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.

GK FAQ is here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830601a_Grey_Knights_v1_0.pdf


Rulebook FAQ is here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830600a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_3.pdf


as usual some questions have been answered and some not and I'm sure there will still be arguments.

I really thought the falchions were going to give the +2 attacks.

Nothing else is that surprising.

I think the shunt/scout deal was the original intent but was removed due to public outcry.

Q. Taking Inquisitor Coteaz in your force turns
Henchman Warbands into troops choices. Does this
mean that they take up a force organisation slot and
can no longer be taken as an elites choice? (p33)
A. Yes to both questions.

Finally, that debate can end.

The only ruling that rankles me a bit is the one that says that Coteaz's 'I've been expecting you' rule is resolved "as soon as a valid target is placed on the board", but then says after the shots are resolved the unit "can complete its move".

This seems to imply that units moving on from a board edge from reserves are placed on the table and then moved, which seems to be contrary to how the rules for units arriving from reserves are written.


But besides that, I actually like pretty much everything else.

Off to get to work on the INAT FAQ update! Whee....

I'm disappointed about the shunt not being allowed for a scout move as it makes an already novelty unit in the Interceptors even less attractive.

The bit about the Plasma Siphon is insane if you are going against a Tau opponent; almost all of the Tau weapons are affected!

SonicPara wrote:I'm disappointed about the shunt not being allowed for a scout move as it makes an already novelty unit in the Interceptors even less attractive.

While somewhat disappointing, I'm honestly not surprised, as it gets around the built in drawback to the shunt.

I think the plasma thing is a little...generous.

I would have bet my ass that GK termis will be errated, so that they can´t embark a chimera.

NOW WTF GW IS WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC?

"No, termis! You don´t fit in a rhino, as it´s made for GIANT Spacemarines! Now embark your chimera! Little IGmen, out of there!"

-_______-

sry 4 nerdrage

SonicPara wrote:I'm disappointed about the shunt not being allowed for a scout move as it makes an already novelty unit in the Interceptors even less attractive.

Seriously? If they had ruled the other way then armies built around Interceptor squads and Dreadknights with personal teleporters that won the roll to go first could have all of those units getting guaranteed turn 1 assaults against the enemy with absolutely nothing the enemy could do against it besides staring their entire army in reserve.

And of course Daemon armies which would be completely denied the ability to land any units on turn 1 if the Grey Knights went first...


...yeah, those sound like fun novelties for the players involved in those games...

Q: For each Jokaero Weaponsmith in a henchman unit
after the first you add +1 to the Inconceivable
Customisation roll. Does this mean that if you have 6 or
more Jokaero in a unit that they will receive no
bonuses (as you cannot roll less than a 6 and duplicate
rolls are ignored)? (p50)
A: Yes.

Take 6 Jokaero - get no bonuses.
Take 5 Jokaero - get bonuses.

Wha...?

I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

That and the plasma ability is really giving the edge to GK over CSM, Tau and Eldar; because we know they really need it.

Ventusgermany wrote:I would have bet my ass that GK termis will be errated, so that they can´t embark a chimera.

NOW WTF GW IS WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC?

"No, termis! You don´t fit in a rhino, as it´s made for GIANT Spacemarines! Now embark your chimera! Little IGmen, out of there!"

-_______-

sry 4 nerdrage

If Ogryns, which take up 2 spots per model, can embark on Chimeras why couldn't Terminators? Let's face it, the restriction against Terminators riding in Rhinos/Razorbacks was more about making sure that marine armies functioned the way the fluff worked rather than what made 'sense'. The fact is Terminators should be able to ride in Rhinos/Razorbacks but GW wanted to make sure that the Land Raider was the ubiquitous transport for Terminators because that's what the fluff always said. But frankly, there's absolutely no reason that Termies shouldn't be able to ride in Chimeras when Ogryns can.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Q: For each Jokaero Weaponsmith in a henchman unit
after the first you add +1 to the Inconceivable
Customisation roll. Does this mean that if you have 6 or
more Jokaero in a unit that they will receive no
bonuses (as you cannot roll less than a 6 and duplicate
rolls are ignored)? (p50)
A: Yes.

