have to buy more than 1 EC.

 pretre wrote:
Or have to buy more than 1 EC.

True.

"There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes"

20 points? yes please!

"Page 36 – Deathmarks, Hunters from Hyperspace.
Also add “Note that each unit of Deathmarks may only mark a
single enemy unit during the course of a game”."

Bah, dang it.

"Q: If a unit of Deathmarks deploys via a Veil of Darkness, do they get
to place another Hunters from Hyperspace counter? (p36)
A: No."

Ok ok I get it, you don't like Deathmarks being useful.
Seriously, is anyone going to take Deathmarks now?

They still can drop and wipe something out. Same as most alpha strike units.

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes,
do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash
and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)

A: No.

Take that, Necron haters!

 Blackgaze wrote:
"There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes"

20 points? yes please!

"Page 36 – Deathmarks, Hunters from Hyperspace.
Also add “Note that each unit of Deathmarks may only mark a
single enemy unit during the course of a game”."

Bah, dang it.

"Q: If a unit of Deathmarks deploys via a Veil of Darkness, do they get
to place another Hunters from Hyperspace counter? (p36)
A: No."

Ok ok I get it, you don't like Deathmarks being useful.
Seriously, is anyone going to take Deathmarks now?

Yes.

They are still are very good at eliminating or severally weakening enemy units.

 Blackgaze wrote:
"There is no Black Templars vehicles reference section at the back of
the rulebook. Does this mean I should use the Codex: Space Marines
vehicle reference section instead (meaning my Venerable Dreadnoughts
are now Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill 5, for example)?
A: Yes"

20 points? yes please!

"Page 36 – Deathmarks, Hunters from Hyperspace.
Also add “Note that each unit of Deathmarks may only mark a
single enemy unit during the course of a game”."

Bah, dang it.

"Q: If a unit of Deathmarks deploys via a Veil of Darkness, do they get
to place another Hunters from Hyperspace counter? (p36)
A: No."

Ok ok I get it, you don't like Deathmarks being useful.
Seriously, is anyone going to take Deathmarks now?

I'm actually super-ok with this change. Having played several games where literally everything in my army was marked by turn 2, it was not particularly fun to play against when abused, and it's hard to see that it was intended to allow Deathmarks to mark multiple units in the first place. This is one FAQ I was looking forward to.


That said, some of the other changes are interesting as well, and oddly out of character for GW, like the Blastmaster changes allowing two in a unit and the Heldrake turret thingy.

 Herr Dexter wrote:

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes,
do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash
and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)

A: No.

Take that, Necron haters!

*bangs head against desk*

Also, gotta love that the only ork change is

Q: If Old Zogwort rolls on the Weirdboy psychic power chart and gets a
psychic power that is resolved as a Shooting attack (specifically Frazzle
or Zzap) may he re-roll this power? If not then can he ignore the power
for the purposes of expending Warp Charge points? (p61)
A: No to both questions.

They must really hate the old git for some reason

Q: How many points is Interrogator-Chaplain Seraphicus, from the special edition Dark Vengeance boxed game?

Who even cares? Who asks this when its quite easy to use him as a standard Interrogator?

A: 125 points. Seraphicus is an HQ choice in a Dark Angels army, and a special character. He is an Interrogator-Chaplain armed with a plasma pistol, as listed in Codex: Dark Angels. He replaces the Interrogator-Chaplain’s Zealot special rule with his own Litanies of the Dark Angels special rule.

Your fething joking! What a load of bull. If he was supposed to be a Character he'd BE IN THE FETHING CODEX NUMBNUTS. Who writes these?

Actually, there was a thread bemoaning the lack of Seraphicus in the codex just yesterday. I thought it was silly, but apparently the FAQ writers didn't.

Thank you GW for making my choice to box up my Eldar and not direct any more $ at 40k a wise choice. Mechdar went from tournament tier to garbage overnight with 6th Ed. Not allow Farseers to use their powers out of a vehicles is just urinating on the army's grave.

I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Huzzah for Corvus Belli and Infinity!

Windir83 wrote:
Q: Blessings are manifested ‘at the start of the Psyker’s Movement
phase’ – does this mean they happen simultaneously with Reserves
rolls, Outflanking rolls etc and if so which is resolved first? (p68)
A: They do occur simultaneously – as such, the player whose
turn it is decides in what order these things occur as per
page 9 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

Hellooooooo casting blessing when coming in from reserves!

