Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

They really need to expand the Argument Phase as the current "roll a D6" resolution mechanic lacks tactical depth. They should add a few tables to roll on. Oh and give bonuses for Chaplains, Dark Apostles and Ethereals too!

They could accompany that with a terrain release for a Temple of Resolution, which gives bonuses in the Argument Phase to Imperial armies, just for that extra touch of fairness!

 insaniak wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

They really need to expand the Argument Phase as the current "roll a D6" resolution mechanic lacks tactical depth. They should add a few tables to roll on. Oh and give bonuses for Chaplains, Dark Apostles and Ethereals too!

They could accompany that with a terrain release for a Temple of Resolution, which gives bonuses in the Argument Phase to Imperial armies, just for that extra touch of fairness!

Yes! And it should be Toughness 7!

I can't find the ruling about the dread's attacks. Where is it?

Ragnar69 wrote:
I can't find the ruling about the dread's attacks. Where is it?

Last page. They get 2 attacks, per their profile.

I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

I was thinking the same thing. They know they have their thumb in the dike, and it's already cracking.

Once they fix all 200 bad units, however, they would be done with balancing and they could concentrate on 8th.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

I was thinking the same thing. They know they have their thumb in the dike, and it's already cracking.

Once they fix all 200 bad units, however, they would be done with balancing and they could concentrate on 8th.

I think that 8th edition will be how GW fixes those 200 "bad" units. Hell, the sheer magnitude of this FAQ effort shows that GW is acknowledging that the game has problems. That's always the first step.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" .

There's a difference between updating a unit to match an identical unit that had been already updated elsewhere and ' fixing' random units that people think need updating.


Historically, GW have flip flopped back and forth between updating everyone to the same rules via FAQ and playing the various codexes as written...

 EnTyme wrote:

I think that 8th edition will be how GW fixes those 200 "bad" units. Hell, the sheer magnitude of this FAQ effort shows that GW is acknowledging that the game has problems. That's always the first step.

And the Dread page shows that GW does not care at all regarding the rules
they just checked that being nice to the players and support veterans increase sales

GW does know that their rules have problems, but they don't care. This FAQ has by know made more problems than it solved (most questions could be answers with "read the rules" anyway) and 8th will not fix anything
It will leave the bad units were they are, give us some shiny new ones and proceed as before

We are at the same stage as at the end of 4th edition. Remember that there the same weapon in different Marine Codex books had different profiles because they never cared about it?
And remember how many of 4th/5th edition bad units were fixed with 6th edi?

and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

That's the thing even with this in effect you will still hardly see dread's on the table and if people are pulling shenanigan's then they will find a lack of opponent's soon enough.

I for one think this is a good thing and will now possibly consider bringing my furioso's back out to play occasionally as now they are half decent instead of total trash. That's all this really does.

I always field dreadnoughts. They're iconic, and they're decent heavy weapons units compared to devastators as you're stuck with the move or fire conundrum.

I like how the 'Official House Rule' excluded Helbrutes.

All we need is for GW to delete the old FaQs once these new ones stop being drafts for Helbrutes to becomes more expensive base (even if it is only by 5 points) than the houseruled Loyalist Dreadnoughts for 2 attacks and no bonuses.

Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Some of those were answerable by the book themselves.

Not sure how I feel about Iron Priest spam...you could literally fun a whole army of them now.

I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should

It is annoying that the Space Wolves can do an Iron Hands thing better than the Iron Hands......oh wait Space Wolves pretty much do everything the Iron Hands are supposed to do. So aggravating. And people wonder why I quit buying models.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I like how the 'Official House Rule' excluded Helbrutes.

All we need is for GW to delete the old FaQs once these new ones stop being drafts for Helbrutes to becomes more expensive base (even if it is only by 5 points) than the houseruled Loyalist Dreadnoughts for 2 attacks and no bonuses.

But this is balanced by the Crazed special rule. Helbrutes can get Rage!

motski wrote:
Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

Yeah because it makes so much sense for a guy riding a wolf to have the same strength as an Imperial Knight. Or to suddenly get a boost in strength from riding a wolf. A boost in toughness and rending I can sort of get (at least the intent of what it is supposed to represent), but the strength boost has always been silly imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What garage group/FLGS/TO would not choose to use the +2 attack rule? It obviously balances out the same models with the same rule.
Seriously, I'd love to hear someone's story about how someone was jaded enough not to allow it....and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

One of the local Eldar players tried to houserule marine dreads back to 2 attacks all the while he is fielding 3 or 4 WK....

motski wrote:
Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

Very few people 'raged' against it. It was just another example of rules not working as they were probably intended due to sloppy writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:

Yeah because it makes so much sense for a guy riding a wolf to have the same strength as an Imperial Knight. Or to suddenly get a boost in strength from riding a wolf. A boost in toughness and rending I can sort of get (at least the intent of what it is supposed to represent), but the strength boost has always been silly imo.

I think you've missed the actual issue. That silliness was already there. The issue that needed clarification was that a regular Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a power fist would be Strength 10 (as the +1 S was included in his profile) while a character with the same gear and mount would be S9.

They're now the same.

Ha, and people think Ultramarines are the favorite...

 insaniak wrote:

motski wrote:
Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

Very few people 'raged' against it. It was just another example of rules not working as they were probably intended due to sloppy writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:

Yeah because it makes so much sense for a guy riding a wolf to have the same strength as an Imperial Knight. Or to suddenly get a boost in strength from riding a wolf. A boost in toughness and rending I can sort of get (at least the intent of what it is supposed to represent), but the strength boost has always been silly imo.

I think you've missed the actual issue. That silliness was already there. The issue that needed clarification was that a regular Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a power fist would be Strength 10 (as the +1 S was included in his profile) while a character with the same gear and mount would be S9.

They're now the same.

I get what the issue is/was I just disagree with the str boost they get for riding a wolf in general. I don't even much care for the boost of toughness bikes and wolves get. I honestly wish the str bonus of a lot of things was more selective, like x2 str of thunder hammers ect only working on infantry units, or something along that line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ha, and people think Ultramarines are the favorite...

Space Wolves and Ultramarines are on the same platform.

I'm slightly confused on the Logan Grimnar on his Stormrider. Why does he die if he's on Stormrider gets destroyed? Isn't Stormrider a chariot? Is there a special rule that I'm missing on chariots? I don't use them at all and never plan on using the Santa Claus' sled.

In the brb in the chariot section it says if the rider is slain the chariot is destroyed and vice versa.

Oh, I did not know that.

Thank you for the info.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

Oddity is though they are using FAQ to change rules elsewhere. Why avoid changing things elsewhere then?

Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

That would be pretty lousy reading ability from whoever writes those answers seeing they go flat out against what rulebook clearly states.

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

That would be pretty lousy reading ability from whoever writes those answers seeing they go flat out against what rulebook clearly states.

Which would indicate that they actually read the rules while they answer the question (and not just answer them without deeper investigation)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

You can "be positive" and still get your comments deleted. I know. I have had several of my comments/questions deleted. I guess some things they just don't want to answer. Ironically, the posts of mine that have survived are the less than positive ones lol. Go figure.

Really they should be doing rough draft errata for armies at the same time. The faqs + errata could potentially fix a lot of the cluster that they have going on with the faqs. But then again, this is GW. At least having contact with the community again is a huge step in the right direction.

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Literally never have seen a comment deleted on their page, so I feel that either A) you were being a jerk, or B) you are being less than honest in regards to that statement.

I've had one of my comments deleted when I commented on the new shirts sold through the Black Library site. Wasn't using any rude language or anything, just saying I didn't like any of the designs and I wished they'd sell the shirts they only sell at the events online instead.

 Redemption wrote:
I've had one of my comments deleted when I commented on the new shirts sold through the Black Library site. Wasn't using any rude language or anything, just saying I didn't like any of the designs and I wished they'd sell the shirts they only sell at the events online instead.

I'd say that doesn't count as being positive. That sort of thing should be directed to their customer services IMO.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
I've had one of my comments deleted when I commented on the new shirts sold through the Black Library site. Wasn't using any rude language or anything, just saying I didn't like any of the designs and I wished they'd sell the shirts they only sell at the events online instead.

I'd say that doesn't count as being positive. That sort of thing should be directed to their customer services IMO.

So anything but echo chamber is not ok?

That's not very useful way of building community relationship...

*A faint cry of "Make Blood Angels Great Again" is heard in the distance*

But seriously, i hope they do BA next

tneva82 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
I've had one of my comments deleted when I commented on the new shirts sold through the Black Library site. Wasn't using any rude language or anything, just saying I didn't like any of the designs and I wished they'd sell the shirts they only sell at the events online instead.

I'd say that doesn't count as being positive. That sort of thing should be directed to their customer services IMO.

