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.

Stewedavers wrote: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!

No, just the inevitable result of applying the Combat Squad rules; Combat Squads are declared at deployment, not before.

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.

Yeah that'll justify another point increase on them.



Man Lash of Submission got nerfed!? Roll to hit? Meh.


Until GW adds NFW to the list of "special CC weapons" I'd say a NFW and a Great Sword get +1A for having 2 CC weapons.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

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.

Yeah that'll justify another point increase on them.



Man Lash of Submission got nerfed!? Roll to hit? Meh.


Until GW adds NFW to the list of "special CC weapons" I'd say a NFW and a Great Sword get +1A for having 2 CC weapons.

Wow I didn't pick up on that. Onslaught, Lash and such other powers that don't actually do damage but are classified as such nerfed. Tyranids just got a little more worn down because of this.

Noisy_Marine wrote:

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.

Yeah that'll justify another point increase on them.

I will also probably mean another price increase on the new Obliterator models. I take this ruling as a positive though. It means that a new Chaos Dex is coming and that is good.

You know ... all the chaos cult troops have to be partially demonic ... why aren't they on the list of demons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

veritechc wrote:I will also probably mean another price increase on the new Obliterator models. I take this ruling as a positive though. It means that a new Chaos Dex is coming and that is good.

It could be good. Depends on whether the new codex is awesome like the 3.5 codex or sucks donkey balls like the Nid codex.

And I'd rather not see Oblits costing around $30 each, even if they are no longer metal.

Probably not the best sign for a FAQ in that there's still serious questions being raised as a result IMHO...

That is why the InatFAQ exists.

Is Lash classified as a PSA in its own entry?

Kurgash wrote:Wow I didn't pick up on that. Onslaught, Lash and such other powers that don't actually do damage but are classified as such nerfed. Tyranids just got a little more worn down because of this.

The FAQ changed nothing for Nids as either our PSA hit either automatically (because the codex says so) or required you to roll to hit in the first place.

puma713 wrote:Is Lash classified as a PSA in its own entry?

Quick! Someone grab a CSM codex! I'd grab mine but its buried under a bunch of crap.

It is not.

Then Lash still doesn't need to hit. Maybe we need a comprehensive list of PSA's that do need to hit, PSA's that do not need to hit and just regular ole' psychic powers.

It states "instead of firing another ranged weapon..."

So it is a "ranged weapon" psychic power, meaning it has always been classified as a PSA. This FAQ seems to indicate it might not be.

A NFW is by definition a special close combat weapon. Seriouslyu, for a start it is a Force Weapon! THe definition of special CCW is NOT inclusive, it tells you waht they need to fulfil YOu're possibly getting confused with the list of Special CCW where you need another of the same weapon to get +1 attack, not simply another CCW

The reason you still get +1 attack is because a Doomfist is a DCCW, and DCCW let you get +1 attack for each close combat weapon you have after the first, which overrides the rules on page 42. nPossibly

nosferatu1001 wrote:It states "instead of firing another ranged weapon..."

So it is a "ranged weapon" psychic power, meaning it has always been classified as a PSA. This FAQ seems to indicate it might not be.

It doesn't have a Range, Str. and AP profile and it is not classified specifically as a PSA. So, according to the FAQ, no matter what it might say contextually, it's not a PSA.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
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.

Is Phil still doing that? I know he did that to Luke's wolf guard that one time, but he didn't run that against my bugs or faeries when I played him 6 months ago.

Edited 'cause I was trying to quote puma713 and screwed it up

(referring to Lash) It also says:

...and then take a Psychic test in order to use the power. If the test is successful, the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos Player.

That's pretty specific, isn't it?

Arschbombe wrote:

em_en_oh_pee wrote:
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.

Is Phil still doing that? I know he did that to Luke's wolf guard that one time, but he didn't run that against my bugs or faeries when I played him 6 months ago.

That is his staple list now, since its a pure metagame call. Not sure how he will do soon, because its shifting again.

That's what I mean. A NFW isn't one of the weapons that requires two of the same kind to get +1A. So 2 Doomfists should give you +1A for having 2 CC's.

ShumaGorath wrote: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).

I don't know if I should post it on YMDC, I don't know how new the ruling on deep striking vehicles were and I don't entirely remember the justification on why people were allowed to do this. Can anyone off hand remember if it's been ruled on?

It's old, well-covered in YMDC, and doesn't actually change anything w/respect to combat squadding when you get out of a drop pod.

Janthkin wrote:It's old, well-covered in YMDC, and doesn't actually change anything w/respect to combat squadding when you get out of a drop pod.

Well that almost covers my question. I'll go rummage for the answer there.

:edit: I can. Horray.

If i play any GK player regardless of faq i will allow them to have +2 attacks because its SAYS in the codex you get a PAIR of nemesis falchions.
If they want to not be dumb they should of just of said delete "PAIR" in x sentance on x page ergo its a one special weapon that gives you +1 A.

