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.

Compel wrote:

Therion wrote:
Hydras didn't gain anything, and neither did the Hydra Autocannon. The gun already had skyfire in the rulebook, so this FAQ just makes the codex consistent with the new rules.

It also confirms Hydra Autocannons hit ground targets with 6's.

Well *excuse* me for not getting my Rulebook yet cause of Royal Mail being lazy.

Also I find no explicit references to "Hydra Autocannons hit ground targets with 6's."

Page 51 - Hydra Flak Tank, Hyda Autocannon.
Add the Skyfire special rule to the Hydra Autocannon's type.

Page 51 - Hydra Flak Tank, Auto-Targeting System.
Replace this entry with "Target units cannot claim a Jink save against shots fired by the Hydra."

If you have Skyfire and don't have Interceptor, you can only Snap Fire at targets other than Flyers, Flying MCs, and Skimmers.

Man, Incubi took a massive hit to the balls, not being able to hurt Terminators in close combat unless you buy squad leader with a demiklaive, which GW handily makes no figure for.

Not even the Decapitator has AP2 in close combat, so it looks like our best bet is to run and hide whenever Tinmen appear.

Drunkspleen wrote:I can't help but notice In an Edition where they are moving away from lots of high AP melee weapons, Necrons (who were already doing decent from the changeover) got an AP1 weapon, an AP1 weapon that also rolls 2d6 to penetrate vehicles and is +2 to strength.

I can see what you're saying but let's keep in mind there's normally zero to two of those in a Necron army and they're wielded by guys with WS4 and 3 attacks.

The Tyranid Faq didn't fix anything for us, but also leaves a few questions unanswered. Like, what AP are boneswords? They "ignore armor saves" in the old book, but that's it.

Therion wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:I can't help but notice In an Edition where they are moving away from lots of high AP melee weapons, Necrons (who were already doing decent from the changeover) got an AP1 weapon, an AP1 weapon that also rolls 2d6 to penetrate vehicles and is +2 to strength.

I can see what you're saying but let's keep in mind there's normally zero to two of those in a Necron army and they're wielded by guys with WS4 and 3 attacks.

...riding chariots with quantum shields. They are solitary models, but very mobile. I played a 1k doubles game this week that was brutal and hilarious. Two Overlords scooting from corner to corner, dropping models (including a Razorwing) like a baseball bat drive-by.

Nalathani wrote:The Tyranid Faq didn't fix anything for us, but also leaves a few questions unanswered. Like, what AP are boneswords? They "ignore armor saves" in the old book, but that's it.

Then you have your answer. They ignore armour saves, it's not exactly ambiguous.

Hey they finally fixed Ork Tankbustas. If a vehicle isn't within range or LOS now you get to choose your target normally (about time).

Also Flashgitz got 'ignore cover' added to their shots since 'Gitfinda' is now a pointless piece of gear.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Man, Incubi took a massive hit to the balls, not being able to hurt Terminators in close combat unless you buy squad leader with a demiklaive, which GW handily makes no figure for.

Not even the Decapitator has AP2 in close combat, so it looks like our best bet is to run and hide whenever Tinmen appear.

The whole FAQ is just awful, some examples:

They clarify Tormentor Grenade Launchers to be a leadership test in the errata, then proceed to change wordings in the amendments and refer to it once again as a morale check

They failed to address the Shadowseer's Veil of Tears ability, even though they did so in the Eldar FAQ and only had to copy and paste the answer across

They failed to address flickerfields, which as a 5+ Invulnerable save are largely useless with all moving Skimmers getting a 5+ save from their Jink

They said to Ignore the entry for a Voidraven's unit type, now the Voidraven technically has no unit type (not even Vehicle)

just lazy, how could this be what they put out at a make or break time like the new edition?

why did they change the ork waaaagh, in the fact that now just about only half benefit from it D:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Two Overlords scooting from corner to corner, dropping models (including a Razorwing) like a baseball bat drive-by.

They can't really do that the same way anymore since they move only 12" in the movement phase now instead of 24" like in the 5th. Sweeping attacks are done against a unit you moved over in the movement phase.

Drunkspleen wrote:
They said to Ignore the entry for a Voidraven's unit type, now the Voidraven technically has no unit type (not even Vehicle)

just lazy, how could this be what they put out at a make or break time like the new edition?