So anything but echo chamber is not ok?

That's not very useful way of building community relationship...

Why don't you think over that position? If part of the sentence had been left out it would change from negative critical to making a request: I like those t-shirts you sell at the events, so I would like to buy them online. When can you make it happen?

commander dante wrote:
*A faint cry of "Make Blood Angels Great Again" is heard in the distance*

But seriously, i hope they do BA next

Not going to happen. They had the opportunity to improve Space Wolves Dreadnoughts, and they didn't. There is zero chance of them doing anything meaningful with Blood Angels.

 Redemption wrote:
I've had one of my comments deleted when I commented on the new shirts sold through the Black Library site. Wasn't using any rude language or anything, just saying I didn't like any of the designs and I wished they'd sell the shirts they only sell at the events online instead.

could be they prune the irrelevant stuff out (assuming this was posted somewhere in the FAQ stuff that it's not relevant too)

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

commander dante wrote:
*A faint cry of "Make Blood Angels Great Again" is heard in the distance*

But seriously, i hope they do BA next

Not going to happen. They had the opportunity to improve Space Wolves Dreadnoughts, and they didn't. There is zero chance of them doing anything meaningful with Blood Angels.

Actually, all of my dreadnoughts just received +2 attacks with the latest FAQ. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]

RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.

RULE #2 IS IMPORTANT AS WELL.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What garage group/FLGS/TO would not choose to use the +2 attack rule? It obviously balances out the same models with the same rule.
Seriously, I'd love to hear someone's story about how someone was jaded enough not to allow it....and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

My jaded as hell ork army with dreads inferior to yours in every way would be fine telling you we are not using house rules.

 Orock wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What garage group/FLGS/TO would not choose to use the +2 attack rule? It obviously balances out the same models with the same rule.
Seriously, I'd love to hear someone's story about how someone was jaded enough not to allow it....and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

My jaded as hell ork army with dreads inferior to yours in every way would be fine telling you we are not using house rules.

There is that. If the BA/SW army plays CSM or Orks, then NO to the rule. If they play SM/DA then yes.

 Orock wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What garage group/FLGS/TO would not choose to use the +2 attack rule? It obviously balances out the same models with the same rule.
Seriously, I'd love to hear someone's story about how someone was jaded enough not to allow it....and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

My jaded as hell ork army with dreads inferior to yours in every way would be fine telling you we are not using house rules.

I would just do to you what I do to my local ork player. Give him a boost where I can. I want a fun, epic game not a cakewalk. With the new house rule I would give ork dreads 4 attacks as well. Then again, my local ork player is a cool guy, and I like to play him even if he can only field a miniscule portion of his 100k point army.

Ork dreads already have 3 attacks base.

Then again, if with the FaQ you made it 5 base they'd get 7 attacks (8 on the charge) with 4 the Power Claw loadout, which might be a bit much.

 NorseSig wrote:

I would just do to you what I do to my local ork player. Give him a boost where I can. I want a fun, epic game not a cakewalk. With the new house rule I would give ork dreads 4 attacks as well. Then again, my local ork player is a cool guy, and I like to play him even if he can only field a miniscule portion of his 100k point army.

Exactly this

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ork dreads already have 3 attacks base.

Then again, if with the FaQ you made it 5 base they'd get 7 attacks (8 on the charge) with 4 the Power Claw loadout, which might be a bit much.

4 base, 5 for 2 stock 2 ccw, 7 for 2 additional ccw, 8 for charge. Sounds good to me.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ork dreads already have 3 attacks base.

Then again, if with the FaQ you made it 5 base they'd get 7 attacks (8 on the charge) with 4 the Power Claw loadout, which might be a bit much.

4 base, 5 for 2 stock 2 ccw, 7 for 2 additional ccw, 8 for charge. Sounds good to me.

Wow I failed with my maths there (should have said 8 attacks 9 on the charge with 4 power claws and +2 base attacks). I'm fine with 4 or 5 attacks base.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ork dreads already have 3 attacks base.

Then again, if with the FaQ you made it 5 base they'd get 7 attacks (8 on the charge) with 4 the Power Claw loadout, which might be a bit much.

4 base, 5 for 2 stock 2 ccw, 7 for 2 additional ccw, 8 for charge. Sounds good to me.

Wow I failed with my maths there (should have said 8 attacks 9 on the charge with 4 power claws and +2 base attacks). I'm fine with 4 or 5 attacks base.

Yes, and it makes them a threat. Plus 4 attacks brings them in line with the other dreads (core SM ones).

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1635011190152847&substory_index=0&id=1575682476085719
Just a heads up, per the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page, all Blook Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves Dreadnoughts get 2 added to their Attack characteristic. They said this was in response to fans requesting the optional rule be made errata. So we CAN make a difference!


pic added for work blocked, Reds8n

Listening to the community is a very good step in the right direction.

GW just opened Pandora's Box. Incoming walls of rules change suggestions.

Now, can we have Lumbering Behemoth back?

 Vankraken wrote:
GW just opened Pandora's Box. Incoming walls of rules change suggestions.

That was basically what the FAQ was in the first place.

A victory for angry washing machines everywhere! Glad to see this. Not just because dreads are an iconic part of the lore and need to be treated a bit better. But it shows that GW is open to actually errataing things that need to be fixed, rather then just ignoring problems until they re-do the codex in 2-15 years.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1635011190152847&substory_index=0&id=1575682476085719
Just a heads up, per the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page, all Blook Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves Dreadnoughts get 2 added to their Attack characteristic. They said this was in response to fans requesting the optional rule be made errata. So we CAN make a difference!


pic added for work blocked, Reds8n

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

My all-space wolves dread army just got 50% more awesome. 6-attack Bjorn with Trueclaw anyone? :3

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1635011190152847&substory_index=0&id=1575682476085719
Just a heads up, per the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page, all Blook Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves Dreadnoughts get 2 added to their Attack characteristic. They said this was in response to fans requesting the optional rule be made errata. So we CAN make a difference!


pic added for work blocked, Reds8n

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

My all-space wolves dread army just got 50% more awesome. 6-attack Bjorn with Trueclaw anyone? :3

In my case, a Furioso Dreadnought was just re-added to my Blood Angels list. I may even decide to use Cassor the Damned now. 5-attack Angry Washing Machine of Doom here we come!

Hey folks,
Last week, as part of our ongoing FAQ draft process, we published a new optional rule for Dreadnoughts of the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights Chapters.

So many of you got in touch saying that you'd certainly be using the new rule that we've decided to make it an official Errata.

The rest of the finalised FAQs and Errata will be on the way once we have your feedback on all the drafts, but we wanted to get this to you so you could all have fun smashing stuff with your Dreadnoughts while you waited.

Once again, thanks for all your help making the game of Warhammer 40,000 even better.

Wow. This one is official, unlike the rest.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
GW just opened Pandora's Box. Incoming walls of rules change suggestions.

That was basically what the FAQ was in the first place.

The difference now is people have evidence that GW actually listened and made a rules change based on community feedback instead of making rules decisions from the rules department ivory tower (its either a tower or they meet inside the replica Rhino they have parked on the lot).

Let's be happy and continue the trend!

Life is good

Murderfang with an average of 11 attacks on the charge. Sweet.

GW is doing the right thing. Now do the same or deff dreads, forgefiends, helbrutes and any other walker dread-like thing.

Now that they've shown initiative to actually errata stuff to make it better, I wonder if we'll see any more changes. Point reductions, new wargear, etc. God knows some armies need it!

Lol poor CSM, no upgrade for their terrible dreads.

Huh, nice. Wonder if there will a similar update bumping BA scouts to ws/bs 4...

Poor Hellbrutes.

 Kirasu wrote:
Lol poor CSM, no upgrade for their terrible dreads.

Maybe when the CSM FAQ comes out.

 nudibranch wrote:
Huh, nice. Wonder if there will a similar update bumping BA scouts to ws/bs 4...

Or Space Wolves scouts being the same price as tactical marines but the with the same stats as vanilla scouts which are cheaper and troops.

Don't helbrutes get buffs when they're enraged anyways?

Helbrutes will get a bonus +2A when it comes time to publish their FAQ, or maybe they'll just get it as part of a 7th edition book. Who knows? Reasonable people will let you play your Helbrutes as A4.

I'd prefer them to just make an update to Codex: CSM. Helbrute lacking 2 attacks is the least of the army's problems right now.

Also, praying for the Orkz to get this too. I need an excuse to throw my money at Deff Dreads

Deffs really just need a better way to survive getting to the enemy in relatively one piece. Faster movement or some way to improve their survivability would be outstanding for them (or both )

Jesus....could you screw Orks and CSM anymore GW?

