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.

davidson wrote:Arhiman only being able to use one shooting attack power a turn hurts him alot. It pretty much ignores some poor wording under the Black Staff. I don't know why anyone would take him now.

I think you misread it.
He can use multiple shooting powers... he can't use ONE shooting power multiple times.
He can use one NON-shooting power multiple times, though.

Eric

Boss_Salvage wrote:And apparently you can kill with the lash, if you're slamming bikers or jumpers though terrain :S
- Salvage

Well, you always could do that to bikes. I've done it before... it didn't work, but would have been hilarious.

Jumpers, though, is different. Notice in the FAQ/Erratta that it says the player may choose whether to use Jump packs or walk. You won't be cheap-shotting any jump packers that way.

Also... Am I the only one who thinks it sucks that you can't, apparently, Lash a pinned unit?

Eric

Surprised there was no clarification regarding Eldrad's staff and casting a second shooting-power.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Jumpers, though, is different. Notice in the FAQ/Erratta that it says the player may choose whether to use Jump packs or walk. You won't be cheap-shotting any jump packers that way.

Also... Am I the only one who thinks it sucks that you can't, apparently, Lash a pinned unit?

Eric

Actually it says the moving player (who is the player who cast lash) gets to choose how the jumpers move, so yeah you can slam them into trees.

And no, I don't personally think it sucks that you can't lash pinned troops, I think its appropriate.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

I really hate to complain on this Sacred Day of FAQ Release, but yeah that is annoying. So Farseer in a vehicle is not on the table and can't cast powers, but WG in Serpents are? Booooo

ubermosher wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

I really hate to complain on this Sacred Day of FAQ Release, but yeah that is annoying. So Farseer in a vehicle is not on the table and can't cast powers, but WG in Serpents are? Booooo

My first reaction to this ruling was similar to your reaction. But then I remembered if the leaked 5th edition PDF holds true in 5th edition models in transports no longer count as being off the table, so this ruling would then be in line with the rest of the game.

Ok so, am I wrong in that the Chaos FAQ asked whether the whip using player could bundle the target unit's minis together, but failed to actually answer it? Am I missing that?

jfrazell wrote:Ok so, am I wrong in that the Chaos FAQ asked whether the whip using player could bundle the target unit's minis together, but failed to actually answer it? Am I missing that?

You're wrong. It says that the Lash is normal movement up to the amount rolled. So that means the controlling player (the lash player) can move the models any way he sees fit within that distance, including bunching the models up.

In 4th, by RAW, fleet is as valid as shooting after DS.

Or perhaps everyone I have played with simply abuses me and I am too friendly.

Ugh. Ba-roken. I'm only going to bring one lash to Saturday's tournament instead of two.

But at least it's clear. That's the most important thing.

I am glad to see many points I have argued about regarding the Eldar Codex have come to pass, and errata/clarifications being made.

Errata such as the vibro cannon shooting in a straight line (though I think it is obvious that it was meant to do so, it was still worth clarifying so you dont get the snaking line winding its way among units).

Clarifications such as:

Vibro cannon LOS.

Swooping Hawks being able to rubber bounce.

Guardian heavy weapon crew coherency.

I would like to thank General Hobbs for arguing with me by proof of asserition ad nauseaum to make this come to pass. *coughIWINcough*

[edited to add links to pertinent articles of discussion.]

Note Yakface adamantly saying that it was not GW's intention to allow Swooping hawks to "rubber hawk".... *coughIWINAGAINcough*

Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

MagickalMemories wrote:

davidson wrote:Arhiman only being able to use one shooting attack power a turn hurts him alot. It pretty much ignores some poor wording under the Black Staff. I don't know why anyone would take him now.

I think you misread it.
He can use multiple shooting powers... he can't use ONE shooting power multiple times.
He can use one NON-shooting power multiple times, though.

Eric

Understood but in play it doesn't mater. If I need to take out a tank, being able to bolt of change and doom bolt doesn't help me. It was when you could cast bolt of change 3 times vs a tank or doom bolt 3 times to take out troops. For 250 points I can just build a better sorcer/hq with points to spare.

Why must they nerf my ultimate skimmer killing machine. Poop.

yakface wrote:

ubermosher wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
Edit 2: Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

I really hate to complain on this Sacred Day of FAQ Release, but yeah that is annoying. So Farseer in a vehicle is not on the table and can't cast powers, but WG in Serpents are? Booooo

My first reaction to this ruling was similar to your reaction. But then I remembered if the leaked 5th edition PDF holds true in 5th edition models in transports no longer count as being off the table, so this ruling would then be in line with the rest of the game.

If so, I withdraw my complaint. Cheers.

