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.

Sothas wrote:

targetawg wrote:I would have like to of seen a ruling (even though I feel it's clear) on the psychic pilot rule:

Are vehicles psykers all the time or not?

I'm fairly certain it's answered in the rule itself that they're only psykers for the purposes stated, but I know it's one that's had some contention around it.

Other than that, good faq (including the BRB). Just nice to have answers, not sure I agree with them all, but I'll play it however told.

I don't understand this question. It specifically says they count as psykers for psychic tests and PotW. A specific ruling here. They're not psykers normally. How is this a question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:If you can only cast a psychic power once does that mean Eldar can only fortune once?

They've never been able to. Under spirit stones is specifically says that you can't use the same power twice in one turn.

As I said several times in my post, I feel it's clear as well.

However, if you've seen the 101 threads in YMDC and on other forums about whether or not they count as psykers for crucible and other anti-psyker items, you'd understand why the clarification would have been nice. Heck, half the FAQ was just clarifications of things that were pretty clear by RAW.

Backfire wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Backfire the SW FAQ lists the target as the first model affected by the power.

Yes, I know that, it says "in effect treated him as the target model" ...

Obviously that is based on the BRB saying that Psychic shooting attacks need valid targets (ie, LOS), just like attacking with a ranged weapon. But what about the Thunderclap then? It says nothing about target even though it is specified as a psychic shooting attack. I assume you can use it even if there are no enemy models anywhere near.

See this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/375822.page#2935752

I personally dont have a problem with any of the rulings except the NDF. Page 54 of the Grey Knights codex states that "A Nemisis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons." Page 73 of the main rule book states "A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubbles the walkers strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)." Now I understand they are classifying the DK as a montrous creature (looks like a gd walker to me) but the weapon states it specifically doubles the strength to a maximum of 10. How are they now justifying it doesnt?

mjl7atlas wrote:I personally dont have a problem with any of the rulings except the NDF. Page 54 of the Grey Knights codex states that "A Nemisis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons." Page 73 of the main rule book states "A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubbles the walkers strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)." Now I understand they are classifying the DK as a montrous creature (looks like a gd walker to me) but the weapon states it specifically doubles the strength to a maximum of 10. How are they now justifying it doesnt?

You answered your own question: It doubles the walker's strength and a Dreadknight isn't a Walker, it's a Monstrous Creature.

mjl7atlas wrote:I personally dont have a problem with any of the rulings except the NDF. Page 54 of the Grey Knights codex states that "A Nemisis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons." Page 73 of the main rule book states "A dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubbles the walkers strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)." Now I understand they are classifying the DK as a montrous creature (looks like a gd walker to me) but the weapon states it specifically doubles the strength to a maximum of 10. How are they now justifying it doesnt?

It doubles the strength of the walker. It's not a walker.

This, like the personal teleporter, was likely just a case of the DK being designed late, and them sloppily applying already written items. "Well, it needs a punchy Nemesis weapon. Hey, doomfists are Nemesis weapons that punch! Brill!"

Nagashek wrote:Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army couldn't be in any fashion broken. Needed, though, given how much Tau armies have been dominating the tourney scene for the last 10 years

Please tell me how the hell you are going to fit 1000 pts of shooting tau models within 12"? If you're within 12" you're going to get assaulted and very very deaded by Grey Knights the next turn with the exception being JSJ. Just means you can't rapid fire them. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for Tau but your crying the sky is falling because you are overlooking the fact that it only applies to models that are within 12" of one model out of the entire Grey Knight army. If a Tau player is deliberately fighting within 12" of the only model/unit in the GK army that negates most of his weaponry then he is doing it wrong.

insaniak wrote:

yakface wrote:The only ruling that rankles me a bit is the one that says that Coteaz's 'I've been expecting you' rule is resolved "as soon as a valid target is placed on the board", but then says after the shots are resolved the unit "can complete its move".

This seems to imply that units moving on from a board edge from reserves are placed on the table and then moved, which seems to be contrary to how the rules for units arriving from reserves are written.

That one jumped out at me, also. I suspect that they meant the 'complete its move' bit to apply to Deep Strikers and not to units moving normally, but it does read as an odd twist on the rules for moving onto the table.
Edit: No, that doesn't work. Deep Strikers can't move... Curse you early morning!

So, no, no idea what they meant with that one.

I suspect they were attempting to address the webway portal. So I guess as you start sliding your models across the table to represent their move---the minute your 'slide' starts and they are valid-----they get shot?

The problem I have with the NDF change is that they basically gave the dreadkknight a fancy power weapon even though they are already monstrous creatures. It is a very backwards/confusing way to give them two NFWs.

