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.

Following the example set by Gwar! I am currently working on a new FAQ for this codex as I am unsatisfied with the GW version to be completely honest. I believe of all codices this one needs it the most since there are plenty of issues due to this being a 3rd edition codex and now we are playing 5th edition rules. I had actually spent a lot of time researching this and have compiled most of it so by the end of this week at the latest I should have a document available to present to the community.

yea, good idea and all, the problem is that daemonhunters don't really have any questionable problems... they've all been resolved by FAQ's / RaW since its inception.. and INAT faq covers them nicely.

INAT doesn't have a section for wolves, so thats why gwar's was so relevant...

I don't meant to knock your efforts, by all means go ahead if you really want to, just some background for ya

Horst wrote:INAT doesn't have a section for wolves, so thats why gwar's was so relevant...

QFT. This is why I wrote it, because neither GW nor the INAT had one, while Dæmonhunters have both the INAT and the GW. Not that having no Space Wolf part is in any way INAT Councils Fault, the codex isn't on public release yet, and I also was motivated by the fact it just shows how shoddy GW really are, to need a 12 Page FAQ a week before release, never mind the 2 pages we will get 6 months from now. Is there really anything not covered between those two FAQs that is not answered? And if so, what?

as an aside here, am I the only person who thinks QFT means quite fething true? I never knew what it meant, and thats just what I inferred, and ever since, I can't see it without thinking the guy saying it is being rude.

Horst wrote:as an aside here, am I the only person who thinks QFT means quite fething true? I never knew what it meant, and thats just what I inferred, and ever since, I can't see it without thinking the guy saying it is being rude.

By Russ and the Allfarthers Left and Right Testicle, that is what I thought when I was t3h Internetz N00b too! It's only since coming to Dakka I am reminded it means Quoted for Truth, and I always thing Quite Fething True whenever I see it

Gwar! wrote:By Russ and the Allfarthers Left and Right Testicle, that is what I thought when I was t3h Internetz N00b too!

I don't like what you are implying with this.....

Same rules apply here. Quit the chit chat and approach the topic or don't post guys.

Frazzled wrote:Same rules apply here. Quit the chit chat and approach the topic or don't post guys.

Ok, Ok, we'll play nice:

@OP: Please, what issues specifically are you not happy that are not covered? Perhaps I can offer some assistance?

I'm excited to see the fruits of your efforts, as the DH codex seems to have some glaring issues not covered by the GW faq. What's your take on DH TH? Does the codex take precidence? Or does the rulebook?

Norwulf wrote:I'm excited to see the fruits of your efforts, as the DH codex seems to have some glaring issues not covered by the GW faq. What's your take on DH TH? Does the codex take precidence? Or does the rulebook?

If by TH you mean Thunder Hammer, then the Codex overrides the Rulebook. This is not an unclear issue...

Norwulf wrote:I'm excited to see the fruits of your efforts, as the DH codex seems to have some glaring issues not covered by the GW faq. What's your take on DH TH? Does the codex take precidence? Or does the rulebook?

Thanks Norwulf. I intend to deal with these types of issues. I am an engineer and have written literally hundreds of technical papers so for me this is an appealing little project. Do you mean thunder hammer when you say TH?

: )

horst wrote:the problem is that daemonhunters don't really have any questionable problems... they've all been resolved by FAQ's / RaW since its inception.. and INAT faq covers them nicely.

That "problem" is no problem at all. Certainly the GW FAQ does not resolve every issue, and the INAT FAQ is unofficial and frequently wrong. INAT FAQ rulings are no more "correct" or "valid" than yours, mine, gwar's or afrikan's.

Afrikan, I look forward to taking your rulings up on appeal

-GK

It will be my pleasure.

If you're taking suggestions, I'd suggest addressing whether or not the Daemons in Codex: Daemons are actually Daemons for DH rules/wargear purposes.

-GK

(edited to remove an auto-smiley *shakes fist*)

GiantKiller wrote:If you're taking suggestions, I'd suggest addressing whether or not the Daemons in Codex: Daemons are actually Daemons for DH rules/wargear purposes.

-GK

(edited to remove an auto-smiley *shakes fist*)

The R.a.W is clear. It does not need clarifying.

