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.

is now up and can be got from here

It's like they read Dakka before making these decisions...

Awesome. So I guess we're done with the whole "wings as hull" debate?

mixed blessings on the LR for guard..but at least it confirms they can have one eh ?

No surprise either on the no orders to allies clarification, seems a sensible solution for the valk. and passengers too.

Uriels_Flame wrote:Awesome. So I guess we're done with the whole "wings as hull" debate?

Not entirely. We still don't know what they are for being shot at, if I read that correctly.

If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of
the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack?

No

Well that is definitely a different direction. Stinks for Astropaths but OotF was good for your opponent anyway.

GMMStudios wrote:If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of
the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack?

No

Well that is definitely a different direction. Stinks for Astropaths but OotF was good for your opponent anyway.

That might be one of the more arbitrary decisions. I'm guessing they were told they have trouble keeping the advisers in stock, and they should get people to buy other things instead....

Got the expected result on: only one heavy weapons team in infantry and veteran squads, you can't give orders in opponent's turn, hotshot lasguns aren't lasguns, hellstrikes aren't blast

Harsher than expected: ICs with Send in the Next Wave (ouch), no stacking of advisors

Not surprised: Can't multiple barrage with a mortar and Master of Ordnance, Valks can embark and disembark troops, allies FAQ

And while they did clarify that the Inducted Leman Russ in a WH/DH army must be a LRBT rather than a variant, they did not clarify whether that means 0-1 tank or 0-1 tank squadrons.

Death By Monkeys wrote:And while they did clarify that the Inducted Leman Russ in a WH/DH army must be a LRBT rather than a variant, they did not clarify whether that means 0-1 tank or 0-1 tank squadrons.

It says you are limited to 0-1 tank, so IMO it looks like they're simply keeping the old option fully intact, so only one tank.

HOLY CRAP!!!!

GW can write good rules and make quality FAQ's!!!!!

Now if they would just do this with everyone of their FAQ's.

This single work gives me hope for the future of this game.



You are limited to 0-1 LRBT, not 0-1 LRBT squadron. Seems pretty clear to me.

Raxmei wrote:Got the expected result on: only one heavy weapons team in infantry and veteran squads, you can't give orders in opponent's turn, hotshot lasguns aren't lasguns, hellstrikes aren't blast

Harsher than expected: ICs with Send in the Next Wave (ouch), no stacking of advisors

Not surprised: Can't multiple barrage with a mortar and Master of Ordnance, Valks can embark and disembark troops, allies FAQ

Yeah this is how I see all of them too.

Not too bad really.

Polonius wrote:It says you are limited to 0-1 tank, so IMO it looks like they're simply keeping the old option fully intact, so only one tank.

Don't get me wrong, that's how I read it, too (and how I originally read it), but there are still folks out there who'll want to read it as a squadron...

I had guessed as much. Most went the way I had thought. Would have liked storm troopers to get frfsrf as it would have made them more worth their points. But overall pretty happy.

One big bonus is that you can embark/disembark within 2" of the valks base, making the access points almost academic. It's not a huge boost, but a nice one.

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Polonius wrote:It says you are limited to 0-1 tank, so IMO it looks like they're simply keeping the old option fully intact, so only one tank.

Don't get me wrong, that's how I read it, too (and how I originally read it), but there are still folks out there who'll want to read it as a squadron...

Those people should just be happy they get the behemouth rule and can slap plasma cannons on.

Wow, nice GW. A very good FAQ, covered everything I could think of in a clear fashion and most of the ruling tended to be the common sense ones so they're not a pain to remember.

Dunno if someone different wrote this FAQ but if it was they need to keep the job.

As a IG player the advisors not stacking is sad, but the best for game balance.

Ironic that Advisors don't stack, yet Autarchs do

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Don't get me wrong, that's how I read it, too (and how I originally read it), but there are still folks out there who'll want to read it as a squadron...

Its how I read it, but its not really clearing anything up. Simply you cant take any variants.

It's funny that Autarchs stack, but IG advisors don't...

Well it says only LRBT also says 0 - 1 Battle tank. Seems pretty clear to me. Both by RAW and by RAI. They are not using "old" terms, they are using "new" terms. The new wording does not say squad but tank. I doubt this was an over site, as the FAQ was well written. I would say the best they can do with out saying something like this... "one LTBT may be used, not a squadron. Did I mention only one tank?"

Also note that as the list
states you are limited to 0-1 Leman Russ Battle
Tank

No one can argue about squadron, since it states a single tank, rather than saying squadron (since that 1 word ment so much to people)


All in all, its a great FAQ.

I like the tone on some of the rulings. For example, the question about the MoO attached to a squad with a mortar for range finding purpose: "Clearly using the mortar to range find for Basilisks dozens of miles behind the frontlines is silly"

Most welcome.
Covers enough for a start.

The biggest (imo) question they missed was the Valkyrie wings thing. They also didn't address the Furious Charging Rough Riders question, but I don't think that one is as prominent.

I think thats one of the most well composed FAQ's. Could this be the start of their "better FAQ support" they'd spoken about? I hope so.

aka_mythos wrote:I think thats one of the most well composed FAQ's. Could this be the start of their "better FAQ support" they'd spoken about? I hope so.

:crosses fingers:


Now we as a community just need to let them know that we want all the old FAQ's redone.

Well it is also possible that the IG codex was just very well written, from a RAI point of view. The FAQ and Erratta just support what was meant to happen. They did not have to "FIX" any game play oversights. Just tighten up the language they had originally written. As most of the "fixes" erred on the side of common sense. I would cast a vote for well written.

Regarding the Autarch getting it:

I think its fair. Eldar for one are more advanced, and two, they have to give up both HQ slots to do it. Two Autarch Eldar aint that great.

I think the Astropath makes sense from a game balance perspective. They had to rule the same for both Astropaths and Fleet Officers, and multiple fleet officers can be very powerful in what I call semi-competitive play. Top notch lists will work around it, but for 60pts an IG player can really stonewall a big chunk of a daemon army. In addition, there are a lot of casual play scenarios with diced reserves, and a -2 could be huge in influencing that.