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.

ph34r wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

FAQ wrote:Whilst lasguns are robust weapons ideally suited for firing continuous volleys, hotshot lasguns cannot sustain such a high rate of fire.

Somebody hasn't played Dawn of War.

Uhg. In Dawn of war lascannons shot like multilasers and plasma guns shot as fast as lasguns.

Well, since a plasma gun and a las gun are both rapid fire weapons that bit makes sense at least.

I've been stung with the FRFSRF on my turn so I'm glad to see that cleared up.

olympia wrote:I've been stung with the FRFSRF on my turn so I'm glad to see that cleared up.

I have only had a single individual try to throw that at me, (they also attempted the "teleporting Yarrick" rule in the same game)...least to say it didn't fly for a second with me, and I haven't play this player since.

While the clarifications are welcome, a bit of ad hoc rebalancing (through favorable interpretations of rules that logically could have gone either way) in favor of Storm Troopers and Penal Legionnaires might have been nice.

Way to go GW on the non-stacking advisors, too. This was turning up all the time like WHFB scroll caddies did/do, which is never a good sign.

Really? People actually tried to issue orders on the opponent's turn?

Even Dire Avengers double shoot in a single phase on their own turn and have to skip their next shots.

I thought the Dakka threads on orders out of turn were hypothetical rules minutiae discussions, not real issues.

(I wonder if people say the same re: mortar+MoO... because I was def guilty of that at one point)

All in all a good FAQ

The mortar/MoO thing made at least a tiny bit of sense, range finding is range finding, after all.

The out of turn things was pretty OTT.

kartofelkopf wrote:I thought the Dakka threads on orders out of turn were hypothetical rules minutiae discussions, not real issues.

You might be surprised by how many rules discussions that people dismiss as just internet babble turn out to be the way that someone has simply always taken the rules to work.

Just throwing this out there: They NEEDED to faq the orders in the opponents phase thing. Raw CLEARLY state that you can issue orders in the opponents phase. Mind that you do actually have to understand how the bgb (on pg 9) defines the word "turn" and then states that that definition is to be interperated in all codex and the bgb in the way defined. GW really screwed the pooch when they wrote the orders section..

Kungfuhustler wrote:Just throwing this out there: They NEEDED to faq the orders in the opponents phase thing. Raw CLEARLY state that you can issue orders in the opponents phase. Mind that you do actually have to understand how the bgb (on pg 9) defines the word "turn" and then states that that definition is to be interperated in all codex and the bgb in the way defined. GW really screwed the pooch when they wrote the orders section..

QFT.

Well, it's not inconceivable that, given GW's penchant for nostalgia, they brought back a limited form of overwatch for the IG.

I mean, I think it's hard to read those rules and claim, with a straight face, that that's what GW meant, particularly given the references to orders being given before shooting or running. Vagueness about what was meant by the shooting phase and using the general definition of turn are not the avenues that GW generally changes core rules.

I'm not saying we didn't need an FAQ, but rather that there is not a single person in this hobby that's actually surprised at how the FAQ came down.

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

2nd Ed Terminators supplied with the smaller bases would be able to fit then. :3

Majesticgoat wrote:

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

2nd Ed Terminators supplied with the smaller bases would be able to fit then. :3

Seeing as how I have 2nd ed Chaos Terminators it would make my Chaos Land Raider actually useful. I fully support this.

I just love the rulings about Vendettas that just made every one having to buy a crapload extra of their most expensive model.

Other then that, its nice to see a useful FAQ for once.

Very true. Looks like the marketing department had some influence here.

Polonius wrote:Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

Sorry to go a bit OOT and for the partial necro, but why do you think that Armored Sentinels are better than your original estimate? Especially comparing them to the other FA choices in the Codex?

Going back OT, I like the FAQ alot, it is well written and clears up alot of pending issues, especially regarding the Valk / Vend. The only thing that I'm a bit surprised about is the advisors rulling, I would think that GW would simply make the CCS 0-1 wich IMO would make alot more sense fluff wise than an arbitrary decision like preventing them from stacking...

Polonius wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that there is at least one halfway decent build for stormtroopers: 5 men, two meltas, deep striking. the accurate landing means they'll land exactly on target over half the time, and two BS4 melta guns are pretty decent. It's not a great unit, and pales in comparison to veterans, but this whole new codex reflects a new design philosophy for IG, which is that BS4, chimeras, and even Valks are less rare than previously though, while all special operations infantry, infiltrators and deep strikers in particular, are less common.

I actually have had good luck with 5 men, one melta, one flamer. It is still a suicide squad, but they earned their points back last night on a striking scorpion squad. Personally, I think they're expensive, but as far as a hail-mary crapshoot goes, they're less a gamble than Marbo is.

