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.

Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!

ZooPants wrote:
Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!

They buffed the shooting before. Nobody took Spiritseers before and I don't see that changing. It isn't much of a buff IMO.

 Mr Morden wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.

I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.

Arguing semantics of calling the overall thing an FAQ vs calling it FAQ and Errata doesn't change the fact that it really would not have made a lot of sense to do point changes within the documents. Someone called the whole thing an FAQ, so what, we know there's errata in there as well, it's easier colloquially to just call it all one thing.

You can feel they should have done points adjustments, but I don't think points adjustments should be done in an errata unless an actual mistake was made when publishing a book. It's not a good precedent and then people have to check to see if their units actually cost what they claim in the book when they're list-building.

If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.

The fact that GW kept waiting for a couple for years each time until actual codexs are updated is one of the reasons the game is in such a state.

"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.

BossJakadakk wrote:
"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.

If there are no other changes, usually not. However, Meltabombs really didn't change from 4th Edition to 5th, and yet Black Templar Assault Marines had their cost for them increase from 5 to 15 keeping it balanced with the other Codex Marines via errata.

So, it does happen, but it is incredibly rare and usually only happens much after the fact when equivalent changes are made, ala the Attacks for the Dreadnoughts.

"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.

Except that it absolutely is - many game systems do it and improve the experience.

We are having rules changes either by FAQ or Errata - points is just something else that can be adjusted. If you can change one you can change the other.

Why is it better to have horribly unbalanced units when they can be adjusted with a simple update - I can see how, unless you are a person that enjoys playing with broken units it can be anything other than a benefit? And I am someone who prefers everything in hard copy - but a digital update that improves the game is not something to be disdained.

The alternative is wait years on end?

Youre preaching to the choir, however. Its their decision, so instead of complaining on here, complain to GW.

 Mr Morden wrote:

"Wrong" as in "printed incorrectly" or "wrong" as in "unbalanced?" Because the former, yeah, and they have, apparently. The second? Sorry, but no. 40k is not currently a living ruleset, and I'll grant you that's one of the reasons it's in the state it is, but that doesn't mean without a doubt that picking a couple units and significantly changing their points cost in an errata is the right thing to do.

Except that it absolutely is - many game systems do it and improve the experience.

We are having rules changes either by FAQ or Errata - points is just something else that can be adjusted. If you can change one you can change the other.

Why is it better to have horribly unbalanced units when they can be adjusted with a simple update - I can see how, unless you are a person that enjoys playing with broken units it can be anything other than a benefit? And I am someone who prefers everything in hard copy - but a digital update that improves the game is not something to be disdained.

The alternative is wait years on end?

Not something that should be disdained, no. However, people make lists using the actual books. If you alter points costs through errata, not everyone is going to get the memo. So they can put things like extra attacks and increased WS/BS or flickerjump being once per turn in an errata, but it's 100% understandable for them to not increase WK points by 100 in an errata considering the situation of rolling up to a game and finding out "Oh hey btw there's new FAQ/errata so some things work differently" compared to "Oh hey btw there's new FAQ/errata so you have to make changes to your list." One is a much more negative experience than the other. A more gradual change is still better for now until they completely overhaul how they do things. It may be the time (overdue even), but it's not the place.

And if point changes are rare, but still keeping with the idea of putting the same unit/item on the same base for multiple codices (like the melta bombs example), there's not a SM WK, there's not an Ork WK. It's not the same model in more than one codex listed at different points costs.

ZooPants wrote:
Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!

Nah some of those facts are misleading.

Iyanden does allow to take 5x spiritseers as a single HQ choice, but only works when building CAD.

Spiritseers allow rerolls of 1 for wraith units when attacking enemy units at 12" of the Spiritseer, the 18" full reroll (not twin-link) only work for a specific formation with a single Spiritseer.

 Mr Morden wrote:
If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.

This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that GW chooses not to do this. Many of us have been sending messages, emails, letters and making phone calls to GW.

But that is only a couple hundred people. So far, GW thinks they can ignore us, and largely, they can. If they lose a couple of hundred customers, no big loss. They still have thousands of others.

This will only change when a truly large number of people complain (not on Dakka, but directly to GW.)

Have you sent your letters yet?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.

This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that GW chooses not to do this. Many of us have been sending messages, emails, letters and making phone calls to GW.

But that is only a couple hundred people. So far, GW thinks they can ignore us, and largely, they can. If they lose a couple of hundred customers, no big loss. They still have thousands of others.

This will only change when a truly large number of people complain (not on Dakka, but directly to GW.)

Have you sent your letters yet?

Surprisingly I have. I would also like to state their current direction is moving closer to being a "living" update kind of thing. They should be adjusting points SM have things that cost too little and a few that cost too much for instance. I honestly think when 8th comes out they need to base upgrade costs on how effective they are in a given unit. Things like that.

The issue with adjusting points cost is that GW already has adjusted them. they do with every codex release. They decide how much THEY think something should cost, then put it into print. Why would they adjust the points again when the points costs are where they want them to be?
The only times I have every seen points changes in a FAQ/Errata is when A) a misprint occurred with in different language books or B) Because they want all the Marines to have similar units.