Take 6 Jokaero - get no bonuses.
Take 5 Jokaero - get bonuses.

Wha...?

When I read the codex that always seemed entirely 100% intentional...and was actually good game design. If you take a bunch of Jokaeros in a unit you get the benefit of having a bunch of malleable weapon options in the same unit, but you lose out on their 'Inconceivable Customization' rule. Whereas if you only take 1 or 2, then you totally get the bonus. So it completely rewards a player for only taking a few Jokaeros in their unit, which is brilliant IMHO.

blood angel wrote:I really thought the falchions were going to give the +2 attacks.

Nothing else is that surprising.

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Would anyone mind copy & pasting the FAQ here for those who cannot access it from work? Thanks!

If this weren't actually posted on the GW site I'd say it was totally made up crap.

So I will say only that it looks like totally made up crap.

Between the Jokaero thing, overly generous Plasma and Daemon definitions, and other "we flipped a coin to decide" answers, this FAQ seems slapped together. Which makes sense considering the codex does too...I guess.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

Why? It makes complete sense. How would you have expected them to rule given that there is no clear RAW indication of what a 'daemon' is (given that their rule does not say that they have preferred enemy against any models with the Daemon special rule). Would you really have expected them to rule that Summoned Daemons in the CSM codex (for example) didn't count as 'daemons'?

That and the plasma ability is really giving the edge to GK over CSM, Tau and Eldar; because we know they really need it.

Well, given that no one will ever take that option in a tournament list, it won't make a lick of difference!

It has been a long time coming in calling anything not in the Codex: Chaos Daemon a Daemon. Aside from the Avatar which states it is a Daemon, this resolves the issue of what are Daemons.

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Was not expecting Obliterators to be counted as daemons :-\ Oh well at least there's an official definition now.

yakface wrote:Seriously? If they had ruled the other way then armies built around Interceptor squads and Dreadknights with personal teleporters that won the roll to go first could have all of those units getting guaranteed turn 1 assaults against the enemy with absolutely nothing the enemy could do against it besides staring their entire army in reserve.

And of course Daemon armies which would be completely denied the ability to land any units on turn 1 if the Grey Knights went first...


...yeah, those sound like fun novelties for the players involved in those games...

Yes it can be quite nasty but the GK player pays a hefty premium for Interceptors which are an inherently mediocre unit. They are obviously the parallel to assault marines but they are far more expensive, only have 2 attacks on the charge (no pistol/ccw combo), and are no more survivable. Sure you get the Force Weapons and Storm Bolters but, as you can see with most of the GK lists in the Army List forum, Interceptors end up being too pricey in the face of things like Purifiers. Don't get me wrong, I still use and love them but they struggle to accomplish much unless the opponent deploys forward.

As for the prospect of GKs getting turn 1 assaults being bad, it is still very possible. Even without this rule a GK player can give scout to a Stormraven and ensure a turn 1 assault for its payload which could very well be 12 Death Cult Assassins; a combo that ends up being only slightly more expensive than a kitted out unit of Interceptors and is undoubtedly more game-ruining. I'm not complaining, I will still use my teleporting units and have fun, its just a shame that the FAQ could remove any balance of power in C:GK and make the army one-dimensional in the competitive scene.

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Indeed. Turns out that now we're stuck paying for the only NFW without an actual bonus.

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

It just seems that GW included the +1A in the text without stating that it already included the +1A for wielding two of the same special weapon.

So no extra CC cheese for GKs. :(

yakface wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

Why? It makes complete sense. How would you have expected them to rule given that there is no clear RAW indication of what a 'daemon' is (given that their rule does not say that they have preferred enemy against any models with the Daemon special rule). Would you really have expected them to rule that Summoned Daemons in the CSM codex (for example) didn't count as 'daemons'?

