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.

daedalus wrote:Hooray for a sensible FAQ for 'Nids. I finally have a reason to expand my army.

because they are even worse now? XD

Noting the last page, it seems transport vehicles are even stronger vs. nids than previously. Other than that, I don't see how the FAQ made the army 'worse'. The drop spore thing kinda sucks, but really I don't see how this will 'change my game' aside from making it go smoother and friendlier now that we have official rules clarifications.

Also has anybody noticed the date on the FAQs is 7/1/2010 when today's date is actually 6/30/2010? Think maybe it was a premature .pdf on GW's part?

@Grundz

Looks like you'll have to change your sig now....

They split the Mawloc ruling downt he middle which made me a little sad. I had my fingers crossed for no cover saves but expected them to allow them while allowing you to deepstrike onto another model. At least there is no more arguing about it. Makes the model decent now

The shadow in the warp not affecting vehicles has to be one of the worst rulings I've ever seen. Where was the issue in this at all??

Anyways, I never cared for Doom so his ruling doesnt bother me. However, they did give a boost to Hive Tyrants (can never be picked out) which is incredibly important, and they didnt touch Hive Guard which is also great.

I'm just glad I can play in peace now about some of this stuff.

Saldiven wrote:@Grundz

Looks like you'll have to change your sig now....

I might!

Just annoys me that they are a 2nd tier army even with rule bending in their favor, so they FAQ to unbend the rules, and take things away that we /should/ have. >.<

No, it doesn't. Mawloc will never be decent @170 points. For something that scatters 2/3 of the time, and even now would grant cover saves to units in area terrain (while itself suffering a dangerous terrain test, ) And cannot defend itself in CC vs anything other than firewarriors and scouts....No, the Mawloc will never be decent.

IMO.

If Baal Preds can use smoke launchers in their scout moves, can Deffkoptas drop their bombs?

Someone in Gw gave nids the shaft....

jspyd3rx wrote:If Baal Preds can use smoke launchers in their scout moves, can Deffkoptas drop their bombs?

Nope. Orks aren't scouty enough to do that. Or something.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Actually, all it suggests is that the GW Writers are morons.

And to repeat what I said in the YMDC thread:

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

Gwar! wrote:
It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

Thats what I gathered too. It is annoying.

It would be nice if GW was more accepting of its userbase, and there were a logical group of people making improvements or additions to armies to keep them balanced instead of this wildly arbitrary bloodbowl-style garbage.
If it weren't for the GT who would toss anything we brewed up I bet we could get this done.

Old Man Yarrik wrote:Someone in Gw gave nids the shaft....

Nah, I wouldn't say that. I think it's a mixed bag like I said. There are favorable rulings in there.

Reckless dreamer that I am, I was holding out some hope for all-reserve Tyranids to become viable. I think that pretty much got squished.

The spore pod thing really chaps my ass since space marine players still get to drop empty pods, but nid players can't now.

I had a feeling that GW would nerf the doom, that doesn't suprise me. I will still run him, as even in tournaments with these same rules, he very often gets his points back.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the Nid FAQ is really hard to read? The question text is really light! Usually highlighting the text helps, but not in this case.

It's a very thin, dark grey font on a light grey mottled background. I too find it hard to read.

Back to the RAW vs RAI argument (Hurrah!), the trouble with RAW is that GW's editorial skills are poor so they often make stupid mistakes like blast template.

Glad to see the twisted logic of allowing Doom to psyche units in transports and Swarmlords not using powers didn't infest this FAQ. I expect the usual inane arguments about vehicles not being able to use cover saves will persist among the diehards, however.

No upgrades for the BA dread is a little odd (compare it with the IC and Venerable) but not too bad.

Gwar: No offense, but trying to apply your style logic to how the devs actually work and write makes the game even more ridiculous and unplayable than it already is at times- it's a clash of two different philosophies. You're trying to make a spoon into a knife by sharpening the handle and all that does is lead to bloody finges :-)

I'm half and half on the Doom ruling. I'm kind of surprised they allowed cover saves, as the wounds are clearly not any sort of shooting attack. Conversely, I'm completely not surprised they disallowed the Doom affecting units within transports. It was a pretty radical departure from precedent to assume that it could affect units embarked in transports, which is why I was against it int he first place (regardless of RAW). I think the only reason some people are upset is because the community at large made the decision to allow embarked units to be affected.

