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.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

yakface wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I am very surprised that the Daemon include:
Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon
Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,
summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion
upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the
Decapitator, the Avatar.

Why? It makes complete sense. How would you have expected them to rule given that there is no clear RAW indication of what a 'daemon' is (given that their rule does not say that they have preferred enemy against any models with the Daemon special rule.

So this means that Fluff = Rules. That is disappointing. :(

????

Oh no! Now my Daemon Princes are going to be treated as actual Daemons... /sarcasm.

Finally, this debate has been settled.

yakface wrote:The shunt move is infinitely interesting for objective grabbing...which given the FAQ ruling is clearly what it was intended to be. Allowing the shunt move to be used during Scout moves would have essentially completely ruined games against certain armies if they Grey Knight player won the roll to go first.

If GW had ruled that way they would have been freaking idiots (IMHO) and I'm frankly surprised you're advocating that they should have.

I just hate to see codices become one-dimensional is all really. They are pretty awesome for objective grabbing and I have used them that way before but it still isn't enough to make them as cost effective as Purifiers. Also with 1st turn assaults being perfectly legal in the manner I previously stated, I just don't see the big deal with allowing Interceptors the same opportunity.

yakface wrote: Terminators do indeed wear terminator armor.

That's a filthy, filthy lie!





We all know Terminators wear Tactical Dreadnought Armor!

No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

The Falchion thing surprised me, if only because it the rules could go either way, while game design, IMO, suggests that paying a premium for +1 attack (as opposed to a fist, +1 invulnerable, or +2 I) isn't worth it.

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

yakface wrote:No, it means that when a unit is described as being something...shocker...it actually *is* that thing. Yes, it is absolutely true that Black Templar Terminators are wearing Terminator Armor.

As soon as someone finds the part of the rulebook that clearly explains that a description of a unit is 'fluff' and therefore should be completely ignored for determining what a unit is, I will be in total agreement with you.

Happily, no such thing exists. So Nuglings are indeed Daemons of Nurgle, summoned Daemons are indeed Daemons and Terminators do indeed wear terminator armor.

kronk wrote:????

Oh no! Now my Daemon Princes are going to be treated as actual Daemons... /sarcasm.

Finally, this debate has been settled.

I added this above but it will probably get lost in this fast moving thread.

I would have counted ALL C: CD, the Avatar, and Lesser and Greater Daemons in CSM.
Lesser and Greater Daemons don't have the Daemon Special Rule but they do have special summoning rules that refers to them as Daemons.

My defence of Daemon Princes in the past has been based around the agreement with most people who debated with me that surely possessed, oblits, etc don't count as daemons since they are described in the fluff as only being partially daemonic. But now, if my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a daemon, and everyone else was Human, the GK would get PE against me!


But in truth I actually have no problem with Daemon Princes being FAQ'd to Daemons. (Even though it was obvious to me that they weren't)
But the rest of the stuff is ridiculous imo.

I wish GW started using Keywords in their unit/weapon descriptions to help keep things clear.

Here is an interesting one

In the Tyranid FAQ, it states that Lash Whips modify someone's Base Int to 1, but then you can add modifiers on top of that. (the example was that people with furious charge will hit at Int 2)

In the GK FAQ, a model with a Halberd that has its base Int lowered to 1, will strike at Int 1. No bonuses added.


That is an interesting reversal.




What questions do you think they missed?

I think that there is still some confusion around Nemesis weapons against Complex Multi-wound Units.
(ei. currently wound allocated nobs would take more damage from nemesis weapons than identical ones, unless you get one wound at a higher INT first....)

SonicPara wrote:

yakface wrote:The shunt move is infinitely interesting for objective grabbing...which given the FAQ ruling is clearly what it was intended to be. Allowing the shunt move to be used during Scout moves would have essentially completely ruined games against certain armies if they Grey Knight player won the roll to go first.

If GW had ruled that way they would have been freaking idiots (IMHO) and I'm frankly surprised you're advocating that they should have.

I just hate to see codices become one-dimensional is all really. They are pretty awesome for objective grabbing and I have used them that way before but it still isn't enough to make them as cost effective as Purifiers. Also with 1st turn assaults being perfectly legal in the manner I previously stated, I just don't see the big deal with allowing Interceptors the same opportunity.