That is very clearly covered in the rulebook.

And on top of that they're much, much better about putting out FAQ revisions, so I'm sure we'll see some updates rolling out soonish.

Here's what's confusing me. New wording:



Old wording:

Combat Squads

Units with this special rule that include ten squad members have the option of breaking down into two five-man units, called combat squads. For example, a ten-man Sternguard Veterans squad can fight as a ten-man unit or break down into two five-man combat squads.

The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed. Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations. The one exception to this is a unit that arrives by Drop Pod - the player can choose to split such a unit into combat squads when it disembarks.

If you decide to split a unit into combat squads, then each combat squad is treated as a separate unit for all game purposes from that point.

I think this is a change. It specifically takes away the drop pod exemption, and says it must be "immediately before deployment" and it effects "calculating the total number of units in the army, and the number of units you can place in reserve".

So if I combat squad a unit in drop pod, I could choose to put both in the drop pod (neither counting towards the number of units in the army), or deploy either 1 or both and have the drop pod come down empty. Allowing me to count 0-2 units towards the number in my army?

I think I'm reading that right?

Also think not directing missile launcher entries to the main rulebook was just an oversight, true of other things like chainfists too, I think.

Joey wrote:

Nalathani wrote:The Tyranid Faq didn't fix anything for us, but also leaves a few questions unanswered. Like, what AP are boneswords? They "ignore armor saves" in the old book, but that's it.

Then you have your answer. They ignore armour saves, it's not exactly ambiguous.

Not ambiguos, but certainly silly. A peice of bone can cut through Terminator armor when a monomolecular weapon that creates a distortion field around it can't.

MoD_Legion wrote:

Snufflesms wrote:TAU Battlesuits can no longer take Target Locks, which means they cannot split fire between the suits. This is a massive hit to Broadsides.

I noticed this as well, unless there is a rule change somewhere that allows you to split fire. If not, its pretty fethed up :(.

Can someone confirm if you are now allowed to split fire by default in 6th edition? Because if this isn't the case, I can't see why GW would remove target locks.

Personally they were required for broadsides (and piranhas when I used them).

yakface wrote:That is very clearly covered in the rulebook.

And on top of that they're much, much better about putting out FAQ revisions, so I'm sure we'll see some updates rolling out soonish.

It is, but also, it's evidence of how poorly they wrote this document, all they had to do was copy paste the answer from the Razorwing (which even it was pretty lazy) which said

"Ignore this entry - Refer to the Profiles section in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook"

instead, we just got

"Ignore this entry"

It's a symptom of the broader problem, even if the solution to this immediate issue is obvious.

Daston wrote:Some Ork units have lost the Waaagh! and Mob Special Rule :(

Other than that dosnt seem too bad, like how you only use the toughness figure in brackets now.

In the Codex I have, those units didn't already have the rule.

I think it's because there are two versions of the codex, one has included some corrections from the 5th edition FAQ.

I don't see any clarity on allies... I was hoping to have confirmation that if one wants Tau allies, you must take a commander (not an ethereal) and a unit of fire warriors, rather than any troop unit (i.e. kroot). Those are their normal restrictions, so I'm guessing they still apply as allies.

Same with black templars and an emperor's champion- I'm assuming that must be the HQ selected for them as an ally?

Stupid royal mail, I want my rule book.

I am curious / a bit disappointed about this lack of Flakk Missiles thing.

I was actually hoping that most squads with missile launchers could pay the same points as a lascannon (equivalent) upgrade to get the flakk missiles.

Maybe they will, in a later FAQ revision after everyone goes out to buy shiny new flyers?

The iconic Tau ability of being able to use a Target Lock to split the fire of their battlesuits has been amended to be a superfluous piece of wargear that does nothing.

Meanwhile in Longfangs land...

Heck there's even a new USR in the rulebook for splitting fire of one model away from the rest of his unit, they couldn't just make the Target Lock grant that?

Compel wrote:
Maybe they will, in a later FAQ revision after everyone goes out to buy shiny new flyers?