You know, one of my simple pleasures in non-competitive 40k games has always been Murderfang in a FW Lucious Pattern Drop-Pod, and now it might be a competitive option too.

I've got a huge smile on my face. I've always loved Dreads from a fluff POV, and love seeing them help show some love to one of their iconic units.

Did anyone ask for the Space Marine FAQ if the Iron Hands CT extends to non-Dread vehicles gaining IWND?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did anyone ask for the Space Marine FAQ if the Iron Hands CT extends to non-Dread vehicles gaining IWND?

That question is specifically answered in the FAQ.

 quickfuze wrote:
Jesus....could you screw Orks and CSM anymore GW?

ARGGGGH! WAIT FOR THE RELEVANT FAQ </shouting>

Now I'm wondering, was it stated anywhere that these dreads could now be taken in squadrons or are they still playing highlander?

EDIT: Obviously this would not extend to Bjorn or Murderfang since they're Unique units.

Neronoxx wrote:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Literally never have seen a comment deleted on their page, so I feel that either A) you were being a jerk, or B) you are being less than honest in regards to that statement.

I never posted there so I never got my comments deleted since I never posted. Just going by what others say of their comments being deleted even though they were not rude at all.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Now I'm wondering, was it stated anywhere that these dreads could now be taken in squadrons or are they still playing highlander?

EDIT: Obviously this would not extend to Bjorn or Murderfang since they're Unique units.

The Curse of the Wulfen edition of the Space Wolf dex allows vehicle squadrons, but not for Dreadnoughts, so no squadrons for Dreadnoughts yet.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Now I'm wondering, was it stated anywhere that these dreads could now be taken in squadrons or are they still playing highlander?

EDIT: Obviously this would not extend to Bjorn or Murderfang since they're Unique units.

The Curse of the Wulfen edition of the Space Wolf dex allows vehicle squadrons, but not for Dreadnoughts, so no squadrons for Dreadnoughts yet.

Ancients of the Fang allows for 2-5 dreads in a unit so its the same crap almost. Just imagine a 5 axe and shield unit all spread out running across that table lol.

Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

 quickfuze wrote:
Jesus....could you screw Orks and CSM anymore GW?

Yes.

Yes they can

Orks and CSM are destined to be punching bags forever ya know.

 Desubot wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Jesus....could you screw Orks and CSM anymore GW?

Yes.

Yes they can

Orks and CSM are destined to be punching bags forever ya know.

Yes, but at least Orks have an awful lot of actual character to them, AND, a mostly modernised model line.

CSM's aren't even worth that much right now.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Now I'm wondering, was it stated anywhere that these dreads could now be taken in squadrons or are they still playing highlander?

EDIT: Obviously this would not extend to Bjorn or Murderfang since they're Unique units.

The Curse of the Wulfen edition of the Space Wolf dex allows vehicle squadrons, but not for Dreadnoughts, so no squadrons for Dreadnoughts yet.

Ancients of the Fang allows for 2-5 dreads in a unit so its the same crap almost. Just imagine a 5 axe and shield unit all spread out running across that table lol.

Very true. Hopefully Blood Angels get a similar formation when they eventually get touched on again. Furioso Train of Murder is still possible with the Archangels Detachment though.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1635011190152847&substory_index=0&id=1575682476085719
Just a heads up, per the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page, all Blook Angels, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves Dreadnoughts get 2 added to their Attack characteristic. They said this was in response to fans requesting the optional rule be made errata. So we CAN make a difference!


pic added for work blocked, Reds8n

Huzzah! And I think the below sums it up best

 Nevelon wrote:
A victory for angry washing machines everywhere! Glad to see this. Not just because dreads are an iconic part of the lore and need to be treated a bit better. But it shows that GW is open to actually errataing things that need to be fixed, rather then just ignoring problems until they re-do the codex in 2-15 years.

Okay so what about everyone else? This helps the most powerful faction in the game get stronger.

So what about the little guys? Poor Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Orks, and Tyranids. I would like to see all the races back on the tabletop competitively again.

I would also like to see the gakky units in Tau and Necrons buffed up a bit to make them more viable choices.

Poor fething hellbrutes.

 Gamgee wrote:
Okay so what about everyone else? This helps the most powerful faction in the game get stronger.

What? The most powerful faction in the game is not Space Wolves, Blood Angels, or Grey Knights. Space Wolves are upper middle tier, and Grey Knights are low mid tier at best.

The ITC tournaments and space marine death stars beg to differ. Space Wolf deathstars are dominating the scene badly. To the point the power creep is so bad they are better than Eldar now. That's how far Space Marine power creep has set in.

Grey Knights taken with allies do wonders and place fairly well in ITC tournaments as well.

Only the Blood Angels truly needed it. When it comes time to buff the weaker factions and weaker units in better factions codices I hope the marine players are as generous with everyone else as themselves.

Surely everyone on the internet can be reasonable... right?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did anyone ask for the Space Marine FAQ if the Iron Hands CT extends to non-Dread vehicles gaining IWND?

That question is specifically answered in the FAQ.

Thanks for letting me know. Iron Hands are definitely one of the strongest Gladius builds now.

 Gamgee wrote:
The ITC tournaments and space marine death stars beg to differ. Space Wolf deathstars are dominating the scene badly. To the point the power creep is so bad they are better than Eldar now. That's how far Space Marine power creep has set in.

Grey Knights taken with allies do wonders and place fairly well in ITC tournaments as well.

Only the Blood Angels truly needed it. When it comes time to buff the weaker factions and weaker units in better factions codices I hope the marine players are as generous with everyone else as themselves.

Surely everyone on the internet can be reasonable... right?

Spoiler:

Cherrypicking TWC, Draigo, and Sanguinary Priests for deathstars doesn't mean the codices are good. All it means is that Army of the Imperium and Battle Brothers are the best special rules in the game.

And buffing Dreads isn't going to make any of these armies more tournament viable. Dreads still get blown up and/or immobilized way too easily for 2 more Attacks to boost their tournament results.

 Gamgee wrote:
Okay so what about everyone else? This helps the most powerful faction in the game get stronger.

So what about the little guys? Poor Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Orks, and Tyranids. I would like to see all the races back on the tabletop competitively again.

I would also like to see the gakky units in Tau and Necrons buffed up a bit to make them more viable choices.

Poor fething hellbrutes.

This is more of an errata than a balancing fix. Those kind of fixes will need to wait for a true codex update. Also I'm sure if enough people raise a stink about the Deff Dread and Helbrutes' Attacks, they'll change those too once they get around to it.

Incidentally I'm writing several emails to them since I no longer use facebook

I don’t think boosting dreads is going to do much to change external codex balance. Top dogs are going to stay that way, and buffing dreads is not going to magically make them tournament caliber.

What it does is helps internal balance a bit. They become a slightly better choice, rather then just a trap pick. Still probably only going to be found on friendly tables.

It also helps to keep things consistent. It makes no sense that the paintjob affects the number of attacks, for what is fundamentally the same thing. This is an ongoing problem ever since the different chapters got non-supplemental books.

And yes, CSM hellbrutes should probably get some love as well. But I can understand that they might not want to include them in this blanket sweep. Hopefully they will get something later.

Oh you only have the best rules in the game to win. Okay carry on then. My Dark Eldar will just sit over here as you get free buffs.

So is that a yes or no to buffing other factions? What happens when it comes time to buff the Tau? Would you be okay if they made Kroot good in assault and melee again? How about if they buff our heavy rail rifle to str 9 and armorbane? And add armor bane to all of our railguns?

It's not likely to see competitive Tau usage, but would it still be okay?

Or how about if Dark Eldar were given a faction wide ability to jink and shoot due to their insane agility and accuracy even beyond their light kin? Would you be okay with that?

I just hope GW keeps on the path its going and buffs every weak faction and also the weakest units from all the factions a little. I don't need anything too insane here. The weaker the faction the more buffs it should get. In theory. I really hope it doesn't give into the largest group of players ideas for a fair and balanced game.

 Gamgee wrote:
The ITC tournaments and space marine death stars beg to differ. Space Wolf deathstars are dominating the scene badly. To the point the power creep is so bad they are better than Eldar now. That's how far Space Marine power creep has set in.

I have yet to see high ranking list with dreadnought. Even the loyalist A4 ones. Doubtful you are going to see those even from now.

Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Officially added to the draft, which has been stated to be coming to GW website after some feedback has been received. They intend to do every faction in the game and Reece from ITC has said they've got a pattern of dropping faq's every Wednesday so we should be done by August for all faction in the game. Who knows what they will do then. They might update them all again or just post them to the main site if the feedback has already been received.

Davor wrote:
Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

It'll be up soon, relax.

