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.

In all missions OotF helps demons.

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

The clarification to the vendetta base issue is a godsend. Those rules were a black forest of argument before.

Really good FAQ

I guess no FAQ can make hellstrike missiles not suck

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

A skilled demon player and a good list will mean only about 500 pts is on the table turn 1. Unless you roll poorly.

OotF basically denies its own army turns of shooting, so that turn 5 it is going to have a hard time pulling crap off objectives.

But otherwise I agree.

GMMStudios wrote:

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

A skilled demon player and a good list will mean only about 500 pts is on the table turn 1. Unless you roll poorly.

OotF basically denies its own army turns of shooting, so that turn 5 it is going to have a hard time pulling crap off objectives.

But otherwise I agree.

Ok, because I'm not talking skilled players with good lists. I'm talking about bad players with lousy lists.

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:

Polonius wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:In all missions OotF helps demons.

Only if played by a skilled opponent, and there is a limit to that being true all the time. You're still pitting half an army against a full army for two full turns, and that's going to be rough on a casual player.

I think the fleet officer is a bit of a pro-am special that good players know how to work around but could really screw newer and weaker players. Removing the double stack prevents that.

A skilled demon player and a good list will mean only about 500 pts is on the table turn 1. Unless you roll poorly.

OotF basically denies its own army turns of shooting, so that turn 5 it is going to have a hard time pulling crap off objectives.

But otherwise I agree.

Ok, because I'm not talking skilled players with good lists. I'm talking about bad players with lousy lists.

This whole issue really hinges on table set up and mission style doesn't it? Late game daemon drops only really help when you can move onto objectives fairly uncontested. A skilled player will know whats coming, and will lock down 51% of what he needs to win, which against a half normal size army isn't particularly difficult.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank for WH and DH armies.

As nature intended...

/engage smug mode.
/sip mug of tea with pinky finger extended.
/EXALT!!

A thank you to GW for reinforcing good sportsmanship over minutiae-peddling.

If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Well no more mortars in my ccws time to make some rockets or lascannons.
And I was right about bulky terminators not hitching a ride in a Valkyrie.

Well put sarge...well put.

Sarge wrote:If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Perhaps they want to keep "Hellguns" in reserve for the new Inquisition codex?


I'm happy with the FAQ. Double OotF broke the reserves rules too much. They've become too important to the overall game now to mess with them that much.

The rest of the answers were pretty much what you'd expect. I think GW really came through with this one.

yeah, I think after the sturm and drang over the change to storm sheilds in the new SM codex, GW didn't want to have seperate rules for the same wargear anymore. Some is bound to happen, but if they kept the name, there would be all kinds of moaning about how DH and WH dont' get the new hellgun rules.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Sarge wrote:If they didn't want hot-shot lasguns to be lasguns..why change the name from hellguns? We could have avoided months of arguing over that.

Is it not obvious? So that people wouldn't try to use their inquisitorial storm troopers as AP 3.
Overall I am content with the FAQ. No problems here.

You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

Polonius wrote:One big bonus is that you can embark/disembark within 2" of the valks base, making the access points almost academic. It's not a huge boost, but a nice one.

It's also a definite hint that 40K measurement is not supposed to be only on the horizontal plane...

How is that?

If we were only supposed to be measuring horizontally, the answer to that question would have been 'As all measurement in 40K is horizontal, the height of the Valkyrie's base is ignored for measuring dis/embarking or distance to objectives' rather than telling us to measure from the base instead...

ah, yes. That's very true.

Got Space Hulk a few days ago and now the IG update?! X-mas came early!

Quality FAQ update and especially helps since last week I just picked up a Valk.

Always knew that stacking advisors was bad mojo from the start since not only was it overpowered but it wasn't written in the codex that such abilities could in fact stack. From a fluff standpoint it'd just complicate things by having more than one liaison working together like that imo as well.

Best news ive had all month!

GW has at least partially renewed my faith. I hereby take back a significant portion of my whining.

for now

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

But then I could only fit half as many Krootox in my Devilfish

Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

1. Hotshot Lasguns not getting FRFSRF.
2. No stacking with advisors.

Why do these strike me as bad?

Because their rulings are arbitrary and use fluff to justify them. Why can't I use FRFSRF with Hotshot Lasguns? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Why don't advisors stack? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Now I even like the fluff reason for Advisors not stacking, but it's still an arbitrary ruling based in no way on the rules - it's a rule change, and not a clarification. FAQ's should not change rules. Errata, sure, but that's for fixing mistakes, not for changing things that you didn't intend. Then again GW has an interesting track record for fixing 'mistakes', like when Oblits became T4(5) as T5 was a 'misprint'.

I'm reminded quite keenly of my most hated FAQ answer, back in the days of Chaos 3.5 (when Chaos wasn't boring, for those who remember). The question "Does Blood Rage affect Daemonic Flight" came up, and their answer was "Being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster!". At the time most people modelled Daemonic Flight as big wings, not Daemon Prince-sized Jump Packs, so this answer was particularly horrible. A fluff explanation to explain a rules abstraction is not a good way to answer FAQ's.

As for the Hotshot Lasgun one, well, it just solidifies the position of "Worst Choice In The Codex" for Storm Troopers. Equal first with Ogryn, that is.

Also nice to see them addressing the DH and WH parts. They could have just as easily ignored that.

kadun wrote:

Timmah wrote:You think for transports they could just make all 40mm take up 2 spots and the smaller bases take up one. Then designate which size each transport can carry.

Seems like it would be a very simple fix.

But then I could only fit half as many Krootox in my Devilfish

I hope you're not going to the 'ard boyz finals. :p


Actually the Hotshot lasgun ruling is the correct one RAW wise HBMC. Go check the big thread in YMDC. Or the summary which is; a bolter and storm bolter are different.

More rules changes dressed up as an FAQ.

I guess they couldn't afford to actually re-write and re-print the codex though...

Fluff is better than saying "because I say so".

Its a good FAQ and now there is one so be happy!!

They could have fixed the 'no lasguns for Sergeants' and the 'no meltabombs for Stormtroopers' typos

George Spiggott wrote:They could have fixed the 'no lasguns for Sergeants' and the 'no meltabombs for Stormtroopers' typos

I'd have settled for a lasgun Sergeant fix.

Although if all IG Stormies carried Meltabombs as part of their standard kit, that might help justify their points cost.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

1. Hotshot Lasguns not getting FRFSRF.
2. No stacking with advisors.

Hotshot lasguns seem to not have been intended to work with FRFSRF, and rules wise they couldn't either, so I don't see the problem. The no stacking advisers was already kinda iffy, but I guess this settles that issue.