Oh... is the hat tip to you by GW a tacit message that we can direct all whining about tardy FAQ's in the future to you?

now I want them to clarify if 13th co. can hot a skimer on a 3+ with mark of the wulfen

Well, according to the wording on the faq, it says that phoenix lords can only use their powers with aspect warriors. However, it does not say only aspect warriors of the same aspect as the phoenix lord. I don't have a eldar codex on me but it seems to me that you could have infiltrating banshees (if you attached Kahrandras) or Scorpions with the defend power (if you took Asurmen). Someone tell me I'm wrong. I don't have the 'dex.

I only read the CSM one as that's my army. If find the following interesting:

1) Smoke launcher use for Dread that fires frenzies. Glad they clarified this for all those who thought Dreads weren't too bad because of the smoke end around. Dreads just plain suck now.

2) Appears you can "mob up" with lash. This especially true with the change from a "must" to a "move up to" interpretation on the movement distance.

3) Two ranged psychic powers in the same round for a Monstrous Creature shows rules for 5th. Dakkafex still exists.

Buzzsaw wrote:Oh, and other then the errata in Beasts of Chaos (no mixing), are there any changes there people have noticed?

Other than that small change? No, I haven't noticed anything.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Well, according to the wording on the faq, it says that phoenix lords can only use their powers with aspect warriors. However, it does not say only aspect warriors of the same aspect as the phoenix lord.

It doesn't need to. Phoenix Lords can't join Aspect Warrior squads of a different Aspect, so it's simply not an issue.

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

Anything that hurts MEQs is fine with me. Bunching up marines and then hit them with a Demolisher is fun.


Now we're going to hear Marine players whine again.

jfrazell wrote:Thanks Yakmeister. Would have been good for them to directly state so the mouthbreathers like myself could understand. But that follows RAW.

I'm curious. Does your gaming circle use the term "mouthbreathers" also, or are you taking it from one of my posts?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Just noticed that the ruling on WG in Serpents is rather irksome. It does not state that a Warlock attached to a unit of embarked WG negates their Wraithsight, which seems rather unfair.

It doesn't need to state that. A Warlock attached to the unit is definitely "within 6" of the vehicle."

On a side note, I'm really stoked that the erratta seem to confirm that units inside transports don't seem to be considered "off the table." My guess is that psychic powers will still be blocked from ebing used out of the vehicle (except possibly through fire ports), but the off chance that powers might still be able affect the vehicle _itself_ makes my little Serpent-Fortuning schemes seem a bit more realistic.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Intercept: Stupid, pointless nerf. Yeah, that'll show those imba Hawks.

I didn't see intercept mentioned at all. Am I missing something?

I notice the Eldar FAQ didn't address fleeting jetbikes, though they did address fleeting autarchs w/warp generator (Says that even though warp spiders can't fleet, the autarch can-lends credence to Bikes being able to fleet).

skyth: Yes, you are missing something. You are missing the errata that limits Intercept to working on vehicles without a WS.

Nurglitch wrote:skyth: Yes, you are missing something. You are missing the errata that limits Intercept to working on vehicles without a WS.

I'm not sure I understand how the FAQ change is a nerf; intercept still allows Hawks to hit skimmers and other fast moving vehicles on 4+, and they already hit everything with a WS on 4+, don't they? Actually the hawks hit on 4+, the Exarch (who must be there for anyone to have intercept) is hitting all vehicles with a WS on 3+, no? Are there any vehicles with a WS higher then 4?

SM and CSM Dreads are WS4, Defilers, Soul Grinders, War Walkers and sentinels are WS 3. I don't have the Ork codex, but I assume their WS is along those lines. Aren't Hawks already always hitting WS vehicles on 4+ or 3+?

Buzzsaw wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:skyth: Yes, you are missing something. You are missing the errata that limits Intercept to working on vehicles without a WS.

I'm not sure I understand how the FAQ change is a nerf; intercept still allows Hawks to hit skimmers and other fast moving vehicles on 4+, and they already hit everything with a WS on 4+, don't they? Actually the hawks hit on 4+, the Exarch (who must be there for anyone to have intercept) is hitting all vehicles with a WS on 3+, no? Are there any vehicles with a WS higher then 4?

The nerf comes into play in that Hawks can only affect a Walker with Haywire Grenades... and unless stunned, Grenades only hit a Walker on a 6+. It was argued that Intercept allowed Grenades to hit Walkers on a 4+.

I'm not claiming that it is a "nerf".

Anyone else a little surprised that they took the most powerful and user-lenient approach to Lash?

The only one in the Eldar FAQ that I think is stupid is that Fire Prisms can contribute fire when they're out of range. Yes, it's 60", yes, the chances of that ever happening are slim, but even so - if they can't do it whe shaken/stunned then they should have to be in range.

Skyleap in the same turn as arriving sure is interesting, as is the Warp Spider move after Deep Striking.

BYE