Davor wrote:
Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Well obviously those who aren't aware of the rule won't use it. But eventually it will become available on their site once it's completed. Maybe even mentioned in the white dwarf(remember the time when official FAQ/erraa's were only in WD?-). Expect tournaments to start using those when they become finalized. Some already use the drafts as it is. Since this is marked as official errata tournaments might also use just that. In that case obviously tournament rules will mention it.

Either way 40k is barely workable WITHOUT some sort of presorting of house rules/common grounds so whether these are used will be handled in that part.

And whatever GW says still it remains as it always has been. Players are the ones who decide how to play the game. In the end this is just bit beefier house rule suggestion.

 Gamgee wrote:
Oh you only have the best rules in the game to win. Okay carry on then. My Dark Eldar will just sit over here as you get free buffs.

So is that a yes or no to buffing other factions? What happens when it comes time to buff the Tau? Would you be okay if they made Kroot good in assault and melee again? How about if they buff our heavy rail rifle to str 9 and armorbane? And add armor bane to all of our railguns?

It's not likely to see competitive Tau usage, but would it still be okay?

Or how about if Dark Eldar were given a faction wide ability to jink and shoot due to their insane agility and accuracy even beyond their light kin? Would you be okay with that?

I just hope GW keeps on the path its going and buffs every weak faction and also the weakest units from all the factions a little. I don't need anything too insane here. The weaker the faction the more buffs it should get. In theory. I really hope it doesn't give into the largest group of players ideas for a fair and balanced game.

I think all factions should have decent internal balance in their codex, as well as decent external balance between them.

I’m no expert on tau, but I think they need buffs in places. Their codex is not just giant death mecha. Seeing that railguns on broadsides and hammerheads are generally regarded as sub-par compared to other options, sure, give them a boost. I’m wary of making broad-brush suggestions, as I don’t know the details, but armorbane doesn’t sound like a terrible choice. If you are only getting one shot, at least make it more reliable.

Anything that prevents armies from being a mono-build is a good thing. That’s good internal balance. The dread boost helps with that.

Yes, there are armies out there that need a lot of help, especially with external balance. Hopefully that will get fixed. Should no other problems get worked on until that happens? And just because an army is doing well overall, does not mean it is without problems. I’m glad they are fixing things where they can.

I noticed Dreadnoughts in Battle for Vedros get 4 dice for attacks:

 MattofWar wrote:
I noticed Dreadnoughts in Battle for Vedros get 4 dice for attacks:

Battle for Vedros is its own thing entirely at the moment, and is based upon the C: Space Marine values. So of course they get 4 attacks for CC.

Gamgee complaining about how UP his Tau are, Orks and CSM players fighting each other over who's more hard done by...

Another day in the Dakka.

Hammerheads and Railrifles are fine, they don't need Armourbane. A points reduction, maybe, but they are the Taus version of a Lascannon. All single shot, low AP weapons suck, the Tau aren't unique in that regard. You don't see the marines that are so bemoaned using Predator Annihilators, Land Raiders, or Lascannon armed Devastators competively, do you?

If they took away the extra close combat attack from using Kroot Rifles they should give them back, that's about it.

Dark Eldar need love, Orks need love, Chaos need love. Ideally, the latter two will get buffs to their Dreadnought variants they never take, because clearly that will make everything better.

Why don't we just wait for the rest of the FAQs to come out before we bitch anymore?

 Crazyterran wrote:

Why don't we just wait for the rest of the FAQs to come out before we bitch anymore?

That's crazy talk, sir.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Define 'correctly'...

It's a game. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If both players are having fun, they're playing the game correctly. Whether or not that involves following the rules exactly as provided by the people who wrote the game is entirely up to them.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website?

The same way anything was official before there was a GW website?

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

Well, a logical move since they are bringing all codices in one line. Next move - BA scouts get WS/BS 4 and their devs get to use grav canons. Not sure how much it would help them, but would at lest make sense. Just hoping my orks get something in their draft...

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

That's because it was a mobile facebook link.

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

If you mean the link in THIS POST, its because its a link to the mobile version of Facebook, easily identified by the 'm.facebook' in the address.

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

Most major websites at this point have a "mobile" version designed specifically for your smart phone/tablet. This is because when you have a really huge computer screen to work with, you can design a website to fit a lot of info on it, but when you open up a web page designed for a full computer on your phone, all the text is teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeny tiny and you have to zoom in to see anything.

Mobile sites (you can tell by looking at the webpage, it will generally say "m.facebook.com" instead of "www.facebook.com") are the same as regular sites, just displayed a different way. The link provided is in fact official.

Any one else notice the ork warboss in battle for Vedros has 4 wounds not 3 ?

They should make Dreadnoughts MC with T7 and W5 while they're at it.

 insaniak wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Define 'correctly'...

Yes, I should rephrase.

This particular rule should now be officially the default in any game of 40k, without any kind of discussion required. When the dread closes in (if it does) the BA/SW/GK player should just count the attacks according to the rule and use it.

My use of "correctly" above should have been "as designed."

GW's always been averse to these sort of errata; I have to believe they thought we'd be adverse to them working out these kinds of fixes. Watching these drafts you can see reality setting in and GW realizing the community likes to see more definitive fixes.

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW's always been averse to these sort of errata; I have to believe they thought we'd be adverse to them working out these kinds of fixes. Watching these drafts you can see reality setting in and GW realizing the community likes to see more definitive fixes.

Their philosophy has always been "if you want fixed rules, you have to pay for them". They seem to have walked back on that. I am hoping for more stuff like this in the Blood Angels FAQ.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Gamgee complaining about how UP his Tau are, Orks and CSM players fighting each other over who's more hard done by...

Another day in the Dakka.

Hammerheads and Railrifles are fine, they don't need Armourbane. A points reduction, maybe, but they are the Taus version of a Lascannon. All single shot, low AP weapons suck, the Tau aren't unique in that regard. You don't see the marines that are so bemoaned using Predator Annihilators, Land Raiders, or Lascannon armed Devastators competively, do you?

If they took away the extra close combat attack from using Kroot Rifles they should give them back, that's about it.

Dark Eldar need love, Orks need love, Chaos need love. Ideally, the latter two will get buffs to their Dreadnought variants they never take, because clearly that will make everything better.

Why don't we just wait for the rest of the FAQs to come out before we bitch anymore?

Add to the list I want cheaper wraith's from guard,lord and knight for more core choices.

 Desubot wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Jesus....could you screw Orks and CSM anymore GW?

Yes.

Yes they can

Orks and CSM are destined to be punching bags forever ya know.

Actually the CSM FAQ will give the Helbrute -2 attacks making them literal punching bags.

Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

 Breotan wrote:
Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

That one is fan created.

You think?



And as so often with these things, it completely misses the point of the complaints.

 insaniak wrote:
You think?



And as so often with these things, it completely misses the point of the complaints.

Had to state the obvious. I think people are complaining about the BA and GK getting the boost ahead of their FAQS but not CSM and KDK(who already had their FAQ). They are fully justified, if annoying.

Now excuse me while I order another Furioso or two online.

 hordrak wrote:
Well, a logical move since they are bringing all codices in one line. Next move - BA scouts get WS/BS 4 and their devs get to use grav canons. Not sure how much it would help them, but would at lest make sense. Just hoping my orks get something in their draft...

Easiest way to make all the units comparable would be to merge DA and BA into Codex SM, and expand that book to fit them (and the new Angels of Death stuff)
That way everyone can have Grav Cannon Devs and Heavy Flamers in Tac squads.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

DK already has 4 attacks but the FAQ brings the Dreadnought up to 4 as well.

 Breotan wrote:
Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

Am I alone is this, or would anyone else love this style of errata ?

 adamsouza wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

Am I alone is this, or would anyone else love this style of errata ?

[edit] Nevermind, missed a few posts on the last page.

Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

If you mean the link in THIS POST, its because its a link to the mobile version of Facebook, easily identified by the 'm.facebook' in the address.

Thank you so much. I didn't know that. Nice to learn something new today.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

DK already has 4 attacks but the FAQ brings the Dreadnought up to 4 as well.

Yes, but the FAQ implies that it now gets 6 attacks base...IF it is a dreadnought.

DK is not a Dreadnought


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

That one is fan created.

It is a photoshop. I can tell by the pixels...

Also, I now want to be a part time FAQ writer for GW.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

DK already has 4 attacks but the FAQ brings the Dreadnought up to 4 as well.

Yes, but the FAQ implies that it now gets 6 attacks base...IF it is a dreadnought.

It doesn't count as a dread. It doesn't have any dread options, takes a different slot, and it's an MC. It's a battle suit, not a walking coffin.

 Bi'ios wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

DK already has 4 attacks but the FAQ brings the Dreadnought up to 4 as well.

Yes, but the FAQ implies that it now gets 6 attacks base...IF it is a dreadnought.

