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.

can be found here

...errrmmm.... yeah. Thanks.

thatlll help thanks

You'd think that perhaps...

There is not much in it other than correcting weird wording.

wait...

"Page 66, 100, 144. The profile of Hellfire Rounds
and Hellfire Shells should be changed by
replacing ‘Strength X’ with ‘Strength 1’."

Strength 1? I don't have my codex or rulebook in front of me right now, but I thought Strength X was used for Poisoned Weapons. If I'm missing something here, please fill me in, but doesn't actually calling out the Strength as 1 make them next to useless?

hmmmmmmm str 1 but still wounds on a 2+ ? Basically it makes it so they don't get to reroll vs anything and cann't hurt vehicles with the round

Wow. I'm all for GW producing FAQs, but does this actually answer anything that needed answering?

GrimTeef wrote:wait...

"Page 66, 100, 144. The profile of Hellfire Rounds
and Hellfire Shells should be changed by
replacing ‘Strength X’ with ‘Strength 1’."

Strength 1? I don't have my codex or rulebook in front of me right now, but I thought Strength X was used for Poisoned Weapons. If I'm missing something here, please fill me in, but doesn't actually calling out the Strength as 1 make them next to useless?

Yeah, the hellfure round/shell is considered a poisoned weapon in the codex, wounding on a 2+.

I am not sure why they changed the str to 1 instead of x, an odd change that. I dont see how it makes the weapon any worse as the rulebook says "These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.".
So the str is a moot point and str X was just as relevant as str 1.

Thanks for the clarification there, guys. This is one of those times the FAQ confused me more than the original ruling. I just don't get why they'd make it 1 instead of X now...

Maybe they're planning on releasing units that are immune to poison?

My guess.

The old Callidus Str X Instant Death problem.

Strength X conveys a confusion for Instant death. Wounding on 2+ implies some kind of weird connotation that the wound was at a strength twice that of the toughness, thus leading to arguements of Instant Death.

Str 1 removes that arguement entirely.

Not that I advocate that previous arguement, just thinking outloud.

lifeafter wrote:Maybe they're planning on releasing units that are immune to poison?

Possible. I could see necrons being immune. Perhaps deamons as well.

Though in third and 4th ed there were never such stipulations for ease of argument sake.

I am sure if they do make units that are poison immune, then its a slippery slope to rationale for a lot of other units in the game.

"My carnifex is so big that the poison it was shot with couldn't have enough power to cause it a wound" etc.

Shotgun wrote:My guess.

The old Callidus Str X Instant Death problem.

Strength X conveys a confusion for Instant death. Wounding on 2+ implies some kind of weird connotation that the wound was at a strength twice that of the toughness, thus leading to arguements of Instant Death.

Str 1 removes that arguement entirely.

Not that I advocate that previous arguement, just thinking outloud.

Yeah thinking about it your reason sounds far more plausible.

Maybe its to ensure it can't affect vehicles (S5 is enough for light vehicles, most transports and/or rear armour) making hellfire heavy bolters exclusively anti-infantry?

Don't have either the codex or FAQ in front of me but just a thought.

Was it just me or have there been more critical concerns needing to be FAQ'd in the new SM codex?

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Maybe its to ensure it can't affect vehicles (S5 is enough for light vehicles, most transports and/or rear armour) making hellfire heavy bolters exclusively anti-infantry?

Don't have either the codex or FAQ in front of me but just a thought.

It's a minor distinction as the player can elect to use the hellfire shells or fire normally (C: SM, pg 66).

They didn't clear up gate of infinity? Wut?

ShumaGorath wrote:They didn't clear up gate of infinity? Wut?

Or kill points and thunderfire cannons, or Chronus being purchased every time, or buying 2 transports for tac marines, or Vulkan with sisters.
Well I suppose it's a start. Nice to have the servitor clarification, even though I'd never take them.

Or the biggest nasty issue I know of (though vulkan and sisters is kinda big too) is the drop pod door issue.

That one is a headache for tournies I am sure.

The "Ah," at the beginning of two of the answers is a strange, conversational addition for what is, essentially, a technical document. Also the blank third page is a mystery. This feels like a document that was released before editing. I recommend an unannounced middle-of-the-night change three months from now.

hmm seems like they listened to Jon spencer :( and how he really doesn't read the rules....

my favorite is this one:

Q. When you select some special characters
(Shrike, Vulkan, etc.) all units in the army
exchange the rule ‘Combat Tactics’ for another
one (like Stubborn) thanks to the rule ‘Chapter
Tactics’. However, the special characters
themselves follow the rule ‘Combat Tactics’. Is
this intentional? As I understand it, the rule
Combat Tactics is in fact the ‘Chapter trait’ of the
Ultramarines and other ‘Codex’ chapters...
A. Ah, the Combat Tactics rule is just there for
when you use two different special characters and
have to choose which of their Chapter Tactics rule
apply. So, say for example that you include both
Shrike and Lysander in your army. You decide that
Lysander is in charge, so all of the units with
Combat Tactics (including Shrike) replace
‘Combat Tactics’ with ‘Stubborn’. So, these
special characters never really have the ‘Combat
Tactics’ rule, as they either exchange for their
own ‘Chapter Tactics” or the “Chapter Tactics’ of
another such special character. In term of the
story, if they are subordinate to another
commander, these great heroes are flexible
enough to adapt to the fighting style of their
battle-brother.

Wow a special rule that works for other ICs...who would of thought (yes I am being sarcastic and am just putting as many nails into that INAT FAQ ruling as possible).

Also, this is one useless FAQ, nothing in there at all that was really ever questioned except for maybe the second one in the Errata (basically saying that Command squads are indeed not retinues), and the one about hellfire rounds being Str 1. (Which came up because of if it used against vehicles and on the rare occasion you are shooting at grotesques or something else with a rare rule).

What a big disappointment.

Deleted by Modquisition as an unneccessary attack.

Wow, sorry I struck a nail too deep there frgsinwater, relax dude, this isn't personal. I think you need stop responding as if attacked. And there is no need to suggest otherwise.

I *can* have my opinions and will suggest them where applicable. If you don't like it, then at least be mature about it.

I like the conversational tone. Reminds me of early 3rd ed. FAQs. It's a good reminder that the Devs are people too.

Bring back the soulless robots already dangit!

groz wrote:The "Ah," at the beginning of two of the answers is a strange, conversational addition for what is, essentially, a technical document. Also the blank third page is a mystery.

Perhaps he was dictating?

Based on the above FAQ, can I choose who's leading game to game in a tournament? This using which ever rule set works best for my opponent and the mission?

FAQ:
Q. If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and
twin-linked plasma gun suffers a weapon
destroyed result, does it destroy both (ie. the
lascannon and the plasma gun) or just one?

A. Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the
twin-linked plasma gun.

Interesting... I think this lends credence to the argument that Dreadnought weapons are indeed discrete. Therefore you can choose to destroy the Left arm CCW, Left arm attached weapon, or the Right Arm primary gun.

Thoughts?

Geddonight wrote:Interesting... I think this lends credence to the argument that Dreadnought weapons are indeed discrete. Therefore you can choose to destroy the Left arm CCW, Left arm attached weapon, or the Right Arm primary gun.Thoughts?

Isn't there some rule about S4 or less weapons not being eligible for weapon destroyed results?

What is the Vulkan/sisters question?