Breaking the game is a pretty steep price to pay to balance one unit though, isn't it?

It's not like interceptors are a seperate box set that GW needs to sell, either. If you really don't like 'em, switch the backpacks.

I agree it makes Falchions suck (then again Ive always assumed they do so no loss there). It's more sad that GW would make a rather cool option totally useless due to its point cost

Its like old terminator honors that were +10 pts per model. THe new rulebook FAQ states that the same psychic power stacks unless specifically disallowed

Platuan4th wrote:

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Nice catch!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

svendrex wrote:Here is an interesting one

In the Tyranid FAQ, it states that Lash Whips modify someone's Base Int to 1, but then you can add modifiers on top of that. (the example was that people with furious charge will hit at Int 2)

In the GK FAQ, a model with a Halberd that has its base Int lowered to 1, will strike at Int 1. No bonuses added.


That is an interesting reversal.

It's not a reversal, just an exception.

Lash Whips reduce Int to 1, but can be further modified. Halbreds can't modify a changed Int.

I think it's a "fluff" ruling, but it's not inconsistent, just clunkier than it needs to be. They're trying to make the halbred rules really mirror using a long polearm, which means that you can really only use it in the open. If anything, a lash whip would have an easier time tying up a halbred than a sword.

Things I find interesting:

No Scout Shunting
No +2 attacks for Falchions
Warbands do take up FoC slots
Dreadknights are Str. 6 with Nemesis Doomfists
and the halberds don't add +2 if the GK has had his I reduced to a fixed number.

All interesting stuff.

The Falchion ruling made sense to me because in CSM it costs the same upgrade a Termie to a champion and all you got was +1 attack just like the Falchion.


I can see why anyone would want to take a Daemon Hammer on a Dreadknight now. It's the only way to get him to be str 10.

I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

Also, huge FAQ answer here, imo:

Games Workshop wrote:Q: Can a psyker attempt to cast the same psychic
power more than once in a turn? (p50)

A: No, unless the psychic power itself specifically allows
it.

Polonius wrote:Breaking the game is a pretty steep price to pay to balance one unit though, isn't it?

It's not like interceptors are a seperate box set that GW needs to sell, either. If you really don't like 'em, switch the backpacks.

My issue with this train of thought is simply that I don't think it breaks the game. It hasn't when I've done it and it hasn't when it has been done to me. The fact that C:GK can get 12 death cult assassins in assault turn 1 and a Stormraven in the opponent's lines is a far more devastating combination yet it is perfectly legal and only a little more expensive than a kitted out Interceptor unit. When something like that is possible and legalized, why is the less effective shunting interceptor unit considered game breaking?

My aim is not to break 40K and ruin the experience for anyone, I just think that making codices one-dimensional damages the hobby. How many times can you play the exact same IG, GK, or SW lists until 40K isn't fun anymore?

DarthDiggler wrote:I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

No, he doesn't get +1 attack. Since the Greatsword has a special effect, you can consider it a special weapon similar to Thunderhammers and Lightning Claws. With special weapons, you only get +1 attack if you have two of them. In the case of the Dreadknight, the only way you get +1 attack for dual wielding is with the two Doomfists as you can't take two Greatswords or two Daemonhammers.

I would have like to of seen a ruling (even though I feel it's clear) on the psychic pilot rule:

Are vehicles psykers all the time or not?

I'm fairly certain it's answered in the rule itself that they're only psykers for the purposes stated, but I know it's one that's had some contention around it.

Other than that, good faq (including the BRB). Just nice to have answers, not sure I agree with them all, but I'll play it however told.

SonicPara wrote: How many times can you play the exact same IG, GK, or SW lists until 40K isn't fun anymore?

I'll let you know when it starts actually happening to me.

Although there are a few things on there surprising to me, there's no surprise that Falchions grant one extra attack, not two, as I've been trying to explain to others since the book was released.