PhantomViper wrote:

Polonius wrote:Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

Sorry to go a bit OOT and for the partial necro, but why do you think that Armored Sentinels are better than your original estimate? Especially comparing them to the other FA choices in the Codex?

Going back OT, I like the FAQ alot, it is well written and clears up alot of pending issues, especially regarding the Valk / Vend. The only thing that I'm a bit surprised about is the advisors rulling, I would think that GW would simply make the CCS 0-1 wich IMO would make alot more sense fluff wise than an arbitrary decision like preventing them from stacking...

Except an FAQ is not supposed to change rules or re-balance armies, it's supposed to be a clarification of ambiguous rules.

willydstyle wrote:
Except an FAQ is not supposed to change rules or re-balance armies, it's supposed to be a clarification of ambiguous rules.

You're right, but in this case they changed the rules to re-balance the army anyway, so...

willydstyle wrote:
Except an FAQ is not supposed to change rules or re-balance armies, it's supposed to be a clarification of ambiguous rules.

Says you.

An official FAQ is the best time to to clarify/change something without having to reprint the whole book.

Last I checked, FAQ stood for Frequently Asked Questions. Basically, a list of queries the author gets frequently and is tired of handing out the same answers all the time on.

Saying that it is suppossed to be used, or not used, for re-balancing or anything other than answering Frequently Asked Questions is just crap. It has one use, Answering Questions. Frequent ones. Because that's how an acronym works, even here in Interdweebs Land. If, in addition to answering those Frequently Asked Questions, it happens to clarify, rebalance, slant, create, destroy, or do friggin jumping jacks; that's secondary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it as a bonus; like the little toy in your cracker jacks.

grizgrin wrote:Last I checked, FAQ stood for Frequently Asked Questions. Basically, a list of queries the author gets frequently and is tired of handing out the same answers all the time on.

Saying that it is suppossed to be used, or not used, for re-balancing or anything other than answering Frequently Asked Questions is just crap. It has one use, Answering Questions. Frequent ones. Because that's how an acronym works, even here in Interdweebs Land. If, in addition to answering those Frequently Asked Questions, it happens to clarify, rebalance, slant, create, destroy, or do friggin jumping jacks; that's secondary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it as a bonus; like the little toy in your cracker jacks.

But the PDF is entitled Errata and FAQ

Errata = a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication

I gotta admit, I thought the Hellstrike was a large blast too. It just seemed more reasonable than what is otherwise just a REALLY LARGE Hunter Killer missile.

Glad to see they put out a FAQ within a year of the Codex release though. Definitely a step in the right direction!

Shep wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Last I checked, FAQ stood for Frequently Asked Questions. Basically, a list of queries the author gets frequently and is tired of handing out the same answers all the time on.

Saying that it is suppossed to be used, or not used, for re-balancing or anything other than answering Frequently Asked Questions is just crap. It has one use, Answering Questions. Frequent ones. Because that's how an acronym works, even here in Interdweebs Land. If, in addition to answering those Frequently Asked Questions, it happens to clarify, rebalance, slant, create, destroy, or do friggin jumping jacks; that's secondary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think of it as a bonus; like the little toy in your cracker jacks.

But the PDF is entitled Errata and FAQ

Errata = a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page or slip of paper, in a book or other publication

GW makes a distinction between the errata and FAQs. The errata they intend to change in further printings of the codex. The FAQs they do not.

THank you for this post.

whitedragon wrote:Says you.

No, that's what an FAQ does.

FAQs answer questions come about frequently enough to be worth answering. Erratas fix mistakes.

Changing a rule is neither of those.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Says you.

No, that's what an FAQ does.

FAQs answer questions come about frequently enough to be worth answering. Erratas fix mistakes.

Changing a rule is neither of those.

These rules changes aren't even official rules changes so you can ignore any you don't like. This FAQ isn't worth the paper it's written on (much like the codex).

George Spiggott wrote:These rules changes aren't even official rules changes so you can ignore any you don't like.

Er... you can do that anyway, even when they are official changes.

GW FAQ's aren't official nower days. Jervis would rather we all have a group hug and talk it out amongst themselves.

A nifty way to guilt-trip anyone who disagrees and get themselves out of having to actually fix anything properly.

Amazing how even on Dakka we can argue about the RAW involving what is or isnt a FAQ.. and what FAQ really means based on its wording

Seriously?

It's amazing how on Dakka some people can point out how GW writes bad rules, and then makes up for it by directly contradicting some of the clear rules they've already written, and some players feel that's not worth criticizing... Seriously?