So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

ETA (you edited your post after I replied):
I would have counted ALL C: CD, the Avatar, and Lesser and Greater Daemons in CSM.
Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have the Daemon Special Rule but they do have special summoning rules that refers to them as Daemons.

My defence of Daemon Princes in the past has been based around the agreement with most people who debated with me that surely possessed, oblits, etc don't count as daemons since they are described in the fluff as only being partially daemonic. But now, if my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a daemon, and everyone else was Human, the GK would get PE against me!

Platuan4th wrote:

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Indeed. Turns out that now we're paying for the only NFW without an actual bonus.

The bonus is the +1 attack, which could in theory make a difference if you decided to field CC- strike hard and forget about defense GKs.

Kirasu wrote:

blood angel wrote:I really thought the falchions were going to give the +2 attacks.

Nothing else is that surprising.

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Because people (incorrectly) thought that "+1 attack" was a special rule in addition to the 2 weapons bonus.

However, there was nothing in the rules to suggest that falchions had a "gain an extra attack" special rule.

Anyway, feeling vindicated on this.

SonicPara wrote:
Yes it can be quite nasty but the GK player pays a hefty premium for Interceptors which are an inherently mediocre unit. They are obviously the parallel to assault marines but they are far more expensive, only have 2 attacks on the charge (no pistol/ccw combo), and are no more survivable. Sure you get the Force Weapons and Storm Bolters but, as you can see with most of the GK lists in the Army List forum, Interceptors end up being too pricey in the face of things like Purifiers. Don't get me wrong, I still use and love them but they struggle to accomplish much unless the opponent deploys forward.

As for the prospect of GKs getting turn 1 assaults being bad, it is still very possible. Even without this rule a GK player can give scout to a Stormraven and ensure a turn 1 assault for its payload which could very well be 12 Death Cult Assassins; a combo that ends up being only slightly more expensive than a kitted out unit of Interceptors and is undoubtedly more game-ruining. I'm not complaining, I will still use my teleporting units and have fun, its just a shame that the FAQ could remove any balance of power in C:GK and make the army one-dimensional in the competitive scene.

The shunt move is infinitely interesting for objective grabbing...which given the FAQ ruling is clearly what it was intended to be. Allowing the shunt move to be used during Scout moves would have essentially completely ruined games against certain armies if they Grey Knight player won the roll to go first.

If GW had ruled that way they would have been freaking idiots (IMHO) and I'm frankly surprised you're advocating that they should have.

Why why my doomfists NOOOO

anyway, I like the hammer LOL

Sad to see they missed the opportunity to clarify what effect multiple castings of Hammerhand has on the same unit.


EDIT: Ooops. Just saw they addressed that one in the Rulebook FAQ.

GK-Faq:

Q: If a model with a Nemsesis force halberd has had his
Initiative reduced to a fixed number by an
ability/special rule, do they still get the +2 Initiative
from the Halberd? (p54)
A: No.

Tyranids Faq:

Q: If a model with Lash Whips is attacking a model
with an Initiative-boosting rule/piece of wargear (e.g.
Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee Mask etc.), which
order are the Initiatives modified?
A: The Lash Whips will reduce an enemy model’s
initiative to 1 before any other modifiers are
applied. So, a model with Furious Charge that
assaults a Tyranid with Lash Whips will strike at
Initiative 2, and an Eldar with a Banshee Mask will
strike at Initiative 10 in the first round of assault

Yeah, that is consistant...

Cilithan

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:
So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

No, it means that when a unit is described as being something...shocker...it actually *is* that thing. Yes, it is absolutely true that Black Templar Terminators are wearing Terminator Armor.


As soon as someone finds the part of the rulebook that clearly explains that a description of a unit is 'fluff' and therefore should be completely ignored for determining what a unit is, I will be in total agreement with you.

Happily, no such thing exists. So Nuglings are indeed Daemons of Nurgle, summoned Daemons are indeed Daemons and Terminators do indeed wear terminator armor.