One minor annoying surprise on the GK FAQ to me is that the author doesn't seem to know the difference between "affect" and "effect", he or she repeatedly uses "effect" and "effected" when the word that should be used is "affect" or "affected".

puma713 wrote:Things I find interesting:

No Scout Shunting
Warbands do take up FoC slots

Did you honestly think that GW was going to rule that you could take an utterly and completely broken army configuration that would lead to pretty much an automatic win against certain opponents?

I actually find it surprising that anyone would honestly believe GW would rule any other way on these two!

DarthDiggler wrote:
I do have a question though. If I arm my Dreadknight with a Greatsword does he get +1 attack for having two weapons? The Greatsword + Doomfist (which doesn't work, but is a weapon). In that respect does the Dreadknight get +1 attack for just having 2 Doomfists or even the Hammer + Doomfist?

it is a good question, but given the way the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons are written, it would seem that they get the +1A bonus for having two close combat weapons of any type (as opposed to regular models who only get that bonus in some cases if their special close combat weapons match). But it certainly couldn't hurt to be answered in an updated FAQ by GW, that's for sure!

yakface wrote:

puma713 wrote:Things I find interesting:

No Scout Shunting
Warbands do take up FoC slots

Did you honestly think that GW was going to rule that you could take an utterly and completely broken army configuration that would lead to pretty much an automatic win against certain opponents?

Mmm, no. Just said I found it interesting. Nothing more.

Polonius wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Polonius wrote:No answer on if multiple Hammerhands stack. That's a little disappointinig.

Actually, there is. It's just to be found in the BRB FAQ that also went up:

Pg. 3
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Nice catch!

I also see in the BRB FAQ that the same Power can't be used more than once unless the power specifically says you can.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:
I also see in the BRB FAQ that the same Power can't be used more than once unless the power specifically says you can.

Yep, no more Meph trying to recast Wings or Sword!

Not meaning to be entirely inflammatory <text redacted; the easiest way to avoid being inflammatory is not to say something --Janthkin>

SonicPara wrote:
My aim is not to break 40K and ruin the experience for anyone, I just think that making codices one-dimensional damages the hobby. How many times can you play the exact same IG, GK, or SW lists until 40K isn't fun anymore?

If you can't see the utility of including a squad or two of Interceptors and/or a Dreadknight with a personal teleporter for their ability to essentially completely redeploy once during the game, then oh well!

I mean sure, the Razorback/Dreadnought spam list will likely prove to me the most common, but that honestly doesn't change the fact that a one time 30" move on units that either are troops (or can be made to be a scoring unit) is a really good ability.



But yes, allowing those units to shunt during a Scout move would literally have made it possible for Daemon players to simply pack up their miniatures and walk away from the table if their Grey Knight opponent had a bunch of Interceptor Squads and won the roll to go first.

That alone is a good enough reason to rule against it.

Q: If a walker is the target of Unyielding Anvil, from
the Grand Strategy special rule, can it claim objectives
even though it is a vehicle? (p22)
A: Yes.

Ugh. Goddamnit GW.

Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat
weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1
for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close
combat weapons)? (p54)
A: No, they just give +1 Attack.

I'm happy about this ruling. This means I get to use all those falchions as Nemesis Force Swords for my old pewter GK rather than using them as the actual upgrade they represent. Thanks for the extra bits GW!

Q: What counts as a plasma weapon for the Ulumeathi
Plasma Syphon? (p62)
A: All Plasma weapons, as well as Eldar missile
launchers firing plasma missiles, burst cannons,
starcannons, all Tau pulse weapons and any weapon
described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special
rules.

While I love the idea of this wargear and I like that they made it useful, I don't know if I'm happen with how far-reaching this impact is. The Xenos player already has that sociopathic sense of "perceived oppression". This will not help things.

Also, they seem to have forgotten the errata that gives us a reason to take the psilencer.

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>

Also, Kronk, is it wrong to want to know someone's opinion <snip>? For the most part, I stayed away from the debates re:Henchmen cause I could see how both sides could be right.

What about humanoids that contain blood plasma?! Is there even a reason to take a non-xenos inquisitor since they can take EVERY good option while the others have a monopoly on the bad options? (Besides the 15pt psycannon)

This is going to make for a very interesting game night at my league this week. I wonder how our grey knight player is gonna take this.

<text redacted; quoted text has been redacted, obviating the need for this response --Janthkin>