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.

**EnTyme**

Frozocrone wrote:
Also wow, Flyrants gained Deep Strike. Null deployment Tyranids are a go, lol

If the Flyrant starts in DS Reserve, he would have to roll for reserves before arriving, though. Unless there is a formation I'm not aware of that allows him to do so on turn 1, this wouldn't work. Pity. I love null deployment armies.

**EnTyme**

Sinful Hero wrote:
Eldarain wrote:
Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.

Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.

/sigh

The Rules p. 73 wrote:

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling around. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always down from the cenre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicle cannot move over friendly models.

That is the full quote from the rule book, emphasized exactly as it appears. Now, let me highlight the pertinent portion:

The Rule p. 73 wrote:Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

This combined with the FAQ paints a pretty clear picture and is in no way contradictory. If all you do is pivot on the spot, you don't count as having moved. If you pivot and then move, no point on the model may move further than the vehicle's movement speed from its original spot.

**EnTyme**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
nobody specifically asked that question so there is no absolute answer

however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no

so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation

We'll have to see if it's in the codex-specific FAQs, but I don't really think upgrading a captain to a chapter master is the same as exchanging a tank commander for Pask. That would be more like exchanging a captain for Pedro Kantor. Chapter Master is an upgrade available to the Captain. Pedro Kantor is a completely separate model with completely different rules.

**EnTyme**

insaniak wrote:
dan2026 wrote:
Did people really play every model in a unit can throw a grenade?
Even though the rulebook already states only one model can throw one.

No, people played that one model could throw a grenade, but everyone in the unit could use them in close combat.

Because for some reason, there's a difference.

**EnTyme**

JimOnMars wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Really not too pleased with the whole "A character can only have one Relic" decision.

That wrecks my Raptor Captain with Ex Tenebris and Armour of Shadows or the other Captain with Raven's Fury and Swiftstrike and Murder.
I am. Orks are specifically prohibited from taking 2 by their codex. It's nice there every else gets limited the same way we are.

Necrons were the same way, though I think Mephrit Dynasty specifically allows one from each least. I always assumed all codices limited you to one artifact.

**EnTyme**

Okay. I guess I'll just ask it. What the feth is Blood Oath?

**EnTyme**

Warhams-77 wrote:
Blood Oath is a campaign book(let) based on a Warhammer World exhibition diorama and only sold there. It comes with formations for Ultramarines, Khorne Daemonkin, Grey Knights and others

Spoiler:

Rules:
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/307722-warhammer-world-exclusive-campaign-blood-oath/

Edit: ChaosMarauder was faster

A okay. Thanks for clearing that up. So what other minor codices/supplements are left before they get to the meat of the game. No offense to KDK, LOTD, et. al., but I know we're all waiting for IG, SM, Tau, Eldar, etc. FAQs.

**EnTyme**

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.

**EnTyme**

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).

**EnTyme**

Now that BoLS has the FAQ posted, I can read them! I do find the wording of a couple of these to be very interesting.

Q: In a Gladius Strike Force, is a unit allowed to take a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport but then deploy on the board while the Drop Pod Deep Strikes?

A: Technically, taking a Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport and then deploying the unit and the Drop Pod separately is something you can do.

I fell like the second half of that answer is "but it's kind of pointless and a borderline dick move".

**EnTyme**

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)

**EnTyme**

jreilly89 wrote:
Jimsolo wrote:
Everyone I know who has pods with articulated doors places the model with doors up, scatters it, then puts down as many as can go down. (Because no one ever played doors as being part of the hull before.)

This is more bizarre than the grenades ruling.

Seriously. The grenades baffled me. This? Just. Ugh. Bring on more SM hate!

Other than units that have to purchase grenades for the entire unit rather than per model, the grenade ruling made perfect sense to me. Drop pod doors, however, do not. Even the answer of "it depends on how it is modeled" is too vague for my tastes.

**EnTyme**

I think it may be time to dust off that old 35 drop pod list I saw on dakka a few months back. May be one of the most broken lists in the game now.

**EnTyme**

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.

**EnTyme**

JimOnMars wrote:
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.
I was thinking the same thing. They know they have their thumb in the dike, and it's already cracking.

Once they fix all 200 bad units, however, they would be done with balancing and they could concentrate on 8th.

I think that 8th edition will be how GW fixes those 200 "bad" units. Hell, the sheer magnitude of this FAQ effort shows that GW is acknowledging that the game has problems. That's always the first step.

**EnTyme**

Gamgee wrote:

What will it be this time? A slap on the wrist? Another pointless internet debate?

No! For your transgressions, Dakka shall impose its most sincere punishment! From this day forward, you may only play Orks, Chaos Space Marines, or Tyranids until you learn what "underpowered" actually means!