Does this mean I can't combat squad sterns out of a drop pod any more? Or was that ruled on long ago? The ruling says that units ariving in vehicles that arrive by deep strike and that have to deploy from them count as having deep struck themselves (rather then deploying from a cruising speed vehicle as i previously thought).

Sev wrote:

Nagashek wrote:Actually Kroot weapons are powder based weaons that have pulse charges in them. They too are pulse weapons. Nothing armed by any Troops Choice in the Tau Codex can by used against that piece of wargear. Luckily, 35 pts negating 1000 pts worth of an army couldn't be in any fashion broken. Needed, though, given how much Tau armies have been dominating the tourney scene for the last 10 years

Please tell me how the hell you are going to fit 1000 pts of shooting tau models within 12"? If you're within 12" you're going to get assaulted and very very deaded by Grey Knights the next turn with the exception being JSJ. Just means you can't rapid fire them. I'm not saying that it doesn't suck for Tau but your crying the sky is falling because you are overlooking the fact that it only applies to models that are within 12" of one model out of the entire Grey Knight army. If a Tau player is deliberately fighting within 12" of the only model/unit in the GK army that negates most of his weaponry then he is doing it wrong.

The problem with this is that most tau use of firewarriors is riding in devil fish, if you disembark your range is limited to 12" which means. Fish of fury won't work on plasma siphon. The tau tactic of dealing with 3+ saves is to drop 1 or 2 firewarriors in double-tap range and make the opponent roll dice till he dies. Preferably with marker light support. This brings up an even more interesting question of how does the marker light interact w/ plasma siphon [BS3 +2 Markerbonus=BS 5 -> set to BS1 by siphon or BS3 -> Set to BS1 by siphon then +BS from markerlights] In order to use firewarriors with any semblance of effectiveness against the syphon you will have to set up a gunline and trade S5 fire with enemies That have more shots, better saves, higher toughness and better accuracy. Grey knights are BUILT to fight gunline armies, the mass accurate S5 fire they can put down will chew up a T3 4+ armor infantry list. The siphon is not unbeatable, but it neuters a large amount of a tau list.

After thinking about it though, plasma siphon is by model and and distance from the inquisitor. Another counter could be to set up 12" away from the squad the inquisitor is in but out of 12" (You gotta have a good eye for the 1" mark here) from the inquisitor himself. Then double to my hearts content. And if the inquisitor is by himself. There are plenty of heavy weapons that can a single t3 model. With this in mind I think I'll have to conclude that the siphon isn't really that OP after all.

That said, Yakface does have a point, the siphon is not likely to see play in a major tournament. But you can troll the local tau player pretty bad with it. On the plus side, my tau are relieved that the turn one shunt assault with multiple dread knights and interceptor squads before I have even moved is pretty bad.

I thought tau dealt with term spam and MEQ with plasma fusion commanders and by pecking them at range with missile pods? Last I saw most tau players take bare minimum fire warriors in transports and hide them. Fire warrior heavy lists weren't winning anything, let alone tournaments against new armies before this.

Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

Darkwynn wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I'm with you on this one.

ShumaGorath wrote:I thought tau dealt with term spam and MEQ with plasma fusion commanders and by pecking them at range with missile pods? Last I saw most tau players take bare minimum fire warriors in transports and hide them. Fire warrior heavy lists weren't winning anything, let alone tournaments against new armies before this.

Head over to my metagame, where 72 Fire Warriors are using weight of numbers to shoot to death anything within 30". Not to mention, nine Broadsides to ensure tanks aren't an issue.

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

Hrm, I always thought that was a rather generous wishful reading of something that to most players simply meant "the termi's effectively have 3A" and not something that meant the termi's effectively had 4A. The vast majority of people I ever saw read that did not interpret it as +2A.



That said, some weird stuff, the option to use both Frag and Krak grenades in the same turn in a vehicle assault gives SM units yet another tool, even if somewhat minor, to use against vehicles.



The Nemesis Doomfist thing just screams that Mat Ward really didn't quite understand the rules very well when designing that unit, though the rule does make sense from a RAW perspective. Why not just call it a Close Combat weapon? No, instead Mr. Ward needs to rename a DCCW to a Nemesis Doomfist that has the same effect as a Close Combat weapon would have.



The decision to go back and remake Obliterators Daemons again, when their current fluff and wargear/special rules really distanced itself from that, is somewhat odd. Likewise the inclusion of the DE units.



Jokaero limitations are somewhat silly, a rather awkward balance mechanism if that's what it really is as opposed to just lazy rules which is how it feels.