It doesn't count as a dread. It doesn't have any dread options, takes a different slot, and it's an MC. It's a battle suit, not a walking coffin.

OK, good...was worried there.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

DK already has 4 attacks but the FAQ brings the Dreadnought up to 4 as well.

Yes, but the FAQ implies that it now gets 6 attacks base...IF it is a dreadnought.

The FAQ does not imply anything regarding the Dreadknight. It is not a "Dreadnought of any type" it is a Dreadknight.

I think we got there, in the end.

Come on, CSM FAQ. Give us something useful. Dunno what, but something.

 kronk wrote:
I think we got there, in the end.

Come on, CSM FAQ. Give us something useful. Dunno what, but something.

Mutilators gain fleet.
*sips from flask of chaos tears.*

No no no, Mutilators will gain the ability to Charge after Running.

Fleet gives too much of a benefit and doesn't sounds powerful at a first glance without reading the rest of the rules.

Mutilators can't run.

That's the joke.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That's the joke.

Would be more fun if people would stop all that "pretend funny" macro whining. Sheesh all it does is create negativity. Isn't whole point of game to have fun? Why you choose to suffer then? You have problems with game you have power to fix it so if you keep suffering with the chaos codex it's your fault alonr

I haven't played CSMs for years, so don't worry I'm not on the brink of gaming suicide. I don't suffer because I play other armies that aren't as dysfunctional when I play 40k.

I think we're done with factions "getting" things.

GW could take the dreadnought fiasco as a lesson for how to proceed with updates, but I think they will just say "screw it" for the rest of the codexes.

Which is really sad, and I hope I'm wrong.

I'll be honest I am so damned happy that all the SW dreads got two extra attacks, especially Murderface and Bjorn.

Murderface is now sitting at 7 base attacks and that first round of fighting he's got 10-12 attacks thanks to rage and Rampage making things fun. Bjorn, well lets be honest he's the Grand daddy "I'm faster at shanking you" in fluff and the boost keeps him from being just another Dreadnought that's stupidly overpriced for a 5+ save.

To those that haven't read the errata is specifies that they both receive the bonus.

Spiritfox22 wrote:
I'll be honest I am so damned happy that all the SW dreads got two extra attacks, especially Murderface and Bjorn.

I think the biggest winners of the dread change is the Shield and Axe dreads. 3+ invuln and venerable makes them very tanky but the issue was that with only 2 attacks base they could be tar pitted forever. Double the number of attacks they have base and now they can chop their way out of more combats faster. Murderfang is stupidly killy but his issue wasn't how much murder it can deal in CC but actually surviving until then as Murderfang is basically a bullet magnet given nobody wants to let that thing anywhere near an assault phase.

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
That's the joke.

Would be more fun if people would stop all that "pretend funny" macro whining. Sheesh all it does is create negativity. Isn't whole point of game to have fun? Why you choose to suffer then? You have problems with game you have power to fix it so if you keep suffering with the chaos codex it's your fault alonr

And you have the power not to read these posts. Yes a lot of people make themselves suffer for what ever reason. Let them. If a few simple words that are not even toxic help them cope let it be so. You are not helping either with your comments like that. It would be one thing if what they were saying was toxic but it's not. Let people have their fun.

I gotta say that Dreadnought update gives that all Space Wolves Dreadnought army I'd been tinkering with quite a boost.

Jefffar wrote:
I gotta say that Dreadnought update gives that all Space Wolves Dreadnought army I'd been tinkering with quite a boost.

I own a LOT of Space Wolf Dreads, of various kinds, and while they were never great, I feel like they were as close as any Dread has been at being competitive (outside 5th Ed Psy-Shooting Dreads for GK). With these buffs, a few of the SW Dreads feel like they might actually be pretty decent.

The problems that remain are... 1. You're still reliant on the FW Lucius Pod if you want to make them work (which maybe be fiscally challenging if you go heavy on the Dreads), 2. We're still a Codex with objectively better options. I think Dreads are an even more fun, and semi-competitive choice than ever, but if the intent is to win games, a player is still better served with TWC and even Wulfen.

Well it's more of a fun list idea, but still, Bjorn and 8 of his friends with Droppods can fit into 1850.

Is it really fair to give +2 attacks without a point increase? Yes it's keeping the codices the same, but how is it fair by gaining free bonuses?

Maybe 40K does need to be Sigmified if people think this this is an ok practice. After all the points don't really mean anything now does it?

Davor wrote:
Is it really fair to give +2 attacks without a point increase? Yes it's keeping the codices the same, but how is it fair by gaining free bonuses?

Maybe 40K does need to be Sigmified if people think this this is an ok practice. After all the points don't really mean anything now does it?

Free bonuses? More like removing a handicap.

We're well down the "free bonuses" rabbit hole at this point.

Davor wrote:
Is it really fair to give +2 attacks without a point increase? Yes it's keeping the codices the same, but how is it fair by gaining free bonuses?

The two attack Blood Angels Dreadnought is the exact same price as the four attack Space Marines Dreadnought.

Davor wrote:
Is it really fair to give +2 attacks without a point increase? Yes it's keeping the codices the same, but how is it fair by gaining free bonuses?

Maybe 40K does need to be Sigmified if people think this this is an ok practice. After all the points don't really mean anything now does it?

Dreadnoughts & especially the Chaos versions have long been one of the most useless models, in large part due to how easy they've been to tarpit with a 50-60pts throw-away unit.

For something that's supposed to be one of the single most feared death-dealing murder machines in the Astartes arsenal, they're hilariously bad at actually killing things in assaults!

Dreadnoughts are a prime example of what's keeping CSM's from being in any way relevant anymore in the game. Namely, everything else has generally improved & become deadlier over the past 15-18+ years, but Dreads have stayed 100% the same since their original 3rd ed profile.
The +2A is a good thing! It finally allows Dreads to take names & kick some *** like their background suggests they routinely do, while now opponents have to think a little more beyond, "throw 10 grots/guardsmen/gaunts at it and forget it exists!"

 Eldarain wrote:
We're well down the "free bonuses" rabbit hole at this point.

Spuzz muhrine armies can now replace any single model with a dude who gets a free S5 AP2 instant death rapid fire gun.

We're there, man, we've been there for a while.

Davor wrote:
Is it really fair to give +2 attacks without a point increase? Yes it's keeping the codices the same, but how is it fair by gaining free bonuses?

Maybe 40K does need to be Sigmified if people think this this is an ok practice. After all the points don't really mean anything now does it?

That assumes points(both for this unit and for all units in general) are accurate in the first place

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
We're well down the "free bonuses" rabbit hole at this point.

Spuzz muhrine armies can now replace any single model with a dude who gets a free S5 AP2 instant death rapid fire gun.

We're there, man, we've been there for a while.

But literally only if you...

1. Got lucky
2. Happened to be shopping online on a given weekend... once.
3. Pay an Ebay scalper a fortune.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
We're well down the "free bonuses" rabbit hole at this point.

Spuzz muhrine armies can now replace any single model with a dude who gets a free S5 AP2 instant death rapid fire gun.

We're there, man, we've been there for a while.

But literally only if you...

1. Got lucky
2. Happened to be shopping online on a given weekend... once.
3. Pay an Ebay scalper a fortune.

4) Convert the model.

What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

I wouldn't doubt it, since the dreadnought ruling mentions them.

It seems they are doing the FAQs for the 7th ed codexes first. I'm not sure what they are going to do with the yet-to-be released dexes. They probably have giant howlers that will need to be FAQ'd once they get released...but until then nobody knows what they will be. GW hasn't shown much ability to fix things before releasing.

Which is weird...will they re-issue the call for questions on the new dexes? Is the reason they are considering doing the FAQs now is because there is going to be a significant delay before another dex is released? Are the new dexes actually good, with few FAQs needed???

If they are doing the 7th ed dexes first, that means Orkies are coming soon...hopefully before July ends. I am hoping they FAQ the Green Tide back into existence in a more formal way than their flippant "take anything you want! Just ask your opponent first..." drivel.

Plus mob rule 7 & 8. Hoping they become "test passed!"

 JimOnMars wrote:

Plus mob rule 7 & 8. Hoping they become "test passed!"

how are people playing that now?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

I wouldn't doubt it, since the dreadnought ruling mentions them.

It seems they are doing the FAQs for the 7th ed codexes first. I'm not sure what they are going to do with the yet-to-be released dexes. They probably have giant howlers that will need to be FAQ'd once they get released...but until then nobody knows what they will be. GW hasn't shown much ability to fix things before releasing.

Which is weird...will they re-issue the call for questions on the new dexes? Is the reason they are considering doing the FAQs now is because there is going to be a significant delay before another dex is released? Are the new dexes actually good, with few FAQs needed???

