Warhammer 40,000 FAQ Draft p58 Chaos daemons

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.

**tneva82**

Oh dear god. That drop pod thingie was bad answer. Ability to block huge areas of board is just what drop pods needed!

**tneva82**

EnTyme wrote:
I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.

a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.

**tneva82**

Nevelon wrote:
Open topped vehicle passengers can disembark from any point of the vehicle. (pg. 88) So you might be able to make a claim to disembark from the tips of the doors.

On pg. 72, when talking about measuring from vehicles, it allows us to ignore decorative elements. One could make an argument that pod doors are decorative, and thus don’t count. This would prevent them from creating a massive impassible footprint.

Overall I think the FAQs make sense, but could use a little refining.

Too bad FAQ specifically specified the doors are not ignored. They are part of the model. They are not ignored for game purposes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Thing is now, that is a big HUGE foot imprint you have to deepstrike now. Since you can't open and close the doors, you either model them open for "road block" and farther disenbarkemnt but take the hit in where you may not be able to deep strike exactly where you want because of the bigger foot print, which is what, double the size now deep striking it with the doors open?

True that. But still choice is marine players...He can deploy them doors closed. Still good LOS blocking.

Want accuracy? Smaller footprint. Want roadblock? Deploy doors wide.

**tneva82**

bogalubov wrote:
So what happens to people who found the drop pod model too finicky and glued the doors shut? Their guys can never get out?

Making the doors functional just makes the model more complicated in the game.

Nope. It's still hull. Instead you have drop pod sized LOS blocker as you can't see through the pod.

**tneva82**

RedNoak wrote:
it would make sense to ignore the drop pod doors for gaming purposes...

but either way its a win-loose scenario for both sides... because dont forget that you must place the droppod WITH OPEN doors before rolling to scatter
so on one hand you can deny a hell lot of boardspace from the enemy... on the other hand thought, it will be hard to place the damn thing on a crowded board or near the table edges >

Assuming marine player simply doesn't deploy them with doors closed. Which he can do. As many players already have glued them to ease the life(those opening doors can be pain and since before there wasn't gaming wise difference generally...).

Now he can go for whichever he feels gives him best advantage.

**tneva82**

EnTyme wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
EnTyme wrote:
I can't access Facebook from work, so the best part of my Wednesday is trying to guess what exactly everyone is so outraged about.

a) base LOS of pod whether doors are glued or open(glued, it's invisible barrier, open, open)
b) disembarking from any point of open doors...That's hell of a large area to select where to disembar
c) those open doors count as part of model. Means enemy cannot cross those. That's a HUGE barrier opponent cannot advance within 1". That's road block extraordinary. Drop over objective and you are hard pressed to move legally into positon where you could contest the objective. Even if it didn't land literally to top of it.

Okay yeah. That's a bunch of crap. If drop pods are really that powerful, they should cost at least as much as a Razorback. I'm gonna go ahead and self-impose a houserule against my drop pods so that the doors are just decorative. They don't block LoS, you can't measure from the doors, feel free to move across the doors. The only part of the model that matters is the chassis (the vertical portion).

Which is basically how it has been played around here at least...

Only issue was occasional LOS questions with doors that were glued up but those were very rare and generally leaned toward "if in doubt visible".

**tneva82**

Nevelon wrote:
insaniak wrote:
bogalubov wrote:
So what happens to people who found the drop pod model too finicky and glued the doors shut? Their guys can never get out?

Making the doors functional just makes the model more complicated in the game.

Why would they not be able to get out?

They can disembark (via the open topped rules) but good luck getting LOS for the stormbolter.

Oh the horror

I think having LOS blocker you can place is bigger deal than stormbolter

**tneva82**

EnTyme wrote:
Also worth noting: A Captain model taken in the various formations (Gladius, Hunting Force, etc.) may be upgraded to Chapter Master (though the answer does admit that this isn't exactly fluffy)

That was silly answer. Just say yes or no. Now it's like "technically yes but you really shouldn't be doing it". If you don't want people doing it ban it. If you don't ban it don't start implying players are doing it wrong if they do it.

**tneva82**

Talys wrote:
In the scenario that you describe (put knife away, throw grenade, grab knife), I would totally agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about charging forward with a pistol and knife, never throwing a grenade, yet getting the benefits of the grenade, just because it's hanging on your belt.

