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.

insaniak wrote:

Nephil1m wrote: I think the intention here may be to say "No, squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads, [they have to break down into CS as a function of deployment/arrival.]"

I think that's over-analysing it, to be honest. I'm more inclined to think the intention here was simply to create consistency between the various marine codexes, and whoever wrote the FAQ didn't notice that the caveat in Codex: Dark Angels about not being able to split if kept in reserve does not exist in the other Marine books...

Agreed, although the funny thing is that caveat in the Dark Angel book is actually REMOVED by the errata section of the same document!

FAQs are supposed to solve problems, not introduce more right? Nice wordings.

Does anyone else think that the PfP ruling in regasds to Beastmaster goes against the actual text for PfP? It seems to me that if that is their intent they should errata the rule instead of making a ruling on it. If they think that Beastmaster squads are too powerful with it I understand, I just think they should fix the rule instead of making a ruling that contradicts the text in the codex.

reds8n wrote:The recent rerelease of the DA upgrade sprue makes a whole lot more sense all of a sudden eh ?

Quoted for truth, and as yak stated: when they want to sell you somehing you'll get your FAQ/codex, and not a second sooner...

Thanks GW!

This seals it, I'm starting up a Black Templars army

Duuude. All three of the things that irked me about my Deathwing got changed. Score.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Q. If Korʼsarro Khan rolls a 6 to wound a model with a
Toughness so high he cannot usually wound it, will
Moonfang still inflict Instant Death on it? (p94)
A. Yes.

pffft...who needs consistancy?

Oh ya!

Q. Some Space Marine squads can take a Razorback as a
dedicated transport. A Razorback has a transport capacity
of six models. Can you still choose this as a dedicated
transport for a squad with more than six models in? (p40)
A. Yes.

Holy Piss. Black templar terminator commands and terminator squads can, when upgraded properly, fire 4 S9 shots at 48" against vehicles. Scary.

Shinkaze wrote:
FAQs are supposed to solve problems, not introduce more right? Nice wordings.

Does anyone else think that the PfP ruling in regasds to Beastmaster goes against the actual text for PfP? It seems to me that if that is their intent they should errata the rule instead of making a ruling on it. If they think that Beastmaster squads are too powerful with it I understand, I just think they should fix the rule instead of making a ruling that contradicts the text in the codex.

I was surprised to see that this was even an issue. The entry for Beastmaster actually separates their Special Rules between the Beastmaster and the various creatures. Only the Beastmaster had PfP in the Special Rules. Same goes for the Harlies; no PfP Special Rule. I know PfP indicates 'unit', but the Beastmaster unit seemed very explicit on who actually gets PfP.

If folks go by the mantra that GW doesn't write easter eggs, this kinds of issues would crop up much less often.

@sarigar

I could see it going both ways actually. However having watched and played this hobby for....way to long...I straight up told a buddy of mine how they would rule on it and shockingly....I was right again...

Oh well, I'm actually very happy with all of them w/the sole exception of the combat squading oopsy that seriously impacts BA's, Scout Bikers (hey I use them!), and a couple of other units.

Could this be why the supposedly missing Black Templar army at the Main HQ in UK, that it was being Play tested with the FAQ?

Why would they need to play test what is in the FAQ when most of it was to keep them in line with every other space marine army? There was really very little change to BT specific stuff.

@ Kevin- IMO, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of the change to the BT. This faq just made the BT the shootiest mechanized army in the game. Remember, BT can get potms on every vehicle in their codex as a buyable upgrade.

In essence, this faq just turned the very assault oriented BTS into an effective and highly mobile ranged combat army without reducing the hth abilities for balance.

focusedfire wrote:@ Kevin- IMO, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of the change to the BT. This faq just made the BT the shootiest mechanized army in the game. Remember, BT can get potms on every vehicle in their codex as a buyable upgrade.

In essence, this faq just turned the very assault oriented BTS into an effective and highly mobile ranged combat army without reducing the hth abilities for balance.

Nah. They're still paying up the nose for Razorbacks compared to other chapters (and Razorbacks are essential for making a shooty mech Marine army), so while you may be able to get PotMS on all your vehicles, the points make that army build not nearly as efficient as other armies (like the Space Wolves).

@Yakface- I understand your point but feel that you may have overlooked that the landspeeders can also take potms in the BT codex.

I have playtested against spammed bs 4 landspeeders with multi meltas, assault cannons& potms. Imho, there is nothing balanced about 1st turn meltas on your tanks. The BTs can field three such speeder squadrons and have around 1k points left to load up with a hq, troops and razorbacks. The build I playtested against still had room for 2 predators, 3 troops w/razorbacks and 2 HQs (each joined to a different troop) at the 1750 point level.

Edit for dropped word.

focusedfire wrote:@ Kevin- IMO, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of the change to the BT. This faq just made the BT the shootiest mechanized army in the game. Remember, BT can get potms on every vehicle in their codex as a buyable upgrade.

In essence, this faq just turned the very assault oriented BTS into an effective and highly mobile ranged combat army without reducing the hth abilities for balance.

