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.

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?

I think that there's an important distinction between "Lascannon and Twin-linked Plasmagun"(emphasis mine) and "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon(with built in Stormbolter)". I think as the Dreadnought weapons are built in and not listed separately or with an "and", the Dreadnought built in weapons are still part of the Dread CCW(and thus both destroyed on a single Weapon Destroyed result) and not separate weapons like the Lascannon and Twin-Plasma.

rowanalpha wrote:What is the Vulkan/sisters question?

Most people don't believe this should be legal:
http://belloflostsouls.tumblr.com/post/51035346/breaking-the-space-marine-codex-part-1

Geddonight wrote:

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?

Nope. See page 73 of the rules (Dreadnought Close Combat weapons). When you destroy a CCW arm on a walker you destroy all the weaponry built into it.

Foda_Bett wrote:

rowanalpha wrote:What is the Vulkan/sisters question?

Most people don't believe this should be legal:
http://belloflostsouls.tumblr.com/post/51035346/breaking-the-space-marine-codex-part-1

And to top that off, that list isn't even very well optimized.

Exchange the celestian squads rhinos for an immolators and exchange the seraphim for dominions mounted in an immolator, and you have a seriously nasty list.

I have faced space marine lists abusing vulkan a lot and they never included sisters in them and I had a hard enough time as it was dealing with the power of vulkan.

If this does prove to be legal to do, then you can count on ork dominance at tourneys evaporating very quickly.

Platuan4th wrote:

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?

I think that there's an important distinction between "Lascannon and Twin-linked Plasmagun"(emphasis mine) and "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon(with built in Stormbolter)". I think as the Dreadnought weapons are built in and not listed separately or with an "and", the Dreadnought built in weapons are still part of the Dread CCW(and thus both destroyed on a single Weapon Destroyed result) and not separate weapons like the Lascannon and Twin-Plasma.

GW must FAQ it! Wait, what still uses a LC+TLP? Didn't they nerf that Predator?

Hellfury wrote:

Foda_Bett wrote:

rowanalpha wrote:What is the Vulkan/sisters question?

Most people don't believe this should be legal:
http://belloflostsouls.tumblr.com/post/51035346/breaking-the-space-marine-codex-part-1

And to top that off, that list isn't even very well optimized.

Exchange the celestian squads rhinos for an immolators and exchange the seraphim for dominions mounted in an immolator, and you have a seriously nasty list.

I have faced space marine lists abusing vulkan a lot and they never included sisters in them and I had a hard enough time as it was dealing with the power of vulkan.

If this does prove to be legal to do, then you can count on ork dominance at tourneys evaporating very quickly.

You make it sound like an advert for dairy.

"Ah yes, Vulkan! The power of CHEEEESE."

GW must FAQ it! Wait, what still uses a LC+TLP? Didn't they nerf that Predator?

No, its back.

I think the str x vs. str 1 is just due to the poison changes.

In 4th, it didn't matter what s a poison weapon was, as s was only used to wound, and poison has its own rules for that.

In 5th, poison weapons grant a reroll to wound if they are hitting with at least as much s as the target's t. Thus its important to know the s of a poison weapon.

I imagine that the question which they were getting that prompted this was some variant of "can I reroll the 2+ to wound with my hellfire rounds". S1 makes it crystal clear that you can only do so vs. s1 targets, which don't exist.

Am I missing something? In 5th, poison weapons do grant a reroll if the strength is equal or greater than the target's toughness, but as per page 42 of the small rule book, it only mentions this specifically for close combat (as the section was special close combat weapons). I did not see where poisoned shooting weapons have been given this benefit.

Where exactly does it mention that this rule also applies for shooting? If it does apply for shooting, then does that mean that Ku'Gath's necrotic missiles are 4+poisoned AP2 with a reroll against anything T6 or less? (as he is STR6.....which is pretty much a reroll against everything)

hmm the wording in the small book is different you say?

Don't have a copy of the big book, and was always told it is the same exact rules in both, but on Page 42 of the small book (close combat weapons):

"....In addition, if the strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must reroll failed rolls to wound in close combat."

I didnt see it mentioned anywhere else for ranged weapons and that is the only page listing for poisoned weapons in the index. It appears that either this reroll DOES apply (although no wording I can see to that effect) to ranged poisoned weapons as well, in which case, would Ku'Gath's necrotic missiles get a reroll; OR GW just wanted to 'clarify' that heavy bolter hellfire shells will not get a reroll. It is unclear to me, anyone else have a more authoritative answer?

P.S. Noxious Touch on Monstrous Creatures seems super killy (2+ to wound anything with a reroll against most foes and no save)

I want the three minutes of my life GW just wasted in making me look through that useless FAQ!

GW produces such shoddy FAQs intentionally. It is there way of saying "frak you" to people who want tight rules instead of happy, informal games where you just "sort it out."

olympia wrote:GW produces such shoddy FAQs intentionally. It is there way of saying "frak you" to people who want tight rules instead of happy, informal games where you just "sort it out."

You mean GW intentionally doesn't want games to run smoothly and quicker?

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

No.

with an iron fist wrote:

GW must FAQ it! Wait, what still uses a LC+TLP? Didn't they nerf that Predator?