If they are doing the 7th ed dexes first, that means Orkies are coming soon...hopefully before July ends. I am hoping they FAQ the Green Tide back into existence in a more formal way than their flippant "take anything you want! Just ask your opponent first..." drivel.

Plus mob rule 7 & 8. Hoping they become "test passed!"

They already did FAQ Green Tide back into existence when they FAQ'd 'out of print' formations and datasheets like Void Shields and the like, if I'm not mistaken.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

That probably depends on whether Blood Angels are bigger than Dark Angels as a faction.

For what it's worth, I recall Dark Angels having a mini-faq at the start of the year before they asked for questions so I think Blood Angels will be next.

Before CotW I would have said that there are no 7 and 8 on the Mob rule, but now there is a small possibility. I personaly think the next FAQ wil be for BA, since they realy need it with their BS/WS 3 Scouts and no Grav Canons. Plus there should be a clarification that any Adeptus Astartes army counts as having "Chapter Tactics" so no switching White Scars for Dark Angels.

 hordrak wrote:
Before CotW I would have said that there are no 7 and 8 on the Mob rule, but now there is a small possibility. I personaly think the next FAQ wil be for BA, since they realy need it with their BS/WS 3 Scouts and no Grav Canons. Plus there should be a clarification that any Adeptus Astartes army counts as having "Chapter Tactics" so no switching White Scars for Dark Angels.

Didn't they already clarify that in the SM FAQ?

No they didn't. That FaQ only made it so Vanilla SM models lose their bonuses (as only the benefits of Chapter Tactics is lost). ThunderDome lists with Tunderwolves and Ravenwing still work the exact same.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

Has any non 7.5th edition codex got an FAQ draft yet? My guess could be Necrons or Orks. Not sure if Orks are a 7.5 army or not.

Davor wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

Has any non 7.5th edition codex got an FAQ draft yet? My guess could be Necrons or Orks. Not sure if Orks are a 7.5 army or not.

Orks are definitely not a 7.5ed army.

My bet is that Tyranids, Orks & CSM's will be the last, and come in that order.
Daemons will just end up forgotten about entirely!

Well now if we can just get them to make dreadnoughts MC we would be in good shape.

Hopefully 7.5/8th edition will just make everything that isn't a tank or Titan a MC so it's more of an even playing field.

I mean my gawd they gave shipping containers T7! Why take dreads when you can take ARMORED BAWKES!

Davor wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
What codex do people think will get FAQ'd next? They have been chugging through the Space Marine codexes, my guess is probably Blood Angels.

Has any non 7.5th edition codex got an FAQ draft yet? My guess could be Necrons or Orks. Not sure if Orks are a 7.5 army or not.

Space Wolves are not a 7.5E codex. Neither are Militarum Tempestus, SoB, Assassin's, or Inquisition.

Dark Angels just dropped.

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1636193993367900/1636192513368048/?type=3&theater

 BrookM wrote:
Dark Angels just dropped.

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1636193993367900/1636192513368048/?type=3&theater

beat me to it!

This settles my favorite rules argument about Deep Striking Strike Force Deathwing Land Raiders: they start in normal Reserves and drive on. Ezekiel can do the same in that Detachment.

Another confirmation on relics for all factions.

One Model - one relic.

Things that strike me outright:

-Grim Resolve means that Dark Angels shoot Invisible units better in Overwatch than they do in Shooting
-Ravenwing can choose rerollable Jink over armor, which is statistically better
-Clear up Land Raiders and ICs in Deathwing detachments
-Flyers force Ravenwing detachment to start in reserve
-Yes, you auto lose if you take Deathwing detachments or start your Ravenwing detachment in reserve (duh)

I like this one. Clear, concise, to the point.

 BrookM wrote:
Dark Angels just dropped.

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1636193993367900/1636192513368048/?type=3&theater

Copy paste for the workbound Unforgiven, please?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another confirmation on relics for all factions.

One Model - one relic.

And yet, Tau players will blindly ignore it until their own FAQ drops.

Requizen wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another confirmation on relics for all factions.

One Model - one relic.

And yet, Tau players will blindly ignore it until their own FAQ drops.

The Tau book specifically says they make take only 1 of each signature system per army. If it was meant to be 1 signature system per army then it would say only 1 signature system per army and not each signature system.

Requizen wrote:
Yes, you auto lose if you take Deathwing detachments or start your Ravenwing detachment in reserve

But it's not auto lose if they are using deathwing assault as half of them have to come in turn one, correct?

So you can still play a pure deathwing/terminator army, but need to have something come on the table turn 1.

And glad to see they clarified the stacking benefits of ravenwing and darkshroud. Didn't make any sense for your opponent to see the chapel speeder of darkness...

Of course I don't have my ravenwing anymore...

Requizen wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another confirmation on relics for all factions.

One Model - one relic.

And yet, Tau players will blindly ignore it until their own FAQ drops.

Signature Systems aren't Relics.

Tau are not Space Marines.

You're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Wow, that was pretty....uninspiring. Nothing really changed.

That sucks that you can't take Masters or Interregators in the demi-company.

 SickSix wrote:
That sucks that you can't take Masters ... in the demi-company.

Ummm...

Let's try and stick to the topic and make posts with real content, eh?

Grim Resolve vs Invisibility--so much for the "opposite rules cancel each other out" shtick.

Grim Resolve wins.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Grim Resolve vs Invisibility--so much for the "opposite rules cancel each other out" shtick.

Grim Resolve wins.

Cuz Dark Angels are so awesome!

Overall I like the Dark Angels FAQ. It clarifies a lot of issues, such as flyers in the RWSF making the whole thing be in reserves. I guess if you want to run flyers with your Ravenwing you need to take 3 in the Silence Squadron formation (I plan to do just this at some point). I don't much care for allowing the Hatred: Chaos Marines to apply to all of the Khorne Daemonkin Chaos Marine units. To me that is a bit of a nerf to Daemonkin, which already struggles in competitive play. A small nerf, admittedly, but still...

I do love the idea of running a Lion's Blade detachment and being able to shoot full BS overwatch into an invisible unit. Invisible units need to be taken down a notch.

Well, if they hate Chaos Marines, and your units are rolling with Chaos Marines...

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Yes, you auto lose if you take Deathwing detachments or start your Ravenwing detachment in reserve

But it's not auto lose if they are using deathwing assault as half of them have to come in turn one, correct?

So you can still play a pure deathwing/terminator army, but need to have something come on the table turn 1.

Only if you start. In 7e, you lose if you don't have any models on the table at the end of ANY game turn.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Grim Resolve vs Invisibility--so much for the "opposite rules cancel each other out" shtick.

Grim Resolve wins.

I don't really believe you should be able to 'cancel' out a psychic power. They are already fairly unreliable barring excessive psyker amounts.

What's the point of having the rule "Deathwing Assault" if you technically lose the game before your turn 1?

I'm sure that has been debated to death, so I won't raise it here.

Problem is that they are inconsistent again. The hatred spreads to units that are not faction specific, but the Mace only affects CSM proper.

I'm pretty sure the new Deathwing Assault rule just says that they come in on Turn 2 without a roll. The old one was Turn 1.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another confirmation on relics for all factions.

One Model - one relic.

And yet, Tau players will blindly ignore it until their own FAQ drops.

Signature Systems aren't Relics.

Tau are not Space Marines.

You're setting yourself up for disappointment.

It's what Tau call their Relics, since they aren't really old enough to have Relics...

And it's not like they haven't gone against what is written in the book to make it one relic per model: see C:SM.

We'll see when the Tau FAQ comes out, but I think the ones who will be disappointed are the Tau...

Somebody mentioned something similar in the faq comments. Think it was that they don't actually have any rules on how to upgrade/equip your characters/units. Which I always found weird. If they make a new edition I'd like to see this properly formalized and consistent across codices. And then factions that have especially powerhungry/greedy could have s special rule that allows overriding that, such as CSM or maybe Orks. It makes sense for Tau to have a 1 per char cap though, since their relics are basically experimental weapons.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
That sucks that you can't take Masters ... in the demi-company.

Ummm...

Oops sorry. Was thinking company masters from the question above about Bikes.

Still why no Interregators?

Requizen wrote:
I'm pretty sure the new Deathwing Assault rule just says that they come in on Turn 2 without a roll. The old one was Turn 1.

Yeah. That's how it used to work but got changed in new codex.

Not that the faq entry really makes big deal. Nobody takes all termi army to any serious competive game even if you wouldn't autolose AND got 5 pts per model point drop...And non-competive games agreeing for non-autolose is trivial.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another confirmation on relics for all factions.

One Model - one relic.

And yet, Tau players will blindly ignore it until their own FAQ drops.

Signature Systems aren't Relics.