I think that's the wrong interpretation. It specifically says Reserver/Outflank roll. So a psyker already on the board, with a psychic ability that lowers Reserve rolls, can cast his power and then make the roll easier.

A roll for Reserve is different from the actual deployement, which is listed as a move (and we know psychic power is out at that point).

I'm also unable to access stuff because of work, so BT only received those two items? No second vow/EC after 2000 points and using the vehicle chart that grants BS/WS 5 to vens? That's it? How bout fixing what was damaged already guys. Hell, errata can fix these guys: cost goes to 14 ppm, come standard w/ grenades, rhinos cost less, more options/choices for SB. Done.

Also, what did Daemons gain/lose? Those are the only two I care about, personally.

 BlueDagger wrote:
I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Can't see how Nightspinners got any worse

 Flashman wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Can't see how Nightspinners got any worse

Nightspinners were fantastic, just most people didn't understand them. I had most people complaining they were cheese in 5th ed tournaments. Pieplate a horde and most fall over dead on a 2+ thanks to barrage negating cover typically. Then they move and another handful fell over. Versus 2+ you combine it with Doom at you had a Termi killing blast with Danger Terrain bonus. Versus bikes you could stop turboboosting with the monofiliment rule.

- Dangerous Terrain checks now allow armor
- Nightfight grants cover thus negating rending hits
- Nightfight disallows targeting past 36"
- Holofields are now garbage
- Turboboost is now in the shooting phase
- Vehicles are auto gibbed in CC

No need to continue...

Backfire wrote:
Vindicare bypasses Look out, Sir. Ouch.

It is indeed a good day!

 BlueDagger wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Can't see how Nightspinners got any worse

Nightspinners were fantastic, just most people didn't understand them. I had most people complaining they were cheese in 5th ed tournaments. Pieplate a horde and most fall over dead on a 2+ thanks to barrage negating cover typically. Then they move and another handful fell over. Versus 2+ you combine it with Doom at you had a Termi killing blast with Danger Terrain bonus. Versus bikes you could stop turboboosting with the monofiliment rule.

- Dangerous Terrain checks now allow armor
- Nightfight grants cover thus negating rending hits
- Nightfight disallows targeting past 36"
- Holofields are now garbage
- Turboboost is now in the shooting phase
- Vehicles are auto gibbed in CC

No need to continue...

Where is this from?

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes, do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)
A: No

Oh, man, look at that. The intent clearly stated in the codex turned out to be right. Who'da thunkit?

blood reaper wrote:

Where is this from?

Vehicles are always hit on a 3+ at worst in CC by anything that's at least WS2, regardless of how far a vehicle has moved. Coupled with HP's, vehicles still hit on rear armor, and krak grenades being ubiquitous, it is easier for a tac squad to kill a flat out moving holofield tank on a charge than to kill 2 basic marines. A 10 man unit charging with krak grenades against any vehicle, no matter how far it has moved, as long as its rear AV is 10 (95% of the vehicles in the game), it will more than average the 3 HP loss required to kill it.

 blood reaper wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Can't see how Nightspinners got any worse

Nightspinners were fantastic, just most people didn't understand them. I had most people complaining they were cheese in 5th ed tournaments. Pieplate a horde and most fall over dead on a 2+ thanks to barrage negating cover typically. Then they move and another handful fell over. Versus 2+ you combine it with Doom at you had a Termi killing blast with Danger Terrain bonus. Versus bikes you could stop turboboosting with the monofiliment rule.

- Dangerous Terrain checks now allow armor
- Nightfight grants cover thus negating rending hits
- Nightfight disallows targeting past 36"
- Holofields are now garbage
- Turboboost is now in the shooting phase
- Vehicles are auto gibbed in CC

No need to continue...

Where is this from?

Sorry, that is more my opinion. Eldar skimmers use to reliably be able to get near an enemy force at high speed and the enemy would need 6+s to hit. In combination with Holofields it was extremely difficult to down them in CC. Now the worst you need in CC is a 3+ and models are no longer limited to 1 attack with most grenades. This means that even you basic 10 IG with krak went from 10 attack needing 6+ to 20 attacks needing 3+.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm also unable to access stuff because of work, so BT only received those two items? No second vow/EC after 2000 points and using the vehicle chart that grants BS/WS 5 to vens? That's it? How bout fixing what was damaged already guys. Hell, errata can fix these guys: cost goes to 14 ppm, come standard w/ grenades, rhinos cost less, more options/choices for SB. Done.