THE DAKKA HAS SPOKEN!

**EnTyme**

Frozocrone wrote:
Oh yeah, forgot about Grey Knights...

Might do AM after GK, just because IoM.

Well, it kind of makes sense to do all IoM at the same time rather than splitting it up. If I was in scheduling the FAQs, I would do all IoM, then Chaos, then start with the Xenos races.

**EnTyme**

For those who haven't seen it, the AoS FAQ is now live on games-workshop.com. Hopefully some of the earlier 40k FAQs will be revised and live soon.

**EnTyme**

Congrats to BA on the scout update. One step closer.

**EnTyme**

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.

**EnTyme**

NorseSig wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
So, to clarify, people were mad the Looted Wagon wasn't in the codex, now they're mad it's being released for free? K.

Rather, they're mad because it (unfortunately) like all of the ork codex, sucks. It's what, a slightly more expensive rhino without any upgrades, and nearly double the cost of a rhino if you give it a killkannon, that sometimes must move flatout? One immobilization damage roll, and it's dead without any upgrades. Hell, compare it to the trukk, which is 7pt cheaper (12 is you don't want the wagon to die after an immobilization), gets a big shoota, gains the fast type, and doesn't waste a heavy support slot, but is only AV10 and not a tank (not that AV11 on F or S matters much, or the tank type really).

This was released entirely as a fluff piece. Anyone who expected it to be great is a fool. The Ork codex is not a Decurion power level codex, it's a "for fun" codex and the rules represent that. The Looted Wagon is not the nail in the coffin people are claiming it to be. It's just another unit there for fluff.

I don't see a problem with a codex being fluffy, fun, AND competitive. But, apparently that is too much to ask, and anyone who wants that is a fool. Seriously, this game needs some serious balancing and the recent blood angels faq is a complete joke. And no, I do not play orks or blood angels. I just want my opponents to be able to give me a good game without me having to comp them points or me having to dumb down my list for them (especially when I also have to deal with a bunch of other very competitive armies).

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

**EnTyme**

JimOnMars wrote:
EnTyme wrote:
Were you expecting points updates in an FAQ? If so, no wonder you were disappointed.
This exactly. If people keep thinking these FAQs are for balance it actually hurts their cause. They need to be pushing GW as hard as they can for a rebalancing after these FAQ are done, not during.

I don't know how many of us it will be required to make that happen, but it will only do so if we make a convincing case to GW. Keep advocating for a balancing pass before 8th drops and it just might happen. Not likely, but anything is possible. Just don't waste your effort expecting it on these FAQs.

We definitely need to encourage a rebalance after the FAQ, but people need to remember that calm, well-articulated arguments will be much better received than venomous, vitriolic screaming about how one faction or the other is OP/UP. Be adults, people. More flies with honey and all that.

**EnTyme**

Hmm. They're early today. Anyone able to post pics for us work blocked individuals?

**EnTyme**

reds8n wrote:
ta da

Thank you.

**EnTyme**

My money is on Tau next week. Don't know why, just a guess.

**EnTyme**

Wolfblade wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1647523438901622/1647522675568365/?type=3

Link, I'll try and grab the pics in a moment for the work bound.

We appreciate it.

**EnTyme**

Frozocrone wrote:
My friends and I were laughing at the Stormsurge ruling, since our friend who joined the bandwagon for Tau bought one not too long ago.

Overall it seems like Tau got some buffs and also some nerfs.

Calling the next one to be Necrons (as they are pretty popular). Orks probably after that, or the two switched around.

I'm assuming Necrons, Orks, Tyranids, then Chaos (CSM and Daemons combined). That would cover everyone, right?

**EnTyme**

Taking all bets on the next FAQ:

Necrons
Orks
Tyranids
Chaos (CSM and Daemons)
Imperial Guard (Aster Miliwhatum? You're in The Guard, son)

Am I forgetting anyone?

**EnTyme**

redleger wrote:
Vankraken wrote:
skoffs wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
skoffs wrote:
Huh... normally it's released by now, isn't it?

No. Last week's FAQ was released at approximately 12:30 EDT.

If that's 12:30 PM EDT, assuming they're all released around the same time, then it looks like they're running late week...

I blame Pokémon Go

That game is ruining everyone. I bet the designers have a pokemon infestation at the office.

Yeah, but it's all Magikarps.

**EnTyme**

Hmm. Still no Necrons. Not a whole lot that really needs clarifying with us (expect things like the Retribution Phalanx unit size issue), but I was really expecting us to follow Tau for some reason.

So any chance of getting the pics posted for the work blocked among us?