And its Razorback option, not Predator.

Platuan4th wrote:

olympia wrote:GW produces such shoddy FAQs intentionally. It is there way of saying "frak you" to people who want tight rules instead of happy, informal games where you just "sort it out."

You mean GW intentionally doesn't want games to run smoothly and quicker?

Having examined all of the evidence (codices, rules, other FAQs) and given the (in)frequency with which FAQs are issued and updated, I can only conclude they think games run smoothest when everyone around the table are chums.

Doesnt Fantasy run pretty smooth on the rules compared to 40k though?

Foda_Bett wrote:

rowanalpha wrote:What is the Vulkan/sisters question?

Most people don't believe this should be legal:
http://belloflostsouls.tumblr.com/post/51035346/breaking-the-space-marine-codex-part-1

I see nothing wrong with this the Witch Hunter codex clearly states they may be taken as allies. Vulkan's rules are ALL flamers and meltas in an army count as twin linked.

No 40k Daemon FAQ yet?




/Pretty weak FAQ-----no Drop Pod or Gate answers

I thought the previous round of FAQ's was pathetic...this is just...

Why even waste the bandwidth on the servers for this? It doesn't *answer* anything that anyone cared about!

Looks like they need an FAQ for the FAQ...

Apparently it's our fault, as per the very last paragraph...oh well. Maybe they will see this thread!

At least we got an answer on those combat squad victory points!

edit: missed that there was an entire 2nd page.

Drunkspleen wrote:edit: missed that there was an entire 2nd page.

Haven't missed much then

That FAQ is about as useful as painting tips from the Coffee Guy on MadTv.

I see nothing wrong with this the Witch Hunter codex clearly states they may be taken as allies. Vulkan's rules are ALL flamers and meltas in an army count as twin linked.

It's completely legit RAW and there's no ambiguity. Some people want it to be changed but it certainly doesn't need to be clarified. Most people seem to expect FAQs to be more errata than clarification.

In World War 2, I believe the 1st French Armoured Division was attached to Patton's Third Army for a small bit of time.

Allies, yes. Part of the American army no.

Same thing with Witchunters and Vulkan. You are taking them as allies on your roster, but they are not part of the Space Marines (army).

Let's be honest here. The intent is for the rule to apply to Space Marines. Anything else is cheesy loopholing. Don't be the RR.

And Poles/Czech/Danes flew for the RAF, what the hell is your point pertaining to 40K.

RAW says all flamers, heavy flamers, meltas and multimeltas. Not "marine" weapons. Not units where Combat tactics were replaced. "All"

How much more clear does it need to be? Who knows what the intent was. The fact is, the published rules state all. No FAQ/errata has changed it, therefor it is to be played as written.

I think my point was clear.

I don't think there needed to be a clarifacation in the rules about the what units had the Salamanders rules applied...the Witchunters are allies, not part of the Space Marine army. I don't think it could be any clearer than that.

Again, it is obvious that anyone using the rule to apply to allies is loopholing. <shrugs> Personally, I'd finish the game and then never play the person again, and in a tournament, give them low marks on army comp.

Sorry to jump the thread, I know this has been argued numerous other places.

I think that GW specifically avoided the contentious rules debates because they don't want to screw up by answering the wrong way.

In the last round of FAQs there were a lot of answers that weren't errata, that still either contradicted RAW or each other in some way. They're being more conscious with the new errata/FAQ so they don't do that.

IMO they need to get some gamer with real understandings of the rules, then they need to have the designers double check things, and if they intend the game to be played a certain way simply errata it.

As it stands now, FAQs are really nothing more than "universal house rules" anyways. The Errata are the only "official" rules changes.

Shotgun wrote:And Poles/Czech/Danes flew for the RAF, what the hell is your point pertaining to 40K.

RAW says all flamers, heavy flamers, meltas and multimeltas. Not "marine" weapons. Not units where Combat tactics were replaced. "All"

How much more clear does it need to be? Who knows what the intent was. The fact is, the published rules state all. No FAQ/errata has changed it, therefor it is to be played as written.

Yes, RAW does say all such weapons would be affected by Heston's Chapter tactics, no doubt.

But, RAW also says that if you are playing nids against an opponents nids, then each of you may use each others synapse. Is this how it is played? A big whooping *no*. But that is RAW.

My point is Pure RAW when applied to every single scenario just doesn't make sense in a fraction of them. So, we all know pure RAW in some cases is not the way to play. This is IMHO one of those cases. We all can guess the probable intent is that this only applies to Space Marines because it is a **Chapter** tactic. And hence no body but Space Marines practice **Chapter** tactics.

This is the same as nid synapse RAW conundrum. RAW says one thing, but common sense says another.

I agree, with many posters here and in other threads. Yes RAW says SoB take advantage of Heston's special rules, but this is rules "stretching" into the realm of cheese players and may just label someone in a gaming group as TFG if they play in a group of respectful/fun gamers.

I don't understand, do people think that twin-linking a few Sisters of Batle Flamers will make the army Ultimate Cheese?

Please explain this to me, you people used Cheese and Sisters in the same sentence without stopping to laugh halfway through?