Then you fail to understand what my point was. The change to PoTMS for BT was minimal (again, I see no mention of them changing it to BS4) but that is not a BT specific entry. The changes to storm shields and combat squading and other such things are available to ALL space marines. So, not a BT thing. Really the only changes specifically for BT were the target priority bit, a couple of unit specific changes (though I don't know how many of those are BT specific and how many are SM in general). The most specific changes were to the BT Vows and a few of the army wide rules. The rest was really to just get them in line with the other updated SM's (which it looks like they did for the other SM chapter FAQ's as much of the information changed in one of them is changed in all of them.).

Don't get me wrong though, they definitely needed some love. But man, being the guy that plays against BT all the time with my crons....I'm not lovin the changes that just make it easier for him to beat me. Hehe.

focusedfire wrote:@Yakface- I understand your point but feel that you may have overlooked that the landspeeders can also take potms in the BT codex.

I have playtested against spammed bs 4 landspeeders with multi meltas, assault cannons& potms. Imho, there is nothing balanced about 1st turn meltas on your tanks. The BTs can field three such speeder squadrons and have around 1k points left to load up with a hq, troops and razorbacks. The build I playtested against still had room for 2 predators, 3 troops w/razorbacks and 2 HQs (each joined to a different troop) at the 1750 point level.

Hello.

I was skimming over the thread and noticed that issue for PotMS. I'd like to point out that only vehicles that list it as an option can buy it in the BT Codex, namely Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators and Vindicators. LS can't buy PotMS.

Kevin949 wrote:The change to PoTMS for BT was minimal (again, I see no mention of them changing it to BS4)

It's indeed BS4 PotMS. The new rule doesn't diminish the BS of the vehicle to 2 anymore and is the same wording than in the Vanilla Codex unless I'm mistaken.

Archibald-TK wrote:It's indeed BS4 PotMS. The new rule doesn't diminish the BS of the vehicle to 2 anymore and is the same wording than in the Vanilla Codex unless I'm mistaken.

More specifically, it simply updates PotMS to using the vehicle's own BS, rather than PotMS having its own BS. So Drop Pods using PotMS are still BS2. Everything else will be BS4.

Hulksmash wrote:@sarigar

I could see it going both ways actually. However having watched and played this hobby for....way to long...I straight up told a buddy of mine how they would rule on it and shockingly....I was right again...

Oh well, I'm actually very happy with all of them w/the sole exception of the combat squading oopsy that seriously impacts BA's, Scout Bikers (hey I use them!), and a couple of other units.

I guess the DE didn't surprise me at all. I looked at all the relevant rules and it seemed logical. But, I've played 40K for over 20 years meaning I've developed almost a second language in deciphering GW intent in their rules. Heck, I still screw up spelling certain words as the English have some subtle differences (or is it, we Americans have some subtle differences)

What did shock me was the BT/DA rules update. I hadn't seen such a shake up like that since GW did the stealth 'toughness' change in the 3.5 Chaos Codex for Obliterators. I still remember how deflated Iron Warrior players had become. I even got the sad panda face as it nerfed my Word Bearers army a bit.

The Combat Squad ruling is still confusing to me. I don't really see the odd Combat squad tactic going on as most local SM (and varient) players only taking 5 man squads to begin with.

The one part I did like was the models coming out of a Drop Pod also count a Deep Striking. When I hear arguements that models coming out of Drop Pods aren't deep striking, it's only the drop pod or Vendettas are the models Outflanking, not the IG Vets inside, it makes me sad. I feel like it's the MtG generation trying to work their magic on 40K (no offense to all you MtG players out there, but over the years, I've heard some, interesting, rules discussions coming from that crowd).

Sarigar wrote:The one part I did like was the models coming out of a Drop Pod also count a Deep Striking. When I hear arguements that models coming out of Drop Pods aren't deep striking, it's only the drop pod or Vendettas are the models Outflanking, not the IG Vets inside, it makes me sad. I feel like it's the MtG generation trying to work their magic on 40K (no offense to all you MtG players out there, but over the years, I've heard some, interesting, rules discussions coming from that crowd).

Sadly i have to agree, card game players are the worst rules lawyers ever... Not abuse of cards (im looking at you infinite turn/damage/tokens players) thats part of the game and aslong as they're original i dont mind, im talking about the rules lawyering that goes on (used to play a while ago).

Archibald-TK wrote:

focusedfire wrote:@Yakface- I understand your point but feel that you may have overlooked that the landspeeders can also take potms in the BT codex.

I have playtested against spammed bs 4 landspeeders with multi meltas, assault cannons& potms. Imho, there is nothing balanced about 1st turn meltas on your tanks. The BTs can field three such speeder squadrons and have around 1k points left to load up with a hq, troops and razorbacks. The build I playtested against still had room for 2 predators, 3 troops w/razorbacks and 2 HQs (each joined to a different troop) at the 1750 point level.

Hello.

I was skimming over the thread and noticed that issue for PotMS. I'd like to point out that only vehicles that list it as an option can buy it in the BT Codex, namely Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predyators and Vindicators. LS can't buy PotMS.

@Archibald-TK

Thanks for pointing this out. The BT codex is the only one I don't have a hardcopy of and after going through a store copy I now see that you are right. I have been playing against an opponent that has been playing his LS as if they had the potms.