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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 crimson_caesar wrote:
The rules such a mess...

Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....

Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.

I have but one Exalt to give!

But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.

But that won't happen.

Honestly I'd love for 8th to just have Codexes and Campaign Books, with the Campaign Books having new missions (like 6 generic ones and a couple structured, specific campaign ones), battlefield effects (like fighting on a Daemon World or a Jungle-covered Death World or an Imperial Shrine World) and maybe new Tactical Objective decks or alternative deployment maps etc. Maybe the occasional new Special Character too, or Campaign-specific Relics.
Nothing like "Hey you need this book to be able to play with the new Pink, Blue and Brimstone Horros. Also to use Magnus fully you need to buy the previous Campaign Book" where the main focus is less on narrative campaign stuff and more on selling you a new book on top of the 20 others you've already bought to play your army.

That way all you need is your Codex and BRB, and if you want to play a new, different mission or have some alternative Maelstrom cars you can use the appropriate Campaign Book too.


Anyway, OT for the most part the FaQs don't look too bad... but my god there are some stinkers like the Alpha Legion one. I'm sorry GW hates you Alpha Legion players.

Doesn't look like anything drastic changed for my Daemons from the Draft FaQ, which leaves me happy that I don't have to relearn stuff or whatever. It's a shame the Exalted Flamer is still pretty useless with its Heavy Weapons but ah well.

sm3g wrote:
Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.

The rule that they've made up for Knights is the exact opposite of a nerf, as it gives them a much bigger fire arc than they would otherwise have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Viper666 wrote:

Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...

Not helping, but in an edition where formations can result in two identical units having different rules depending on which other models you selected at the same time, it's also not really hurting it any worse than the existing chaos was already.

Lol are these demonic possession rules a big joke? You can pay 30 points to give your chaos super heavies -1 BS.

Call an ambulance I think I might be dying from laughter.....

help

 Don Savik wrote:
Lol are these demonic possession rules a big joke? You can pay 30 points to give your chaos super heavies -1 BS.

Call an ambulance I think I might be dying from laughter.....

help

I read it and was like, are you don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n in serious, you can pay 30pts to make your super heavy worse and there reason is for the sake of it, this is even more hilarious than the alpha legion insurgency benefit FAQ where it also does nothing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 crimson_caesar wrote:
The rules such a mess...

Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....

Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.

I have but one Exalt to give!

But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.

But that won't happen.

Seconded. This was my rant the other day during a friendly organised game that involved 4 books for my opponent plus the BRB. I'm not sure I could comfortably walk into a shop for a pick-up game these days without being concerned someone was pulling one over on me given the breadth of rules sources available. There's no way I have been able to keep track of every source that grants a rule.

I'm fully on board a 3rd Ed style res-set, and consolidation of army rules into one book and one book alone.

While we're at it, they should feel free to drop all the extra rubbish like Apocalypse, superheavies, rules driven army purchasable terrain, flyers (what a joke), and allies/detachments/formations/dataslate gumpf from the core BRB and put it into non-mandatory additional source books expansions like it was back in the day.

End rant of a beligerant older gamer looking back with nostalgia and possible rose tinted glasses at lat 90's/early 00's gaming.

 FrothingMuppet wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 crimson_caesar wrote:
The rules such a mess...

Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....

Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.

I have but one Exalt to give!

But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.

But that won't happen.

Seconded. This was my rant the other day during a friendly organised game that involved 4 books for my opponent plus the BRB. I'm not sure I could comfortably walk into a shop for a pick-up game these days without being concerned someone was pulling one over on me given the breadth of rules sources available. There's no way I have been able to keep track of every source that grants a rule.

I'm fully on board a 3rd Ed style res-set, and consolidation of army rules into one book and one book alone.

While we're at it, they should feel free to drop all the extra rubbish like Apocalypse, superheavies, rules driven army purchasable terrain, flyers (what a joke), and allies/detachments/formations/dataslate gumpf from the core BRB and put it into non-mandatory additional source books expansions like it was back in the day.

End rant of a beligerant older gamer looking back with nostalgia and possible rose tinted glasses at lat 90's/early 00's gaming.

I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.

I don't get why they have removed the multiple signature systems, I know someone said "specific beats general etc." but FAQ wins all, the only equivalent to relics is sig systems... I don't think this was intended :/

 tirnaog wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Yeah, Wraith troops aren't back.

However, Lance vs Quantum Shielding got ruled more reasonably (Lance wins).

The Haemonculus Covens rule is still unclear.

Well crap!
Was thinking of getting back into WH40K.
Have a a nice 3000K Iyanden army nearly finished painted up in a tri-color scheme too. :(

Well bugger that!

Check pale courts rules from Forgeworld Doom of Mymeara v2, you can make them work with just 3x Wraithblades units as troops.

Good call. They don't get ObSec though.

GW really screwed the pooch on the Deathwatch FAQ. So many things wrong with it. Was it really that over powered to have both the shotgun and the bolter? However, it's just fine to have a heavy weapon and a bolter.....

I'm suprised no one has mention this awesome change

Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.

Thank god, if you filthy xenos can one shot most of my army I should at least have a slim chance of one shotting your super suit if I can miraclously get a tank close enough to tank shock some Xenos scum into fishy pulp

 plagueknight wrote:
I'm suprised no one has mention this awesome change

Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.

Thank god, if you filthy xenos can one shot most of my army I should at least have a slim chance of one shotting your super suit if I can miraclously get a tank close enough to tank shock some Xenos scum into fishy pulp

I'd love to see an army of mounted orks try this. If there are 15 or so trucks with rams speeding across the table at least one will make it before being destroyed.

 plagueknight wrote:
I'm suprised no one has mention this awesome change

Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.