The tau nerf made me LOL (makes me wanna make a 500 pts GK army just to troll my LGS manager, however i Wouldn't)

ShumaGorath wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: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).

I don't know if I should post it on YMDC, I don't know how new the ruling on deep striking vehicles were and I don't entirely remember the justification on why people were allowed to do this. Can anyone off hand remember if it's been ruled on?

(P95) states you can deploy out of a deepstrike vehicle but cannot move further and may not assault *unless specifically allowed ofc. When deploying out of a vehicle IC's can leave the unit as long as they disembark more than 2" from the unit they were joined with (p67). I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to break off Stern or any other IC from a Transported DS'ing unit.

Also, earlier in the thread there were comments posted that 12 death cult assasins [given scouting by a GM/etc] could scout while inside a Stormraven. I thought only Dedicated transports gained the scouting ability and that Transports that take up FOC slots do not gain scouting? ref: p76 and p67

losing the str 10 on DK fist and falchions losing the 2nd extra attack deffo makes my modeling choices easier.

Noisy_Marine wrote:
That's what I mean. A NFW isn't one of the weapons that requires two of the same kind to get +1A. So 2 Doomfists should give you +1A for having 2 CC's.

That is correct, however, the prohibition on using two DIFFERENT CCWs still applies. BRB pg 42. Two doomfists allow +1A (pg 73). A doomfist and a sword (which, I believe, is what is currently being debated) fall under the restriction on page 42, so no bonus attack.

spyguyyoda wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:
That's what I mean. A NFW isn't one of the weapons that requires two of the same kind to get +1A. So 2 Doomfists should give you +1A for having 2 CC's.

That is correct, however, the prohibition on using two DIFFERENT CCWs still applies. BRB pg 42. Two doomfists allow +1A (pg 73). A doomfist and a sword (which, I believe, is what is currently being debated) fall under the restriction on page 42, so no bonus attack.

Doomfist and hammer - agreed, NDH is just a fancy thunder hammer.
Doomfist and sword - not so much, the wording on the sword is such that it plays more like a piece of non-combat wargear than an actual CCW.

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

They're in the weapons summary at the back of the book.

Dronze wrote:

spyguyyoda wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:
That's what I mean. A NFW isn't one of the weapons that requires two of the same kind to get +1A. So 2 Doomfists should give you +1A for having 2 CC's.

That is correct, however, the prohibition on using two DIFFERENT CCWs still applies. BRB pg 42. Two doomfists allow +1A (pg 73). A doomfist and a sword (which, I believe, is what is currently being debated) fall under the restriction on page 42, so no bonus attack.

Doomfist and hammer - agreed, NDH is just a fancy thunder hammer.
Doomfist and sword - not so much, the wording on the sword is such that it plays more like a piece of non-combat wargear than an actual CCW.

It doesn't matter what the wording in the section about the hammer is; what is important is what section it is in. If you read the entire page, the codex specifies that all "Nemesis" weapons are Force Weapons. I believe we can agree that Force Weapons are special weapons, yes? And DCCWs are power weapons, so that would be two different CCWs.

Force weapon and bolt pistol gives you plus one attack. So they are not 'special' as you say.

spyguyyoda wrote:

Dronze wrote:

spyguyyoda wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:
That's what I mean. A NFW isn't one of the weapons that requires two of the same kind to get +1A. So 2 Doomfists should give you +1A for having 2 CC's.

That is correct, however, the prohibition on using two DIFFERENT CCWs still applies. BRB pg 42. Two doomfists allow +1A (pg 73). A doomfist and a sword (which, I believe, is what is currently being debated) fall under the restriction on page 42, so no bonus attack.

Doomfist and hammer - agreed, NDH is just a fancy thunder hammer.
Doomfist and sword - not so much, the wording on the sword is such that it plays more like a piece of non-combat wargear than an actual CCW.

It doesn't matter what the wording in the section about the hammer is; what is important is what section it is in. If you read the entire page, the codex specifies that all "Nemesis" weapons are Force Weapons. I believe we can agree that Force Weapons are special weapons, yes? And DCCWs are power weapons, so that would be two different CCWs.

Are either of them a powerfist, Lightning claw, or chainfist?

Didn't think so. It doesn't affect the extra attack granted.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Force weapon and bolt pistol gives you plus one attack. So they are not 'special' as you say.

Please actually read the rulebook before telling me I am wrong. The bolt pistol is not a special ccw. That is why you get a bonus.

Edit: pg 42 answers your questions about what is and is not a special ccw. Force weapons and Power weapons are both special ccw. The last paragraph on this page states that two different special ccw never convey bonus attacks. Two of the same special ccw do. A Force weapon and a DCCW (which pg 73 states is a power weapon) are two different types of special ccw, and do not convey the extra attack. If you don't believe me, make a YMDC thread. I am done posting about this here.