Sounds like a brilliant GW sales strategy. They essentially do this with every new edition already, so I wouldn't be surprised at all. Let's end the edition of Razorbacks and start the edition of flyers. Give it a year and everyone has bought all the flyers they'll ever need and then they can be nerfed to oblivion by some new army book with tons of anti-flyer special rules (Tau? Eldar?) or just a new version of the core rules.

Looking at the Deamons and CSM faqs...Aaaaaaannnd GW screwed us again!...

Seriously making Gorechild count as a Power Axe?!..., the most Fearsome and dangerouse fighter of all times strike at Init 1?...

Screw you GW, screw you

MoD_Legion wrote:

Snufflesms wrote:TAU Battlesuits can no longer take Target Locks, which means they cannot split fire between the suits. This is a massive hit to Broadsides.

I noticed this as well, unless there is a rule change somewhere that allows you to split fire. If not, its pretty fethed up :(.

Yes, This is messed up. There is a new USR called split-fire and it could have just as easily been FAQ'ed that Target Locks gave that Special rule. This Hurts the Tau across the board and boosting Stealthsuits and Fire Warriors abilities just doesn't compensate. Yeah GW, Two light units with S5 weapons does not equal Crisis, Broadside and Hammerhead Target Lock nerf.

lord_blackfang wrote:Is it just me or did nothing gain the Skyfire rule?

Yeah, I noticed this. Seems like the Sky Ray was supposed to be upgradable to an AA platform. Oh well, I have 2+ cover Stealthsuits now. I don't want to even get started on how the new rapid fire/relentless combo with the 2d6 assault move has made the crisis suits weaker due to S 7 plasma rifles able to move up 6" and still fire full range. Jet-packs should have been 3" or 6" + d6" assault.

At least my Blacksun Filters help the whole squad now and completely negate night fight. (Gotta Look at the positives and believe that the Tau aren't getting boned for another edition)

Chaplains have AP4 power mauls wtf!

What is left that is commonly available that can strike at initiative and be AP2? I thought for sure they'd be one of them. Most AP2 things seem to be striking at I1 now.

Anyone else notice that Tau can no longer split fire? Target locks now "have no effect"

EDIT: You have, I rage posted!

Drunkspleen wrote:
It is, but also, it's evidence of how poorly they wrote this document, all they had to do was copy paste the answer from the Razorwing (which even it was pretty lazy) which said

"Ignore this entry - Refer to the Profiles section in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook"

instead, we just got

"Ignore this entry"

It's a symptom of the broader problem, even if the solution to this immediate issue is obvious.

Well as someone who has actually attempted to FAQ the entire game system, it is a pretty herculean effort and there is lots and lots of room to screw up.

Still, this initial FAQ offering is WORLD's better than the 4th to 5th transition, and GW is also much better about putting out timely updates, so I feel much, much better about this first round of FAQs than previous edition changes.

Awesome, not only are tyranids the only army that can't have allies, we're the only army that can't use the emplaced weapons on a bastion. what the crap GW? What the crap?

RiTides wrote:Chaplains have AP4 power mauls wtf!

What is left that is commonly available that can strike at initiative and be AP2? I thought for sure they'd be one of them. Most AP2 things seem to be striking at I1 now.

The demiklaive is the only one I've explicitly found written down in the documents so far. Well, whoop-de-doo.

dude this f'in rocks, my Ravenwing bikes are T5 proper now, not t4(5) wooooooooooooooooooot, that means it take str10 to pop my characters

DW are now obscenely good now, ap2 everywhere cyclone launchers that are now treated as heavy 2 missile launchers (so can buy skyfire) 3++ stormshields can be spammed too (but thats boring), DW just became a mid to top tier army in one fell swoop

Charax wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:I'll go you one better. A winged DP from Codex: CSM is Jumping, but a winged DP from Codex: Daemons is Flying.

...What?

Oh that's just not cool.

Seeing as one is far more expensive than the other, one had to be thrown the bone.

yakface wrote:
Still, this initial FAQ offering is WORLD's better than the 4th to 5th transition, and GW is also much better about putting out timely updates, so I feel much, much better about this first round of FAQs than previous edition changes.

I think the only real oversight is the exclusion of the Flakk Missile. If it's a new weapon option in the rulebook, why does absolutely nobody have access to it? Surely there's no chance it would be a weapon only for the upcoming Chaos Space Marines or Dark Angels later this year?