Also, what did Daemons gain/lose? Those are the only two I care about, personally.

Because its too easy to type a couple sentences and make a portion of your paying customers happy.

 BlueDagger wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Can't see how Nightspinners got any worse

Nightspinners were fantastic, just most people didn't understand them. I had most people complaining they were cheese in 5th ed tournaments. Pieplate a horde and most fall over dead on a 2+ thanks to barrage negating cover typically. Then they move and another handful fell over. Versus 2+ you combine it with Doom at you had a Termi killing blast with Danger Terrain bonus. Versus bikes you could stop turboboosting with the monofiliment rule.

- Dangerous Terrain checks now allow armor
- Nightfight grants cover thus negating rending hits
- Nightfight disallows targeting past 36"
- Holofields are now garbage
- Turboboost is now in the shooting phase
- Vehicles are auto gibbed in CC

No need to continue...

Where is this from?

Sorry, that is more my opinion. Eldar skimmers use to reliably be able to get near an enemy force at high speed and the enemy would need 6+s to hit. In combination with Holofields it was extremely difficult to down them in CC. Now the worst you need in CC is a 3+ and models are no longer limited to 1 attack with most grenades. This means that even you basic 10 IG with krak went from 10 attack needing 6+ to 20 attacks needing 3+.

You only ever get one attack per model on assault with grenades regardless of the model's actual Attack characteristic. See page 61 of the main book.

 Deadshot wrote:


Your fething joking! What a load of bull. If he was supposed to be a Character he'd BE IN THE FETHING CODEX NUMBNUTS. Who writes these?

You mean like if they wanted every model in a Company Vets squad to be able to take an option?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:


Your fething joking! What a load of bull. If he was supposed to be a Character he'd BE IN THE FETHING CODEX NUMBNUTS. Who writes these?

You mean like if they wanted every model in a Company Vets squad to be able to take an option?

Yes, the one irritation in an otherwise good codex, is the sheer number of glaring typos that I spotted on my first read through. I know it's easy to miss them when you've been working on a big document for ages, but that's what proof readers are for.

andrewm9 wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

Can't see how Nightspinners got any worse

Nightspinners were fantastic, just most people didn't understand them. I had most people complaining they were cheese in 5th ed tournaments. Pieplate a horde and most fall over dead on a 2+ thanks to barrage negating cover typically. Then they move and another handful fell over. Versus 2+ you combine it with Doom at you had a Termi killing blast with Danger Terrain bonus. Versus bikes you could stop turboboosting with the monofiliment rule.

- Dangerous Terrain checks now allow armor
- Nightfight grants cover thus negating rending hits
- Nightfight disallows targeting past 36"
- Holofields are now garbage
- Turboboost is now in the shooting phase
- Vehicles are auto gibbed in CC

No need to continue...

Where is this from?

Sorry, that is more my opinion. Eldar skimmers use to reliably be able to get near an enemy force at high speed and the enemy would need 6+s to hit. In combination with Holofields it was extremely difficult to down them in CC. Now the worst you need in CC is a 3+ and models are no longer limited to 1 attack with most grenades. This means that even you basic 10 IG with krak went from 10 attack needing 6+ to 20 attacks needing 3+.

You only ever get one attack per model on assault with grenades regardless of the model's actual Attack characteristic. See page 61 of the main book.

Touche, I stopped playing 40k about 3 months ago so I'm rusty on 6th ed. However even 10 S6 Krak attacks is statistically 3.3 statistical glances/pens on a AV 10 vehicle. That is vs the 0.68 statistical glances/pens in 5th ed and that isn't even taking into account the holofields that are now useless.

andrewm9 wrote:

You only ever get one attack per model on assault with grenades regardless of the model's actual Attack characteristic. See page 61 of the main book.

Even with only one attack however, a 10man squad even with below average rolling will on average kill 95% of the vehicles in the game in one round as a result of the to-hit changes, HP's and hitting on rear armor.

But atleast transports can now have their occupants overwatch out of firepoints.

Another reason why the Devilfish is crap.

Q: If a unit embarked in a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes, do they suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves as per the Crash and Burn rule before they are placed in reserve?
A:No

Its times like this there was an "up yours" emoticon.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
But atleast transports can now have their occupants overwatch out of firepoints.

that was already a rule. First sentence of P80.