Probably because it hasn't changed from the draft.

 insaniak wrote:

sm3g wrote:
Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.

The rule that they've made up for Knights is the exact opposite of a nerf, as it gives them a much bigger fire arc than they would otherwise have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Viper666 wrote:

Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...

Not helping, but in an edition where formations can result in two identical units having different rules depending on which other models you selected at the same time, it's also not really hurting it any worse than the existing chaos was already.

Knights shooting buffed? How so? It looks like they have less shooting arc since they can't cross their chest.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

sm3g wrote:
Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.

The rule that they've made up for Knights is the exact opposite of a nerf, as it gives them a much bigger fire arc than they would otherwise have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Viper666 wrote:

Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...

Not helping, but in an edition where formations can result in two identical units having different rules depending on which other models you selected at the same time, it's also not really hurting it any worse than the existing chaos was already.

Knights shooting buffed? How so? It looks like they have less shooting arc since they can't cross their chest.

Before they weapons behaved as hull mounted weapons like in walkers and just a 45 degree angle from where they was glued, now they work as 180 degree sponsons on each side of the knight if i'm not mistaken.

It just chnged from needing to shoot forwards to behave like a battleship broadside weapons.

Gotcha. I think since I mostly play ITC, they have already been playing it this way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 crimson_caesar wrote:
The rules such a mess...

Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....

Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.

I have but one Exalt to give!

But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.

But that won't happen.

Honestly I wouldn't be all that surprised if GW used 8th to scrap all the books and make free to download 'light versions' to tide us over until they publish new books like AoS.

Sure, IK's get a better fire ark if you want to shoot at different targets. Not so, if you run Dakka Knight and want to pour everything into one target. Plus, it's dumb, because as someone said, "you can literally scratch one elbow with another arm, but can't shoot anything at front". And they are limited to 90 degrees, not 180. Just like some silly Russ tank...

Nerfs the chaos knight more than the Crusader.

Of course, now my Atrapos is going to have to turn a little bit before charging in... lol

I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.

It's not about the Super heavies per se. It's about the fact that you can spam them and min max in a 1850 easily. These kind of things were reserved for Apoc in the good old days. Where's the old funky 1-2 HQ/2-6 Troops/0-3 rest? Instead you go to play a game and there you have 3 x Stormsurges, or dual WK time after time.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.

It's not about the Super heavies per se. It's about the fact that you can spam them and min max in a 1850 easily. These kind of things were reserved for Apoc in the good old days. Where's the old funky 1-2 HQ/2-6 Troops/0-3 rest? Instead you go to play a game and there you have 3 x Stormsurges, or dual WK time after time.

Well too bad best we can hope is no more NEW ones gets released. Old ones ain't going anywhere, aren't going to be optional and generally won't be made harder to play. GW wants to sell the models. Apoc only would go against that idea.

tneva82 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.

It's not about the Super heavies per se. It's about the fact that you can spam them and min max in a 1850 easily. These kind of things were reserved for Apoc in the good old days. Where's the old funky 1-2 HQ/2-6 Troops/0-3 rest? Instead you go to play a game and there you have 3 x Stormsurges, or dual WK time after time.

Well too bad best we can hope is no more NEW ones gets released. Old ones ain't going anywhere, aren't going to be optional and generally won't be made harder to play. GW wants to sell the models. Apoc only would go against that idea.

This is a sad truth.

 CragHack wrote:
And they are limited to 90 degrees, not 180. Just like some silly Russ tank...

And before the FAQ, they were limited to 45 degrees.

So yes, it's still stupid... but it is an improvement.

So looking forward, they can shoot at 90's , vision from the eyes doesn't matter?

But they can't cross the chest, so to speak, when shooting?

Vision from the eyes doesn't matter for any model in the current edition.

Vehicles trace LOS from their weapon mount, and have done for an awful long time. For most vehicles, the arc is whatever the weapon moves through. For walkers, it's 45 degrees regardless of how the weapon is mounted. For Knights, as of the FAQ, it's 90 degrees directly forward from the weapon mount and to the outside.

So yes, they have a blind spot to their front, as do most vehicles with side-mounted weapons.

I really don't see the tears about the knight change. It's a walker who cares. You move and pivot during the movement phase shoot at whatever the heck you want. If you get charged it can overwatch in any direction and always front facing armor.

So what's the big deal? Did you want to face your knight in one direction and shoot in another direction?

Knights can't fire overwatch unless you take a specific formation that grants them that ability.

gungo wrote:
I really don't see the tears about the knight change. It's a walker who cares. You move and pivot during the movement phase shoot at whatever the heck you want. If you get charged it can overwatch in any direction and always front facing armor.

So what's the big deal? Did you want to face your knight in one direction and shoot in another direction?

If you have a target directly infront of you, only one of your 2 arms will ever be able to shoot it, that is just silly IMO (I dont play knights so doesn't bother me too much). Also I cannot see my 30k mates applying this 40k FAQ ruling to our 30k games.

The idea that a Knight cannot shoot something directly in front of it with two arms is just ludicrous. Seems GW is answering questions not just in a vacuum, but whilst high.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The idea that a Knight cannot shoot something directly in front of it with two arms is just ludicrous. Seems GW is answering questions not just in a vacuum, but whilst high.

I'm sure if you bring it up, they'll tweak it. New age of Rountree and all that...