Game mechanics-wise, it actually makes more sense, because every model in the squad must pay for a grenade, while only one model can actually throw a grenade each turn (which doesn't make real-life sense, anyways). So, like, the points for the grenades on the 9 models that can't throw them have some game mechanic benefit, yay. But I'm just saying... it makes as little sense to say that a model that doesn't use a grenade can get its benefits as it does that a model with a grenade can't throw it, just because his buddy threw a grenade of some type

I would much rather it be the other way around: grenades don't confer their benefits (like Assault) unless the model is using them, and any model that has the grenade can use it. But I get it. Then grenades are too good. And it's a game, where combat is an abstraction, and all that.

Or howabout this scenario:

Squad prepares to charge in. One member takes up grenade, throw it and when it goes boom forcing defenders to duck in he and his squad mates charge in. While running he also has ample time to pull up his holstered pistol in preparation of combat.

Pretty much how it goes in real life(well apart from wielding pistol and sword)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
doktor_g wrote:
Here's the issue.

Doesn't count. Doors are not attached to the base, so the doors don't do nothing. Also why would you have the 2 pods touching? Why not put them 1.999" away from each other since no mini can move within 1" of the enemy. So increase your line. Come on, if you are going to whine about cheese, do it properly lol.

Hey more power to you if you can pull that off. After all they can't scatter for that to happen. There is more things to complain about this. If someone wants to do this, plan for it I say and adapt. Don't whine and cry about it.

Doors are part of model as per FAQ. You can't move over enemy models. Ergo you can't go over the drop pods so are stuck at the other side until you blow those pods apart.

**tneva82**

Formosa wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Eh. Drop pods should be abstracted as Deep Strike and the model not be required anyway. Kinda silly to plonk this massive spendy bit of plastic down just to do what amounts to Deep Striking. But I know that doesn't help here.

They used to be, and prior to that it was a special mission from codex space marines, then people kept whining at GW to make the model, then GW made the model, now you want the model to go and have an abstract... circles within circles, the dark angels approve!

Not even mission but special way to deploy all foot marine army.

Did require them to forego all vechiles though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
In addition, your army will still need to deal with drop pods, so assuming it's deployed with the doors out, it'll be easier to get into CC by the nature of it's larger footprint to bust open the pods.

Or, am I smoking some there?

Who CC's in the shooty edition? Especially in tournament settings with their turkey shoot gallery tables...

**tneva82**

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?

**tneva82**

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**

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...

**tneva82**

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.

**tneva82**

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.

**tneva82**

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

**tneva82**

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

**tneva82**

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.

**tneva82**

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.

**tneva82**

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.

**tneva82**

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
No i wont be more patient why should i? They can fix imperial dread noughts but cant be arsed to fix chaos ones .
They can buff a couple of blood angel units to matixh the marine codex yet i bet they wont remove the rather silly restriction on chaos psykers

They haven't changed chaos dreadnoughts because place for that would be chaos faq. You expect them to put chaos related stuff to non-chaos FAQ?

Like it or not it makes only logical sense to do all loyal marines in one go. They are after all very similar so it's fast process. This is much more common release pattern than random jumping from book to book. From any company.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JimOnMars wrote:

You have not been patient, as they are just going through the books one by one. None of these will be official (i.e. none will have any effect at all) until the last one updates. It doesn't matter which one is the last one. All will become official at the same time.

Actually not correct. They are there. There's really no reason to not use and are already used.

**tneva82**

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Oh i don't know maybe +2 attacks on am of our walkers and the silly restriction on marked psykers either removed or basically taken care of as us automatically getting the god specific fufils the requirement for one power from the discipline

And there's no reason to expect chaos dreadnoughts don't get +2 when CHAOS FAQ comes out.

They could of course answer random questions from random books in random order jumping from question and book to another...Funny thing not any company does that.

Answer tday question about BA+skyhammer, tomorrow question about eldar, then chaos, back to BA, then orks...Yeah that's sensible schedule...NOT!

**tneva82**

EnTyme wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
Well now I'm back to not knowing what order they want multiplication and addition to be done in, since Space Wolves and Blood Angels apparently do it differently.