That said, mostly good stuff aside from these things. I'm *really* glad I won't have to deal with Scout Shunting units anymore, that was horrifically broken.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I thought tau dealt with term spam and MEQ with plasma fusion commanders and by pecking them at range with missile pods? Last I saw most tau players take bare minimum fire warriors in transports and hide them. Fire warrior heavy lists weren't winning anything, let alone tournaments against new armies before this.

Head over to my metagame, where 72 Fire Warriors are using weight of numbers to shoot to death anything within 30". Not to mention, nine Broadsides to ensure tanks aren't an issue.

That probably wouldn't handle my meta very well. It's polarized to either mass mechanized gunline (ig) or second turn assaults (nids, shrike, BA). I routinely fight (and lose to) lists that can drop 30+ heavy bolter shots a turn in addition to nine plasma canons and whatever the manticores roll out. Even my average list with it's paltry 20 missile launchers and total willingness to sit on the opposite board edge would probably nickle and dime that to death.

That said i've seen the terror of 72 fire warriors against certain armies. It can be scary.

So far I have not seen even a single plasma syphon make it onto the table. Sure the old 'fish of fury' is a favoured tactic of mine, but it's not difficult to railgun or submunitions that henchman/inquisitor squad to death. If the inquisitor stays back: the plasma syphon is no issue. If it goes forward (most likely in a chimera or choice rhino) it can be blown to pieces.

My only issue is how broad the term 'plasma' is and how lazy GW were in just rattling off everything off the top of their heads and leaving it so open ended. If they had a definitive list rather than: "okay guys, these are all we can thing of. If you find anything else which could be plasma based, argue and ruleslawyer until one of you throws you throws your syphon inquisitor across the room" I would be perfectly fine with this. I just don't think leaving interpretations of rules like that so open is healthy.

Pretty much none of the FAQ really affects my current purifiers list...however I think servitors mindlocking even when there is a techmarine in the squad is obscene. You need to buy an inquisitor anyway to get the henchmen squad in the first place. How does allowing a techmarine to take over the mindlock break or skew the rules in any way?

Sorry for being arrogant and not reading through all 8 pages of this thread as I´m going to sleep now but can anyone sum thing sup for me, like can the librarian cast 3 consecutive summoning psychic powers after another to summon 3 squads on the same turn for example?

yakface wrote:

Kirasu wrote:

Why would you think that? Im constantly amazed so many seemed to think that 2 weapons = +2 attacks when its only ever +1 (Unless youre a howling banshee exarch)

Falchions are a pair of weapons, which by the rulebook grant +1 Attack for having two single handed weapons. On top of that, the specific rules for Falchions say they provide a +1A bonus. So before this FAQ ruling, it was pretty clear IMHO that Falchions effectively granted +2 Attacks (+1 for having two single handed weapons and +1A for having Falchions).

To me, a GK player, it was pretty clear that the +1 from the specific rules was because there were two of them.

But that is finally settled....however, some of he stuff in the main faq....GW, please hire some good writers and editors....

Vaktathi wrote:
The Nemesis Doomfist thing just screams that Mat Ward really didn't quite understand the rules very well when designing that unit, though the rule does make sense from a RAW perspective. Why not just call it a Close Combat weapon? No, instead Mr. Ward needs to rename a DCCW to a Nemesis Doomfist that has the same effect as a Close Combat weapon would have.

Because then it wouldn't have the Daemonbane and Force Weapon rules. To be fair, giving them any of the other NFW options might have caused other balance problems.

Jokaero limitations are somewhat silly, a rather awkward balance mechanism if that's what it really is as opposed to just lazy rules which is how it feels.

Look at it this way, you get too many monkeys together and you'll be lucky if all they do is make their guns pretty.



On a sidenote, I'm glad that the FAQ came out, my GK list was still in the planning stages and now I have a better idea of what options to take/not take.

Wyomingfox - you;'re wrong: Specific beats general, not codex beats rulebook.

Plasma siphons require you to take a xenos inquisitor, instead of a libby + GKGM. You'll never see a siphon in competitive games, as theyre on a junk model.

Darkwynn - by definition BOTH the doomfist and sword are special CCW, as they are both weapons that do something other than hit people in CC. Doomfists are power weapons and the Sword rerolls hits and misses / AP. So this would mean you have two different CCW and NEVER get the bonus attack.

Trouble is you hop on over to the DCCW section where it states you get +1A for every CCW you have, and this is likely more specific (models with 2 different CCW vs models with 2 different CCW, one of which is a DCCW) so you would still get the attack.

So it essentially makes all DK 10 points more expensive (auto include, effectively) and a hell of a lot sillier looking, as the hammer is NOT big enough!