 WarOne wrote:
And lo and behold Abbadon can join units with a Mark of Chaos.

Which is good for like the two people that still take him.

Windir83 wrote:
Page 99 – Noise Marines, Options.
Change the third bullet point to “One Noise Marine may
replace his boltgun with a blastmaster at 30 pts/model. If the
squad numbers ten or more models, an additional Noise
Marine may replace his boltgun with a blastmaster at 30
pts/model..”
'
BOOOM!

Yup, CSM are gonna roll Ravenwing now.

 Shandara wrote:
Q: Do models nominated as Plague Zombies from Codex: Chaos Space
Marines count as followers of Nurgle for the purposes of Epidemius’
Tally of Pestilence? (p52)
A: No.

Oh well..

 adhuin wrote:

"Q: Does the Vindicare Assassin’s Deadshot special rule supersede the
Look Out, Sir special rule for the purposes of Wound allocation,
meaning that the player who owns the Vindicare Assassin is still
allowed to allocate the wounds from its shooting even if their opponent
makes and passes a Look Out, Sir roll? (p53)"
A: Yes.

Down with Culexus and up with the Vindicares!

Vindicare Assassins can now actually *gasp!* assassinate people? (I.E no look out sir) Awesomesauce! Vindicares own now.

 Malthor wrote:

I had to laugh at the DA FAQ, there is a full page of Errata there which is easily the most I have seen that I can remember even including edition change over type things.

The Dark Angel one is hilarious. So many basic errors in the printed edition. I really like that they realised they forgot an entire special character from the DA book. This is pretty gak even by Games Workshop standards.

 pretre wrote:
Q: Do models in a multiple Toughness value unit who are involved
in a Challenge still use the majority Toughness of their unit? (p64)
A: No, they use their own Toughness value.

This actually used to come up fairly often because if playing RAW, they still used majority Toughness. I'm glad they fixed it.

 pretre wrote:
Q: How do I determine the Arc of Sight for a Heldrake’s ranged
weapon? (p52)
A: Treat the Heldrake’s ranged weapon as a Turret Mounted
Weapon, measuring all ranges from the edge of the Heldrake’s
base nearest to the target unit.

Heldrake weapons are turrets, meaning they can blow up a transport then gak flames all over its contents from behind.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Q: Can a model with the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Zooming Flyers? (p80)
A: No.

Well that makes sense, unless the model with the repair ability is inside a zooming transport in need of repair.

No more meks throwing wrenches at airplanes...

Also:

-- Kelly's Noise Marine stupidity got fixed, they're much nicer now.

-- For all that is holy, they finally FAQed Mycetic spores so you get a 6" disembark like on every other thing you disembark from.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

So flamers of Tzeentch can only fry models under the flame template unless one of them also shoots 18" range warp fire then the flame templates can reach out 18" to fry models.

I'm with Yakface on this one, it doesn't help and just makes the system more gamey.

 Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:
The Dark Eldar one doesn't seem to have changed at all.

Except there might be an additional explanation, of how and when Lady Malys Precognisant ability works, from last time. I say might because I'm not sure if it was in the last one.

Yeah, I didn't see anything in there other than lady Malys clarifications. Missed a perfect oppertunity to give Wyches their dodge save vs all wounds. Thus making them somewhat useful again.

If you can overwatch out of transports, does that mean you can overwatch out of buildings since they are treated as immobile transport vehicles in most cases?

Deathmarks back to trash tier, woop woop.

 BlueDagger wrote:
Thank you GW for making my choice to box up my Eldar and not direct any more $ at 40k a wise choice. Mechdar went from tournament tier to garbage overnight with 6th Ed. Not allow Farseers to use their powers out of a vehicles is just urinating on the army's grave.

I own 6 Wave Serpents, 2 Vypers, 3 Fire Prisms, and 3 Nightspinners and they are ALL now officially garbage.

I too am shocked that an almost 7-year-old codex is sub-par 2 game editions later... now stop whining and buy more space marines! Shareholder Ferraris don't fuel themselves you know.

 Ledabot wrote:
I don't get the tau changes. Great! Now to hit flyers with seekers, we need a 6+ for the marker light and the missile. What a pointless change.

Only superior Tau technology is capable of building absolute worst anti-aircraft unit in the entire Galaxy...