Well, those aren't quite the same situation. Furious Charge is +1S on the charge, Thunder Wolf is +1S all the time. In other words, TW changes the unit's profile, FC does not. Thusly, in the case of the TW, you add the +1 before you multiply, but after multiplying for FC. This may be a better discussion for YMDC, though.

That's only because they decided to change how that's counted to avoid having to explain how to calculate TWC strenght properly or have IC's with S9 and TWC with 10.

**tneva82**

Crazyterran wrote:
Now I want to make the Ultra Dark Blood Wolf Scars, the ultimate chapter that can use anyone's rules!

Well that's what tournament marine armies do anyway. Paint in whatever, use whatever rules happen to be most powerful. Bringing lots of bikes? Scars. Lots of infantry? UM or imperial fists.

**tneva82**

Requizen wrote:
Warhams-77 wrote:
Games Workshop re-released the Looted Tank datasheet via today's blog post

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Blog/ENGWD021_025_web.pdf

It was only available in WDW in 2014 afaik

Very cool! Dunno how much it actually helps Orks, but nice to see some fluffy stuff come back.

Come back? Okay so it's available on one more place but that has never gone out of legality.

**tneva82**

Requizen wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Requizen wrote:
Warhams-77 wrote:
Games Workshop re-released the Looted Tank datasheet via today's blog post

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Blog/ENGWD021_025_web.pdf

It was only available in WDW in 2014 afaik

Very cool! Dunno how much it actually helps Orks, but nice to see some fluffy stuff come back.

Come back? Okay so it's available on one more place but that has never gone out of legality.

Was that not before the new Codex? I don't really know the timeline on that one.

It came around the time of new codex. Like week or two after.

**tneva82**

NorseSig wrote:
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.

No, I wasn't expecting points updates in faqs. That would be silly. I was expecting them to at least clarify the rules for the formations they made to make the formation usable. Which it was crazy to hope for that I know.

So what UNCLEAR WORDING cleared up would help formation? You know job of FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions(hint is kinda at the name). Not really to change the rules.

So expecting formation rules to be changed...Yeah that's crazy. Not job of a FAQ.

**tneva82**

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If your front armor of 13 can be negated by simply moving to the side, then so can the 3++ on our dreads.

But the 3++ is on SW! BA dreads are easier to flank because they are BA and BA whiners can't accept anything that might make BA look less crappy as they make it sound.

**tneva82**

Galef wrote:
BossJakadakk wrote:
NorseSig wrote:
I wish they would have errata'd the cost of WK to be 100+ points more and jetbikes to be 5 to 10 points more a piece, and scatterlasers on bikes to be 20 to 25 points.

I'm glad they didn't. I don't feel this is the place to alter points values. Next codex though, I fully expect it.

I've said it before and I feel now's a good time to say it again. Points increases are a bad idea for GW and the players. It means the players don't get to field as many models and that sells less for GW.
What we should hope for instead are Stat Decreases. Make the WK only have 5 wounds and come stock with the shoulder weapons for a total 330pts. Make Windriders only have 4+ armour. Stuff like that.

Glad to see Flicker jump fixed. It never made sense to me that suck a mediocre unit was so tournament worth.

--

It might be bad for GW financially but good for games. There's big problem in that while army size has gone up board sizes haven't. Standard size is still 6'x4' same as in 2nd ed. Model count is how much bigger?

Same board, more models=less room for manouvering=less tactics.

**tneva82**

angelofvengeance wrote:
Well... the DE FAQ&Errata was disappointing... precisely feth all tweaked. Like the Archon having next to bugger all weapon options. Seriously! They're the army commander!

What hard to understand archon entry has?

You weren't seriously expecting major changes to rules in a faq?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NorseSig wrote:
Requizen wrote:
No FAQs have had point changes so far, I don't know why anyone would imagine there would be some in this FAQ.

I was not refering to the faq but the included ERRATA. As something like changing points cost of things would be errata.

Which have so far been fairly trivial standardization of stats of same units between multiple codex. Only major change has been the warpspider jump thingie.

Seriously people are expecting way too much if they are expecting big changes with these things. Be thankful they nerfed warp spiders with this. Guess it was too broken even for GW to not do something about it.