Tau are not Space Marines.

You're setting yourself up for disappointment.

It's what Tau call their Relics, since they aren't really old enough to have Relics...

And it's not like they haven't gone against what is written in the book to make it one relic per model: see C:SM.

We'll see when the Tau FAQ comes out, but I think the ones who will be disappointed are the Tau...

They would really have to go against what's written though. In the Tau book there is even a note in two pieces of special issue wargear stating how they interact when a model is equipped with both of them. Until the FAQ there was also no rule anywhere that even hinted at tau relics being 1 per model. Whereas with other factions it was atleast written that you could "trade for one" in one way or another.

Is it really that hard to have a few other units on the board rushing to objectives or preferable firing points? I never understood why people are so resistant to letting one paltry scout squad ruin their perfect null deployment.

 Crazyterran wrote:

It's what Tau call their Relics, since they aren't really old enough to have Relics...

And it's not like they haven't gone against what is written in the book to make it one relic per model: see C:SM.

We'll see when the Tau FAQ comes out, but I think the ones who will be disappointed are the Tau...

The phrasing for Signature Systems has always been different from that used for Relics, their limitations and the way they are equipped are different. They are not analogous.

More to the point though, if Tau got the same ruling the buffmander's gear would be split with the Shas'Vre in his squad for the exact same effect for a paltry increase in points. Together they would become the Buff Brothers, and nothing would change.

I like that the Errata made Deathwing Land Raiders a thing again. It was a shame when one didn't have a 2ay to deploy them.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Wow, that was pretty....uninspiring. Nothing really changed.

Well one thing really did change. For that person who needs his win.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Is it really that hard to have a few other units on the board rushing to objectives or preferable firing points? I never understood why people are so resistant to letting one paltry scout squad ruin their perfect null deployment.

 Crazyterran wrote:

It's what Tau call their Relics, since they aren't really old enough to have Relics...

And it's not like they haven't gone against what is written in the book to make it one relic per model: see C:SM.

We'll see when the Tau FAQ comes out, but I think the ones who will be disappointed are the Tau...

The phrasing for Signature Systems has always been different from that used for Relics, their limitations and the way they are equipped are different. They are not analogous.

More to the point though, if Tau got the same ruling the buffmander's gear would be split with the Shas'Vre in his squad for the exact same effect for a paltry increase in points. Together they would become the Buff Brothers, and nothing would change.

It'd be better than the PEN, MSSS, iridium, and the Command and Control Node all being on one model.

I mean, if they don't do it, and let the Tau keep it, whatever. Bet I expect there will be some changes to their mega format in, or at least the clarification that the buffmander doesn't spread it to everyone.

We will see in a few weeks, I suppose...

Auto walk/drive on reserves T1 is kinda cool.

This only shows what garbage this game has become since the 6th Edition.

Sure, the models are the best (and the most expensive) they've ever been, but all the playing fast and loose with rules leads to treating a tabletop game like an MMO - constant updates, patches and rejiggering.

The worst part is the whole "you spoke, we listened". Sure, the changes in the FAQ are both desirable and make sense... but they were made at the insistence of the fanbase, which sets a dangerous precedent. Basically, whinge, piss and moan on forums and social media, and sooner or later you'll get your way.

The entire ruleset needs to be scrapped and re-written, preferably by someone who understands the concepts of future-proofing and scalability.

 Olgerth Istaarn wrote:

The worst part is the whole "you spoke, we listened". Sure, the changes in the FAQ are both desirable and make sense... but they were made at the insistence of the fanbase, which sets a dangerous precedent. .

Indeed. Heaven forbid they should start making the game the players actually want...


It's only a 'dangerous precedent' if the changes are all bad ones. Otherwise, listening to the players and considering those opinions when further developing the game is a much, much better idea than what they've been doing for the last few years...

Nightlord1987 wrote:Auto walk/drive on reserves T1 is kinda cool.

What are you talking about with this? Nothing gets auto walk on turn 1 from what I can see.

Olgerth Istaarn wrote:This only shows what garbage this game has become since the 6th Edition.

Sure, the models are the best (and the most expensive) they've ever been, but all the playing fast and loose with rules leads to treating a tabletop game like an MMO - constant updates, patches and rejiggering.

The worst part is the whole "you spoke, we listened". Sure, the changes in the FAQ are both desirable and make sense... but they were made at the insistence of the fanbase, which sets a dangerous precedent. Basically, whinge, piss and moan on forums and social media, and sooner or later you'll get your way.

The entire ruleset needs to be scrapped and re-written, preferably by someone who understands the concepts of future-proofing and scalability.

Lol wtf are you talking about dude? Aside from a couple things, these FAQs have all been just clearing up messy rules. It's not a patch any more than previous FAQs were, and makes the game much easier to pick up and play than it would be otherwise, which is only good in the long run.

Listening to the customers is good. Ignoring customers is one of the big things that got them hated.

 Olgerth Istaarn wrote:
Basically, whinge, piss and moan on forums and social media, and sooner or later you'll get your way.

God I hope so.

If that's so then the ITC shall capitulate to the Tau any second now.... aaaany second. Hahah.

I hope someone at GW got the information that Tau are not overpowered in the top tier meta. I shall never stop spreading the word until there is justice.

Ah, never mind. I thought D.W.A let you DS T1.

 Gamgee wrote:
If that's so then the ITC shall capitulate to the Tau any second now.... aaaany second. Hahah.

I hope someone at GW got the information that Tau are not overpowered in the top tier meta. I shall never stop spreading the word until there is justice.

That's cute. Top 20 isn't enough for you, you want the whole Top 8 to be Tau? But sure, keep spreading your lies.

 Gamgee wrote:
~garbage~

this is a bad post. Gamgee is a bad poster. anime is cartoons.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
If that's so then the ITC shall capitulate to the Tau any second now.... aaaany second. Hahah.

I hope someone at GW got the information that Tau are not overpowered in the top tier meta. I shall never stop spreading the word until there is justice.

That's cute. Top 20 isn't enough for you, you want the whole Top 8 to be Tau? But sure, keep spreading your lies.

Top baloney. We haven't been been in the top 8 in ages, not since the original farsight supplement dropped. And only one in the top 25 a few tournaments ago.

Edit
A good poster is someone who toes the line and gives into the space marine and ork drones right? Right? Haha. I guess that makes me very very bad. What will it be this time? A slap on the wrist? Another pointless internet debate?

Gamgee, the overall rankings for ITC have Tau players at 4th and 5th places. Also, the guy at 6th is listed as using multiple armies, one of which is Tau.

Please stop saying that Tau are not represented in competitive play.

 Gamgee wrote:


What will it be this time? A slap on the wrist? Another pointless internet debate?

No! For your transgressions, Dakka shall impose its most sincere punishment! From this day forward, you may only play Orks, Chaos Space Marines, or Tyranids until you learn what "underpowered" actually means!

THE DAKKA HAS SPOKEN!

 EnTyme wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:


What will it be this time? A slap on the wrist? Another pointless internet debate?

No! For your transgressions, Dakka shall impose its most sincere punishment! From this day forward, you may only play Orks, Chaos Space Marines, or Tyranids until you learn what "underpowered" actually means!

THE DAKKA HAS SPOKEN!

I play Dark Eldar. -_- You don't know what underpowered is. Also I could live with Tyranids. I don't mind em from a fluff point.

Topic, now, and don't drag it off topic again.

I find it extremely weird that they said Belial's deep strike ability does not confer to other units because "an IC's abilities does not confer to a unit unless specifically stated otherwise"

Belial's ability literally says "belial and his unit does not scatter when arriving from deepstrike reserve"

Like- are they changing his rule so that he has to deepstrike solo, or is it just lazy writing where they didn't even bother to look at his rule and gave their standard answer?

Maybe they thought it was about Belial granting deep strike to a unit he joins that can't already deep strike

 KhorneontheCobb wrote:
I find it extremely weird that they said Belial's deep strike ability does not confer to other units because "an IC's abilities does not confer to a unit unless specifically stated otherwise"

Belial's ability literally says "belial and his unit does not scatter when arriving from deepstrike reserve"

Like- are they changing his rule so that he has to deepstrike solo, or is it just lazy writing where they didn't even bother to look at his rule and gave their standard answer?

I think they are more trying to limit stuff that doesn't say anything about a unit. So if Belial didn't have the "and his unit" part of the rule, someone couldn't attach him and expect the whole unit to benefit.

They where specifying for the grey knights allowing the Deathwing to DS turn 1, as far as i can tell.

I think they were referring to formation rules. But this does call into question using Belial with Draigo's Gate.

