Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Get them here. Orks looks good so far...
http://ca.games-workshop.com/whitedwarf/download/2006Errata/2006Erratta.htm

So shoota nobs can take klaws.... that's a nice clarification. They used the same (slightly convoluted) logic that we've been using here, and did a little joke to imply that they simply screwed up.

says 2006 errata in the link... I knew GW was behind a bit on these... but I don't think they are 2 years behind

I'm suprised that Zapp gun batteries make 1 roll for weapon strength for the whole battery. This seems like a new rule, but it speeds things up.
Zapp guns are also offensive weapons no matter what you roll for strength. This is a change from 3rd/4th edition

Yay for being right about everything!!

I like the Super Gretchin idea some situations spring into my mind when 5+ invul Gretchins could be pretty annoying for an enemy.

greenskinned git wrote:I'm suprised that Zapp gun batteries make 1 roll for weapon strength for the whole battery. This seems like a new rule, but it speeds things up.

It's in the Codex if you read the entry, it's pretty clear.

This actually impresses me:

Q. If a Trukk suffers a ‘Kareen!’ result, what
happens if the random movement forces it into
friendly models or off the table?
A. The vehicle stops as soon as it comes into
contact with friendly models or the table’s edge.

Q. If a Looted Wagon rolls a ‘1’ for “Don’t Press
Dat” what happens if the forced movement takes
them into friendly models, impassable terrain or
off the table?
A. The vehicle stops as soon as it comes into
contact with friendly models, impassable terrain
or the table’s edge.

This is hilarious really:

Q. Does a Weirdboy embarked on a vehicle still
roll for his powers? If so, can you clarify what
happens in all cases?
A. He still rolls for his powers and the effects are
as follows:
•‘Eadbanger: Causes a Strength 6 hit on the
vehicle’s rear armour.
•Frazzle: Fired from the vehicle following the
normal rules for passengers firing.
•Zzap: Fired from the vehicle following the
normal rules for passengers firing.
•Warpath: Applies as normal to the embarked
unit.
•‘Ere we go: Applies as normal to the embarked
unit. No effect on the vehicle.
•Waaagh! Applies as normal.

Uhhh where's our battlewagon go!? lol

Whoa, momma!

Warbiker Nobz have TWO wounds! Dakkaguns are Assault3! Tankbustas can attack 2 vehicles in one turn if they have Bombsquigs. Don't Press Dat WON'T take you into friendly units or bad terrain. Those models immune to instant death are NOT immune against SAG hits!

All around good stuff here...

DeathGod wrote:Yay for being right about everything!!

I hear ya. Do we have to split the cookie??



By the way, for everyone who was wrong...



Thanks for letting me use that again! lol

some nice errata in there for the orkses.

Did anyone notice the thanks to Yakface? This is the first time i'm reading the DA FAQ but that is still cool. Go Yakface!

ender502

i'm glad the dakka guns are now officially twin linked, that bothered me more than the PK question

Q. If Tankbustas are obviously in assault range
of an enemy unit that is not a vehicle (e.g.
within 1”), but there is a vehicle obviously out of
assault range (e.g. more than 24” away), can the
Tankbustas assault the non-vehicle unit?
A. No, they must still attempt to assault the
vehicle and will therefore not move in that
Assault phase.

Still think this is utterly BS, but the great GW has spoken.

DaBoss wrote:

Q. If Tankbustas are obviously in assault range
of an enemy unit that is not a vehicle (e.g.
within 1”), but there is a vehicle obviously out of
assault range (e.g. more than 24” away), can the
Tankbustas assault the non-vehicle unit?
A. No, they must still attempt to assault the
vehicle and will therefore not move in that
Assault phase.

Still think this is utterly BS, but the great GW has spoken.

not really, since their own unit entry says that they will always go after a tank. Kind of like having a one-track mind. They do want the glory of blowing up a tank. As far as the Dark Angel FAQ, it is mostly common sense.

links not working for me.

Did they clarify Stormboyz and other non-Infantry getting a Waaagh move?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Yes. They don't get it.


Good faqs and more kudos to yak.

I agree about these being good FAQs. Good job Yakface!

they sure did ozy, in fact its the first question.
storm boyz, runtherds, deffkoptas and wazdakka all do not have waaagh.

tkdarktrooper wrote:As far as the Dark Angel FAQ, it is mostly common sense.

See sig below.

So Tankbustaz went from being 'Really Bad' to 'Really Really Bad'. Pity too. The models are so pretty.

And I'm glad about the Nob Klaw thing. That was just beyond stupid that they somehow couldn't get one.

Dark Angels - Still boring.

BYE

heh

Nice to see that my Dark Angels can indeed shoot their pistols and assault (even though they are carrying rapid fire weapons).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Hmm...where are all the klaw in the shoota squad naysayers now?? We had a local tourney where one scrub tried to get the ork army he was about to play for first place completely disqualified for an illegal list. Too bad for him it dident work and everyone boo'd that man till he shut up. He lost on setup really.

uhmmm anyone else notice they used half of page 2 and page 3 of the faq was blank? Not to mention that page 2 was labeled as page 3 in the da faq?

davidson wrote:uhmmm anyone else notice they used half of page 2 and page 3 of the faq was blank? Not to mention that page 2 was labeled as page 3 in the da faq?

Ah, the wonders of Copy´N´Paste

...and the reason for not coming up with these months ago is....?

It amazes me how simplistic that the FAQ's are and yet we cannot count on them coming out in a timely fashion. Those things should come out a month or two after the codex and be updated periodically.

I'm just happy we're getting updated FAQs at all.

It makes me proud to be part of Dakka when Yak and the council are credited for putting right GW's wrongs. I love the ruling on Deffrollas btw.

Link not working for me? They get taken down?

Deadshane1 wrote:...and the reason for not coming up with these months ago is....?

It amazes me how simplistic that the FAQ's are and yet we cannot count on them coming out in a timely fashion. Those things should come out a month or two after the codex and be updated periodically.

I can't speak for the Dark Angel FAQ, but the Ork Faq is at least semi timely. At least we aren't waiting 2 or more years per faq. They must have discovered Yakface's faq council and decided it was a good idea.

tkdarktrooper wrote: As far as the Dark Angel FAQ, it is mostly common sense.

Most of it was.. not needed kind of common sense. And since when is doing completely the opposite of what a codex says, 'common sense'? Not to mention opening possible 'abuse' of rules for others (empty drop-pods?).


No one else here, yet, has anything to comment about the 'quality' of the DA FAQ?


I've already read the BGB FAQ (and had only one problem, that I've since forgotten what it was), and I've read the Eldar FAQ, both credited/thanked to Yakface and crew. Both really well done (and the adepticon FAQ as well) This one just leaves me lost, trying to figure out just exactly who put it together, and what they were thinking; it's so not 'like' the other 'yakface' FAQs I've read. It doesn't feel solid, or even needed. Granted, it's only posted on the CA site sofar, so... I dunno... Somebody way up there in GW-CA land jumping the gun again?