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes,
do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash
and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)
A: No.
-----
Q: When making Snap Shots, do weapons with a special rule or
effect that only applies on To Hit rolls of a 6 retain these abilities?
For example Necron Tesla weapons? (p13)
A: Yes.
----


some vindication here.... local group argued me blue in the face to the opposite on these. "Victory is mine!" - stewie griffen

Vector Strike ignores cover now? Damn the Hell Turkeys just keep getting better and better!

And not one mention of the Valkyrie's/Vendetta's Scout/Outflank issue.

 alarmingrick wrote:
And not one mention of the Valkyrie's/Vendetta's Scout/Outflank issue.

Not even an IG FAQ. I got all excited...

Two biggest things I have seen are the max range on wounds (maybe a lascannon in the vet squad isnt such a bad idea now) and Force Weapons now bypass FNP.

Also, I think GK lost access to Telepathy which is... odd...

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Vector Strike ignores cover now? Damn the Hell Turkeys just keep getting better and better!

That and the Turret mounted weapon.. It's amazing.

 Happygrunt wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:
And not one mention of the Valkyrie's/Vendetta's Scout/Outflank issue.

Not even an IG FAQ. I got all excited...

Two biggest things I have seen are the max range on wounds (maybe a lascannon in the vet squad isnt such a bad idea now) and Force Weapons now bypass FNP.

Also, I think GK lost access to Telepathy which is... odd...

Not really. You've got the chimera multilaser turret. Since that and the embarked unit shoot at the same time wouldn't that work for extending their "kill range" anyways?

No. Just no.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Not really. You've got the chimera multilaser turret. Since that and the embarked unit shoot at the same time...

Where on Earth did you ever get that idea?

These threads just breed 'interesting' interpretations.

 Sasori wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Vector Strike ignores cover now? Damn the Hell Turkeys just keep getting better and better!

That and the Turret mounted weapon.. It's amazing.

Wait, the heldrake's gun is turret mounted? Awesome sauce. i may have to buy three and laugh as they vectorstrike and then poop flames on my enemies.

Then again i might have one with an auto cannon for flyer hunting.

Lets make all our $75 fliers super freakn awesome and everyone else can just deal with it. Thanks GW, this game gets better every day. But then again there is no game that isnt fun when I roll all three dakka jets on turn 2 ^.^

This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

 MikeFox wrote:


This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

Nah, you'll get another quirky lolrandomeffects bommer again. GW loves to do that for orks

Or get the warkopta. I wonder if anyone actually uses those

The limitation is "any." So if one model has range to a target model, the target can be allocated to, period. It's essentially identical to the LoS restriction - if one model can see you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you. Now, if one model has range to you, any model in the shooting unit can kill you.

So why do people say multi flamer units are crap then?

If i have 4 flamers and one bolter then those flamers can kill up to bolter range targets in the enemy squad they shoot at.

Or?

 MikeFox wrote:
Lets make all our $75 fliers super freakn awesome and everyone else can just deal with it. Thanks GW, this game gets better every day. But then again there is no game that isnt fun when I roll all three dakka jets on turn 2 ^.^

This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

Oh dont worry it'll suck as bad as the others and then they'll only print it in white dwarf and when that isnt available they wont bother posting it on their website and sue button anyone that does post them for free

 pretre wrote:
No. Just no.

I didn't know for sure. Just asking.

 kenshin620 wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:


This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

Nah, you'll get another quirky lolrandomeffects bommer again. GW loves to do that for orks

Or get the warkopta. I wonder if anyone actually uses those

<wishlisting>
Now I can get onboard of warkaptas!

Six trukk full of boyz and 3 warkoptas with burna boyz or more boyz... righteous!

Windir83 wrote:
Q: Blessings are manifested ‘at the start of the Psyker’s Movement
phase’ – does this mean they happen simultaneously with Reserves
rolls, Outflanking rolls etc and if so which is resolved first? (p68)
A: They do occur simultaneously – as such, the player whose
turn it is decides in what order these things occur as per
page 9 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

Hellooooooo casting blessing when coming in from reserves!

As far as I understand, and from Yak's answer in the thread in YMDC, your Reserve Rolls are not the same thing as moving on from reserve. Reserve rolls, Outflank rolls and blessings happen all at the same time. Then, after that, reserve moves happen.

 MikeFox wrote:
Lets make all our $75 fliers super freakn awesome and everyone else can just deal with it. Thanks GW, this game gets better every day. But then again there is no game that isnt fun when I roll all three dakka jets on turn 2 ^.^

This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

Considering the Tau, which are explicitly the "don't bother with siege units because their fliers are so fricking awesome" race are rumored to be getting a flyer that makes the Nephilim look almost useful in comparison, I wouldn't hold your breath.