I'm really surprised that SitW doesn't affect embarked psykers though; maybe they were trying to be consistent with their ruling on the Doom?

jmurph wrote:Gwar: No offense, but trying to apply your style logic to how the devs actually work and write makes the game even more ridiculous and unplayable than it already is at times- it's a clash of two different philosophies. You're trying to make a spoon into a knife by sharpening the handle and all that does is lead to bloody finges :-)

How so? Isn't that what Errata is for? If they want to change the RaW, they can issue an errata.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

What? Why??? How does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

"Oh no! The way the Hive Mind disrupts the Warp! I cannot concentrate to draw power! What ever shall I... oh... walking inside made it better. Wow. Who'da knew?"

Because since the beginning of 5th Edition GW has determined that MECH is thier Messiah and anything that could remotely question thier god's reign should be nerfed for its heresy. Seriously, you GW and the Chimera you road in on.

The smoke launchers thing seems arbitrary but perhaps GW knows what the intent of their rules were in regards to the doom of malantai and shield of sanguinius (Was fairly obvious what their intent was unless you love to argue (OMG IT DOESNT SAY OBSCURED)

So while the Doom questions may not be RAW.. GW rules against raw and goes with RAI all the time, just how it is. If anyone knows how its supposed to work, they do.. theyre just not good at expressing it

But yeah some of the other rulings are strange

Grundz wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hooray for a sensible FAQ for 'Nids. I finally have a reason to expand my army.

because they are even worse now? XD

They're worse, yes, but this is the reason why I DIDN'T buy a Mawloc and convert a Doom from the beginning. I don't like spending money on stuff, having to argue iffy rules with people, and then finally after all that, find that GW has FAQed it otherwise. I just wanted my expectations set.

jmurph - not inane, just using the rules that were written down to actually draw a logical conclusion.

If obscured...then.... is very, very simple and straightforward - and they got it "right" with Orks so why, if they really wanted vehicles to benefit (remember SW and BA are in the same boat currently) did they not simply use the same language?

Because different people write different books. This has only been discussed for the last decade

The tyranid FAQ has some complete BS in there ....

no attaching a tyranid prime to podding warriors? are your $%#^ing kidding me? If i ever play against someone who trys to disallow this id apply the same logic to sm ICs and drop pods, and make a 4+ or not play .... slowed rulings abound.

An unnecessary nerf to lashwhips.

Doom not hitting units in vehicles is good, and its answered now at least ....

mawlocs can ds onto units is also good.

But i cant understand the sense in not allowing ICs to attach to mycetin spore podding units .... thats just absolutely slowed.

As for blood angels .... no extra gear on furioso librarians is a complete rules change.

Seems everything was better off before they bothered to write this tripe, as most of the stuff was only broken when playing the biggest TFGs, i.e vindicator having the large blast template tyranid ccws stacking etc.

I think that these rulings have taken nids out of the competitive and put them into a 2nd rate army.

The nerfing of running empty pods have really, really diminished nids.

wyomingfox wrote:
Because since the beginning of 5th Edition GW has determined that MECH is thier Messiah and anything that could remotely question thier god's reign should be nerfed for its heresy.

I am 99% sure this is due to profit margins on the big, flat paneled vehicles, which in turn have to be/can be filled with troops.

On the bright side the nid faq does have a cool border and background! Usually its just a plain white pdf

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

No, it suggests GW writers are terrible, and cant even comprehend what the words they write actually mean in game terms.

+1 to 'why doesn't shadow affect people in boxes?!'

Also, I can't put a prime in a pod?

Also, why are lash whips resolved before other modifiers?

At least they resolved stacking modifiers, tank shocked pods and tyrant guard.

Edit: ninja'd by kill dem. By about 10 minutes. That's what I get for trying to watch tennis... ::

gannam wrote:I think that these rulings have taken nids out of the competitive and put them into a 2nd rate army.

The nerfing of running empty pods have really, really diminished nids.

I have never seen or heard anyone run an empty pods list. Ever. I really dont see a point to giving a bunch of free kill points away at 40 points a pop, especially when there are so many slots and units tyranid players cant fit in to begin with.

Most of the answers are exactly what was expected, and most of the units that make Tyranids good were not even mentioned. If the army is second tier now, it was before as well.