Gwar! Stop trying to start yet another argument here.

If you want to discuss this ruleing then start a new post dude. Now im asking you nicely before I hit the alert button for thread derailment.

Dont derail this one.

AB, I wish you the best of luck on your endevors with this FAQ. Look forward to reading it.

Yeah i did mean thunda hammaz. I get alot of mixed opinions with it when i play my DH at my FLGS. No one there seems to be able to agree on it. Also, how do rites of exorcism and destroy daemon work, now that daemons dont take instability tests? I'd like to find a way to make all these useless rules do something, since it'll probably be a year at best before DH get a new codex.

jp400 wrote:If you want to discuss this ruleing then start a new post dude. Now im asking you nicely before I hit the alert button for thread derailment.

Dont derail this one.

Considering I made an on topic post, and you did not, I would say YOU are derailing the thread, not me.

Norwulf wrote:Yeah i did mean thunda hammaz. I get alot of mixed opinions with it when i play my DH at my FLGS. No one there seems to be able to agree on it. Also, how do rites of exorcism and destroy daemon work, now that daemons dont take instability tests? I'd like to find a way to make all these useless rules do something, since it'll probably be a year at best before DH get a new codex.

I see no issues with Destroy Daemon (it does not mention instability at all) and yes, R.a.W Rites of Exorsism has no effect. Yes, it is sad, but them's the breaks.

Not getting into this with you Gwar! Im not going to let you start yet another flamewar that brings down yet another perfectly good thread.

Moveing on.

Gwar! wrote:The R.a.W is clear.

It is indeed. Daemons are, after all, daemons (and demons). If daemons weren't daemons for the purposes of being daemons, why would the Eldar Avatar have a rule saying it is a daemon?

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The R.a.W is clear.

It is indeed. Daemons are, after all, daemons (and demons). If daemons weren't daemons for the purposes of being daemons, why would the Eldar Avatar have a rule saying it is a daemon?

Nice way to completely twist what I am saying. The DH codex has a VERY specific list of what is and is not a Daemon. If it is not on that list, it is not affected. The RaW is clear, and it does not need any clarification.

Gwar! wrote:Nice way to completely twist what I am saying.

I was under the assumption that you and I were in agreement over the usage of the term "Daemons". My apologies for the confusion.

Gwar! wrote:The DH codex has a VERY specific list of what is and is not a Daemon. If it is not on that list, it is not affected. The RaW is clear, and it does not need any clarification.

After checking it, I'm wrong. I thought the rule in question was worded more like "The following units are daemons" and not like "For the purpose of this codex, the term Daemons refers to."

I am curious about your statement of it not needing clarification. If it doesn't need any clarification, why does the Scout rule in the SW codex need one? I find it rather obvious that "Scout" is a soon to be added USR. RaW supports the idea that it isn't the Scouts rule and RaI IS RaW...so why clarify it?

RustyKnight wrote:I am curious about your statement of it not needing clarification. If it doesn't need any clarification, why does the Scout rule in the SW codex need one? I find it rather obvious that "Scout" is a soon to be added USR. RaW supports the idea that it isn't the Scouts rule and RaI IS RaW...so why clarify it?

Read my FAQ, you will see that I have marked it as "Preferably changed by Errata". Not to mention my FAQ is for a Codex neither GW nor the INAT have an FAQ for already.

And no problem, I know a lot of people who make that mistake. Trust GW to make Daemon not mean Daemon eh?

I have yet to receive a reply though for my question to the OP. What exactly are the questions that you believe the R.a.W needs clarifying on?

And to be perfectly honest, if you insist on not letting them use the USR "Scouts", I wont mind. They outflank Via Infiltrate, so there is no difference. If you have Wolf Scouts that are not OBEL, you are doing it wrong Perhaps that was Kellys intention all along

Gwar! wrote:
I see no issues with Destroy Daemon (it does not mention instability at all) and yes, R.a.W Rites of Exorsism has no effect. Yes, it is sad, but them's the breaks.

Sorry, I ment banishment, my eyes skipped up a lil on the page, bummer about those rules not doing anything. Daemons are actually one of the hardest match ups for my DH lol. I need every trick i can get.

Hey how do teleport homers work in this codex? Does it work like in the SM codex? Or do i use a blast template or something?