So me and the gaming buddy are having a debate regarding the deathwing strike force/ redemption force rulings. Rules for both say that units that can be placed in deep strike reserve must do so. Units that don't have deep strike must be placed in standard reserves.
So can a unit of terminators in a land raider dedicated transport opt out of being forced to deep strike out of it??

MonumentOfRibs wrote:
So me and the gaming buddy are having a debate regarding the deathwing strike force/ redemption force rulings. Rules for both say that units that can be placed in deep strike reserve must do so. Units that don't have deep strike must be placed in standard reserves.
So can a unit of terminators in a land raider dedicated transport opt out of being forced to deep strike out of it??

The way it's worded and the implication for the FAQ is that the squad MUST Deep Strike while the Land Raider drives on.

Wow, even GW says you can't take Ravenwing/Deathwing detachments. I wish they'd give an explanation as to why something that was explicitly a feature of the codex up until the 7th edition book was hard ruled out of existence.

You can take Ravenwing/Deathwing just fine. Just don't take flyers as part of your Ravenwing Strike Force. If you want to take a fleyr, you can take them in a Flyer Wing or the Ravenwing Silence Squadron or Ravenwing Abductor Squadron. Your Ravenwing can start on the board without issue.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
You can take Ravenwing/Deathwing just fine. Just don't take flyers as part of your Ravenwing Strike Force. If you want to take a fleyr, you can take them in a Flyer Wing or the Ravenwing Silence Squadron or Ravenwing Abductor Squadron. Your Ravenwing can start on the board without issue.

Actually, you need to edit that and say you can take Ravenwing just fine.

They even took the trouble to specifically edit out any possibility of playing a Deathwing detachment with a venerable dreadnought, and your land raiders have to be taken in reserve.

Even then, I'm pretty sure the whole Ravenwing flyer meaning you have to take the ENTIRE formation in reserve (which is just...impossibly stupid) is a new rule.

Venerable Dreadnoughts don't lose the Drop Pod Assault rule in the Deathwing Strike Force. So Deathwing still works just fine.

 TedNugent wrote:
Wow, even GW says you can't take Ravenwing/Deathwing detachments. I wish they'd give an explanation as to why something that was explicitly a feature of the codex up until the 7th edition book was hard ruled out of existence.

Sacrificed a tiny bit of fluff for better game balance.

There is nothing really balanced, or fun, about having nothing on the board for turn 1

All I can say is if you need a win, fine have your stupid win. Now you are a MAN. So since you had your win, now lets play for fun and my Deathwing will not come on the board until turn 2.

Now if you take your win and will not play for fun, that speaks more of your character and who you really are.

Davor wrote:
All I can say is if you need a win, fine have your stupid win. Now you are a MAN. So since you had your win, now lets play for fun and my Deathwing will not come on the board until turn 2.

Now if you take your win and will not play for fun, that speaks more of your character and who you really are.

Right, so If I want to play by the rules that means I'm not a man? Furthermore, why do I need to be a man to play you? Why does your ego have to come into play in a game of toy soldiers? Furthermore, why does your ego come into play while derogatorily stating that if your opponent doesn't allow you to cheat that they don't possess the neccessary qualifications to play you? What makes playing you so worth not playing by the rules?

As an honorable player, I abide by all the rules. Not just the ones that benefit me. And when they don't work in my favor, I don't belittle my opponent - that's called being a good sport. I also don't make assumptions of my opponent's integrity when they decide they want to win in a game that has a clear set victory condition.

I agree, rules are rules, thats the point of many of the threads on dakka. Run a CAD and put something on the board. hide it in terrain, and then bam, your army comes in turn 2 and you get to play it by the rules.

 redleger wrote:
I agree, rules are rules, thats the point of many of the threads on dakka. Run a CAD and put something on the board. hide it in terrain, and then bam, your army comes in turn 2 and you get to play it by the rules.

That's not deathwing army though. Surprise surprise people can be more interested than just winning and want to field cool armies you can find in fluff. Deathwing is one of the iconic armies that's hardly broken. Surprise surprise some people want to field it eventhough it sucks even if they would all come automatically on turn 1. But it's still cool.

When I want to field deathwing I field deathwing and don't dilute it by something as stupid as taking something non-deathwing. That's fine if you don't want to play deathwing. But when you play deathwing that means terminators, land raiders and dreadnoughts only. Period. Anything else isn't deathwing army.

I want to play with Following Fire on my Shuriken Catapults too, but surprisingly few people are willing to allow that. I don't insult them over it either.

Except, fluff wise, the Deathwing only teleport in after the Ravenwing are in place to set Teleport Homers. They very rarily go in by themselves.

So how would taking a few squads of bikes be non fluffy or breaking the army?

tneva82 wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I agree, rules are rules, thats the point of many of the threads on dakka. Run a CAD and put something on the board. hide it in terrain, and then bam, your army comes in turn 2 and you get to play it by the rules.

That's not deathwing army though. Surprise surprise people can be more interested than just winning and want to field cool armies you can find in fluff. Deathwing is one of the iconic armies that's hardly broken. Surprise surprise some people want to field it eventhough it sucks even if they would all come automatically on turn 1. But it's still cool.

When I want to field deathwing I field deathwing and don't dilute it by something as stupid as taking something non-deathwing. That's fine if you don't want to play deathwing. But when you play deathwing that means terminators, land raiders and dreadnoughts only. Period. Anything else isn't deathwing army.

1) You can bring Dreadnaughts in Drop Pods and half rounded up will come in turn 1.
2) You could play Unbound, bring a unit of Deathwing in a Land Raider, and start them on the table turn 1.

Either way and you won't lose. Congrats, there's no more reason to freaking insult people because your toys changed.

Yeah this "I WANNA PLAY MY 3RD ED DEATHWING ARMY" crying is dumb.

Deathwing are a company, they have support outside of the first company. Deal with it.

They Nerfed Deathwing, Davox. Grow a pair.

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeah this "I WANNA PLAY MY 3RD ED DEATHWING ARMY" crying is dumb.

Deathwing are a company, they have support outside of the first company. Deal with it.

Up until the 7th edition book, Deathwing could be an army. Yeah they're a company, but a strikeforce could be sent in to deal with traitors and hunt the Fallen.

I was super pissed when 7th came out and ruined it, he's not the only one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:
They Nerfed Deathwing, Davox. Grow a pair.

They nerfed an already underpowered army, but left Ravenwing alone. Right.

Hi,

Is it too late to post a question on certain Codex. I want to be sure to post in the correct place.

I would like to ask about something in regards to the Harlequin dex.

Neronoxx wrote:

Davor wrote:
All I can say is if you need a win, fine have your stupid win. Now you are a MAN. So since you had your win, now lets play for fun and my Deathwing will not come on the board until turn 2.

Now if you take your win and will not play for fun, that speaks more of your character and who you really are.

Right, so If I want to play by the rules that means I'm not a man? Furthermore, why do I need to be a man to play you? Why does your ego have to come into play in a game of toy soldiers? Furthermore, why does your ego come into play while derogatorily stating that if your opponent doesn't allow you to cheat that they don't possess the neccessary qualifications to play you? What makes playing you so worth not playing by the rules?

As an honorable player, I abide by all the rules. Not just the ones that benefit me. And when they don't work in my favor, I don't belittle my opponent - that's called being a good sport. I also don't make assumptions of my opponent's integrity when they decide they want to win in a game that has a clear set victory condition.

Riiiigggggghhhhhhttttttt. I want to play for fun with a fluffy army and me asking to not use one rule and you call me cheating. Right there speaks Volumes about you. Where is my ego in here? I haven't won a 40K game yet in my life. Now who is derogatorily saying someone is cheating when the rules clearly say speak to your opponent and you can change any rule you like. To me that right there speaks on who you are when it comes down to playing plastic toy soldiers.

You do know that the game is not written properly. You know the game is not very well balanced and you claim with honour that you play by the rules? How is that honourable? Knowing to play a game that is imbalanced poorly worded, poorly written, different edition codices and you will not let people tweak the rules. Is that honour or "PLAY MY WAY"?

Again, I said you have won your first game. I didn't complain, I didn't whine. You have won. So why not play a second game for fun now and tweak the rules a bit so some people can play how they want. I will play your way the first time, and have stuff on the table and play a game your way, then whow about after that game you can play my way the second time but with some tweaked rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skerr wrote:
Hi,

Is it too late to post a question on certain Codex. I want to be sure to post in the correct place.

I would like to ask about something in regards to the Harlequin dex.

If it's a question Ask in the general 40K section unless it's a rumour about something upcoming with the Harlequin dex. The mods frown when people ask questions in the News and Rumours section.

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeah this "I WANNA PLAY MY 3RD ED DEATHWING ARMY" crying is dumb.

You know what's dumb? Insulting other users over how you feel they should be playing with their toy soldiers.

TONE IT DOWN IN HERE.