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.

toxic_wisdom wrote:
Erm... Did you even notice who wrote the new FAQ ?

It does not justify his interpretation: yakface wrote the thing despite the information exchanged in this topic. I've already shown how Wych Weapons re: half weapon skill, have no real purpose unless it takes into account their attacks against opposing models.

Way to go !

I had absolutely zero direct input on the Games Workshop FAQ.

And my opinion was that the last FAQ ruling was written in error based on a number of reasons, it had [/i]nothing[/i] to do with how powerful or not powerful the Wych weapon rules were under said ruling.

As was demonstrated in this thread, Wych weapons as written in the codex are not useless, but rather are less useful then you would like them to be.

yakface wrote:"...I had absolutely zero direct input on the Games Workshop FAQ..."

Then how do you explain the closing tag of the FAQ ?.. Thanks to Jon ‘yakface’ Regul and his FAQ ruling council

The GW guys read this site; they read Yak's FAQ posts covering the major sticking points of the rules; they copy, borrow, and steal from them to make a FAQ. I find it notably positive that they give any credit for the source of their "inspiration" at all.

lord_sutekh wrote:The GW guys read this site; they read Yak's FAQ posts covering the major sticking points of the rules; they copy, borrow, and steal from them to make a FAQ. I find it notably positive that they give any credit for the source of their "inspiration" at all.

Wait GW guys read THIS site?!

And they've posted, on extremely rare occaisons.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

yakface wrote:"...I had absolutely zero direct input on the Games Workshop FAQ..."

Then how do you explain the closing tag of the FAQ ?.. Thanks to Jon ‘yakface’ Regul and his FAQ ruling council

They read our FAQ and apparently it helped them in some way write their FAQ.

In some cases, whole question & answers appear to have been taken from our FAQ. In other cases they just used our question and ruled differently in their answer.


It indeed appears that the 4th Edition ruling was indeed just a typo as I surmised. Either that or they just changed their mind.

Well, slight nerf for the Wych Weapons... but at least a boost to the codex with Reavers and Lelith. They still need to fix the Xenospasm issue though: the FAQ ( current and previous ) states the effects are cumulative... however you can only have one Xenospasm in a DE army. I'm going with typo on this one, thinking they meant the grenade effects from Horrorfex and Terrorfex. But even then it states if fired from the same unit which would be a rare event:

Archon and Incubi Master with Terrorfexes
Haemonculi x3 with Terrorfexes
Archite and Succubus with Terrorfexes in a joined unit