Hell, they updated the Tau faq just to reiterate that the vehicle that was deliberately designed as an anti-flyer unit by Forgeworld is even worse at shooting down fliers than a half-squad of Firecaste Warriors.

Please no QQ from Tau or Eldar until after GW screws you with a crappy flyer. Failure to abide by that rule will result in merciless ridicule if GW doesn't screw you and the new flyers turn out to be good.

My hope is the new Tau flyer has a marker light like effect that gives another unit skyfire.

Hi,
Anyone thinks that the "new" wound rule can be an error?
It's not the first time GW made an error in FAQs, like Eldar Shadowseer.
In fact if you change range with LoS the QA is correct.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Please no QQ from Tau or Eldar until after GW screws you with a crappy flyer. Failure to abide by that rule will result in merciless ridicule if GW doesn't screw you and the new flyers turn out to be good.

lol - the only crying my eldar will do will be tears of joy at having something new released....It's been awhile.
Or if our new flier is the storm talon with an eldar pilot.

RogueRegault wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:
Lets make all our $75 fliers super freakn awesome and everyone else can just deal with it. Thanks GW, this game gets better every day. But then again there is no game that isnt fun when I roll all three dakka jets on turn 2 ^.^

This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

Considering the Tau, which are explicitly the "don't bother with siege units because their fliers are so fricking awesome" race are rumored to be getting a flyer that makes the Nephilim look almost useful in comparison, I wouldn't hold your breath.


Hell, they updated the Tau faq just to reiterate that the vehicle that was deliberately designed as an anti-flyer unit by Forgeworld is even worse at shooting down fliers than a half-squad of Firecaste Warriors.

Let's just hope the Skyray will be fixed with the new codex and finally fulfills it's role.

I'm happy for all those Emperor's Children players that were pissed their 6 man squads w/blastmaster were illegal in the new codex.

A 5 man squad with a blastmaster may very well be the best troop choice in the chaos codex now. A pretty crazy change for a FAQ

Also, Heldrakes really hate the world. Awesome.

 MikeFox wrote:
This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

I LoL'd for real.

 whembly wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:


This rumored new ork fiier better be broken as feth, Im talking 8 twin linked las cannons and a gun that shoots mega'nobs into CC with the enemy broken

Nah, you'll get another quirky lolrandomeffects bommer again. GW loves to do that for orks

Or get the warkopta. I wonder if anyone actually uses those

<wishlisting>
Now I can get onboard of warkaptas!

Six trukk full of boyz and 3 warkoptas with burna boyz or more boyz... righteous!

I have been waiting for this flyer too... Wazoo's air ship is what I am envisioning. haha.

but for those of you looking for warkoptas, in case you didn't notice these crop up recently

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/500454.page


cheers!

I now know what I want to see released more than anything. A Tau flyer with crappy S6 missiles and 2 non twin linked rail cannons that shoot at BS3 and have a 100% chance of causing the tau player to engage in wailing and gnashing of teeth when they both miss.

Tzeentch lords with scrolls become a psyker! that's actually pretty cool.
not actually very useful, but still cool.

 schadenfreude wrote:
I now know what I want to see released more than anything. A Tau flyer with crappy S6 missiles and 2 non twin linked rail cannons that shoot at BS3 and have a 100% chance of causing the tau player to engage in wailing and gnashing of teeth when they both miss.

Well, we don't have rail cannons, but we do have rail rifles and rail guns. There's a big difference between the two. Depending on which it is, maybe I'll be impressed, maybe not. Though even two rail rifles would be nice, if the price isn't horrific.

Just seen the changes to Heldrake for the fourth time and it finally sunk in. Apex Predator of 40k. Like a FMC, but with AV annd HPs. I need mine built NOW!!!

Yeah yesterday, while a friend whas playing against a SW, i explained him about this part of the faq, he looked at me, looked at his heldrake, looked at me again, and i saw the malice and evilness in his eyes, because he just had Vectorstriked a Rhino open, and whil he though that he would have to fire the Balflamer elsewhere, when i told him, he just took a split second to decide his target...

yeah,
late to the party but I just picked up the dark angel codex and also read the dark angels FAQ.
That is a feth load of errata...
Some really really bad slip ups in one of the new better extra expensive books!

Panic...