Vaktathi wrote:

The decision to go back and remake Obliterators Daemons again, when their current fluff and wargear/special rules really distanced itself from that, is somewhat odd. Likewise the inclusion of the DE units.

I suspect that Obliterators will be very different from what we know them today in the next Chaos Dex. Perhaps they will finally make the leap to monstrous creature to prove how much better than space monkeys they are.

thehod wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

You ever see a brood of 3 Carnifexes

SW players with JotWW would love to play that.

So many people fail to read the disclaimer after that.

Inferno Pistol stats anyone? I cant believe they forgot....again....

Vaktathi wrote:
Why not just call it a Close Combat weapon? No, instead Mr. Ward needs to rename a DCCW to a Nemesis Doomfist that has the same effect as a Close Combat weapon would have.

You do realize that both flavors of Dreadnought have Doomfists, too, right? It's NOT something special for Dreadknights.

Also, it doesn't have the same effect as a CCW for the Dreadknight, unless GW suddenly ruled that ALL CCWS are also Force Weapons.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I'm with you on this one.

It's not a powerfist or lightning claw, so it should allow for +1A. Even prior to the ruling on it not doubing strength (which I kind of agree with, even though it does contradict with how the old wraithlord rules used to work), it was still only a dreadnought CCW, and not a powerfist or lightning claw. Unless there is something I am missing, I think it should allow for +1A as an off-hand weapon.

Eldanar wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I'm with you on this one.

It's not a powerfist or lightning claw, so it should allow for +1A. Even prior to the ruling on it not doubing strength (which I kind of agree with, even though it does contradict with how the old wraithlord rules used to work), it was still only a dreadnought CCW, and not a powerfist or lightning claw. Unless there is something I am missing, I think it should allow for +1A as an off-hand weapon.

I don't see why not, as a Dread CCW and Force Weapon still grants a Furioso Librarian +1 attack for 2 CCWs.

Platuan4th wrote:Still trying to figure out why dread knight would not get the extra attack with a great sword and doom fist. Neither are a special close combat weapon under the rule book and the great sword isn't a two handed weapon.

I don't see why not, as a Dread CCW and Force Weapon still grants a Furioso Librarian +1 attack for 2 CCWs.

Thats where some players are getting confused though

The Nemises Doom Fist is a special weapon as it is both a Nemises Force Weapon (Allowing Insta-death and Daemon Banish) and a DCCW!
The Great Sword is also a Nemises Force weapon but is not the EXACT same type as a Doom Fist

2 different Special Weapons means you do NOT get +1 attack.

The Nemises Doom Fist is not just a CCW like with the Librarian Furioso. The two models here are not comparable because of that!!

I understand the argument with the Falcions more than this one because at least they were same type special weapons and the FAQ ruling IMHO is a reaction of how GW wants them to be played and not necessarily how the strict RAW would read without the FAQ. Which is completely fine by me because this is GW's game and not mine so they can do whatever they want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wyomingfox - you;'re wrong: Specific beats general, not codex beats rulebook.

OK, but in most cases, the codex is more specific than the rulebook. And many of the PSA rules in the codices are also more specific than the rulebook.

For example, in the case of Murderous Huricane, following the rules for shooting attacks, since it is a PSA: You first declare your enemy target and check LOS and range. Next, assuming the target is within range and LOS, you would normally role to hit (again following the rules for shooting attacks -- which again, the BRB FAQ redundantly reiterates). Except the codex tells you to do something else entirely. The codex specifically states that the "Unit Takes 3D6 Strength 3 Hits". You do not role TO hit because the codex specifically states that the unit TAKES the hits in the present. The codex is more specific than the BRB so its rulings takes presedencse as an exception.

A second example would be Thunder Clap, again following the rules for shooting attacks: You first declare your target and check LOS and range. Except the codex specifically states that the target is the RP. Next you would roll to hit. Except the codex tells you to instead place a blast marker over the RP and every enemy model touching the marker "takes a strength 3 hit". Again, you do not role TO hit because the codex specifically states that enemy models touched by the blast marker TAKE a hit. The codex is more specific than the BRB so its rulings takes presedencse as an exception.

Q: If a unit is the target of Unyielding Anvil, from the
Grand Strategy special rule, and it splits into combat
squads, can both combat squads claim objectives? (p22)
A: Yes.

I found this a bit naughty, as I assume you split the squad up before deployment, and they are treated as individual squads for objective holding, kill points etc...
so essentially you can give this to two units with one use. Sorry if this has been addressed already but I am steadily working through the threads. If it isn't a cock up it seems a bit cheeky and overpowered!