Also can I use the tele homers on my SM, that the DH are allied with to deepstrike my GK termies in, using SM tele rules?

There is little that has not been previously faq'ed or erattaed. There is still a good deal of confusion because you are playing a codex that is not written for the current core rule set.

Our local shop has release "shop eratta" which transitions all 5th space marine rules to the templars/DH/insert old codex marine chapter here.

A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer in any marine army, a storm shield is a storm shield. Smoke is smoke, a psychic hood is a psychic hood.

This sucks for me, as I brought GK allies for the hoods alone.

As Gwar said, what are you unclear on that you wish to faq?

It's not a question of what he is unclear of the RAW on. Gwar has answers in his FAQ that have clear RAW that he thought would be better a different way. So does the INAT FAQ.

Anyone has just as much right to make a FAQ of his opinions on how a codex should work as anyone else.

It doesn't get much more pathetic than claiming over and over that you don't use answers in a GW FAQ that change RAW, then put out your own FAQ that changes RAW, then bash someone else for saying they are going to put out a FAQ that might change RAW.

Kaaihn wrote:It doesn't get much more pathetic than claiming over and over that you don't use answers in a GW FAQ that change RAW, then put out your own FAQ that changes RAW, then bash someone else for saying they are going to put out a FAQ that might change RAW.

Ok, Firstly... ya know what, I am not even gonna bother.

At least when I alter the RaW, I admit it, and state that it should really be changed by Errata. TBH, I don't mind if you want to stop Wolf Scouts having Scout or stopping Berserk Charge working. All the RaW issues in the SW codex are inconsequential, as they all apply to sup par selections. Funny from someone who actually contributed to the original thread, mostly with broken RaW.

And in case you have forgotten how to read, I offered to help with the FAQ. I am not Bashing it in any way.

If my FAQ is epic fail I'm sure I'll know from feedback here. I appreciate all the questions posted here and I will make sure to address each and every one.

I'm not going to answer questions in this thread as that would defeat the purpose of creating a FAQ in my opinion. I can say that you should not expect all my answers to strictly follow RAW. I think the INAT FAQ is an excellent example of how to go about creating a FAQ except that for the most part I'll just be a one man band. To me a FAQ created by a body of people has it's advantages but I also think that a well informed person working alone can also do at least a reasonable job.

I hope that people who like my FAQ will use it as a reference should a question arise in a game. I don't expect or think anyone should consider it as official and to me that is obviously the case. If it should help some people have more enjoyable games then I will have accomplished my goal.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:It doesn't get much more pathetic than claiming over and over that you don't use answers in a GW FAQ that change RAW, then put out your own FAQ that changes RAW, then bash someone else for saying they are going to put out a FAQ that might change RAW.

Ok, Firstly... ya know what, I am not even gonna bother.

At least when I alter the RaW, I admit it, and state that it should really be changed by Errata. TBH, I don't mind if you want to stop Wolf Scouts having Scout or stopping Berserk Charge working. All the RaW issues in the SW codex are inconsequential, as they all apply to sup par selections. Funny from someone who actually contributed to the original thread, mostly with broken RaW.

And in case you have forgotten how to read, I offered to help with the FAQ. I am not Bashing it in any way.

That's alot of words for someone not even bothering

I have yet to comment on Wolf Scouts, so don't attribute anything about that to me, and I was the one that stated that Berserk Charge works just fine, but it had inconsistent term usage, which is one of the things you asked for help with in your thread.

Interesting that you think changing the RAW for Tempest is inconsequential.

You asked for help identifying broken or inconsistent RAW in the Space Wolf codex. I didn't mind helping with that and provided a bunch. Had you stated in the beginning you of all people were looking for help creating a FAQ that would be changing your beloved and previously sacrosanct RAW, I wouldn't have contributed. You doing this project is staggeringly hypocritical, in my opinion.

Oh, and BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The jilted little child removed my name from the Thanks to: line of his FAQ thread because I called him on his hypocrisy. This might bother me if I had wanted any credit in that thing in the first place.

Kaaihn wrote:Interesting that you think changing the RAW for Tempest is inconsequential.

Yeah, because the FAQ only says to change the RaW. Oh, wait, it doesn't.