FAQs are to clear up ambiguous rules. Erratas are meant to add/change a rule to make it clear or prevent shenanigans. They're pretty much the same and NEITHER of them are meant to change points costs.
Over-efficient units have always been a thing in 40K. Even if you change a few units, others will still be OP. In fact, changing the cost of unit A in codex 1 might create an OP issue with unit B in codex 2.

--

The other issue with "living" points adjustments is that GW is terrible at it. If they routinely stir the pot with point changes, there's no guarantee that at any point in time they will actually get them right. They would also need to provide a clear and unambiguous data feed for the current values, and we all would need to agree to download the latest updates and use them. Not much problem for regular players, but possibly intimidating for new ones.

Now if GW had some really good software that would simulate games and evaluate units, they might be able to offer definitive and fair point values, and these would not need to be updated. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The other issue with "living" points adjustments is that GW is terrible at it. If they routinely stir the pot with point changes, there's no guarantee that at any point in time they will actually get them right. They would also need to provide a clear and unambiguous data feed for the current values, and we all would need to agree to download the latest updates and use them. Not much problem for regular players, but possibly intimidating for new ones.

Now if GW had some really good software that would simulate games and evaluate units, they might be able to offer definitive and fair point values, and these would not need to be updated. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I agree with this and would like to add that a "living' rule set would probably be a mess if GW tried it. It's already hard enough to keep up with all the new formations and layers of special rules. Imagine how convoluted the game would be if points costs changed every month or so.

--

To be fair, it's a select few mistakes GW made that really make everything break down. Yes, CSM and BA need a lot of help, but if scatterbikes and WK weren't a thing, they would only be a 5 ft hole, not a 1000 ft hole.

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, it's a select few mistakes GW made that really make everything break down. Yes, CSM and BA need a lot of help, but if scatterbikes and WK weren't a thing, they would only be a 5 ft hole, not a 1000 ft hole.

I agree with the sentiment, but the analogy is a bit exaggerated.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, it's a select few mistakes GW made that really make everything break down. Yes, CSM and BA need a lot of help, but if scatterbikes and WK weren't a thing, they would only be a 5 ft hole, not a 1000 ft hole.

I agree with the sentiment, but the analogy is a bit exaggerated.

It's almost impossible for the low tier lists to get anything done vs scatbikes/WK.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.

This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that GW chooses not to do this. Many of us have been sending messages, emails, letters and making phone calls to GW.

But that is only a couple hundred people. So far, GW thinks they can ignore us, and largely, they can. If they lose a couple of hundred customers, no big loss. They still have thousands of others.

This will only change when a truly large number of people complain (not on Dakka, but directly to GW.)

Have you sent your letters yet?

yes previosuly written to GW in general and White dwarf team

I noticed it looks like an official stance has been taken on the old issue of more than one psycher in a unit. A single unit(squad/brood/collection of independant) multiple psycher models count as a the same unit for casting of powers. Minor, but is going to have ripple effects.

barnowl wrote:
I noticed it looks like an official stance has been taken on the old issue of more than one psycher in a unit. A single unit(squad/brood/collection of independant) multiple psycher models count as a the same unit for casting of powers. Minor, but is going to have ripple effects.

As much of a mess as the psyker rules are, I always imagined this particular bit to be intentional - in previous editions you would run multiple psykers with the same power in a deathstar to ensure the important ones (Fortune, etc.) was cast even if the first failed or denied. Even then, in my opinion it should have been the same target unit cannot be targeted twice by the same blessing.

ZooPants wrote:
Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!

Not really. The problem with Iyanden is that it was written for the 6th edition codex and much of it has been superceded by the current codex. The only thing in it that will be of obvious benefit is making Wraithguard troops, but then you can quickly end up with a supper elite army that relies entirely on very short range shooting. Sure, you can bring a squad of 5 Spiritseers but why would you? The Spiritmark ability is largely useless now because rather than nominate a single unit for Wraith constructs to re-roll 1's against the Spiritseer now gives a 12" radius bubble where any Wraiths in range can re-roll 1's, a significantly better ability and is stock special rule in the codex. The 18" range, re-roll all failed To Hit rolls is the bonus in the Wraith Host formation so can't be used with the Iyanden supplement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quanar wrote:

barnowl wrote:
I noticed it looks like an official stance has been taken on the old issue of more than one psycher in a unit. A single unit(squad/brood/collection of independant) multiple psycher models count as a the same unit for casting of powers. Minor, but is going to have ripple effects.

As much of a mess as the psyker rules are, I always imagined this particular bit to be intentional - in previous editions you would run multiple psykers with the same power in a deathstar to ensure the important ones (Fortune, etc.) was cast even if the first failed or denied. Even then, in my opinion it should have been the same target unit cannot be targeted twice by the same blessing.

Now it's both, as the same Blessing or Malediction can't stack on a unit.

I played against Grey Knights today and it did come up where I denied Sanctuary on my opponents Palladin/Grand Master/Drago squad and he couldn't re-cast it thanks to the new FAQ. Though it certainly helped I wouldn't have called it game changing.

 Imateria wrote:

ZooPants wrote:
Sooo Eldar got a huge buff being able to use Iyanden supplement... Someone was telling me that you can bring a spirtseer and have up to 5 and only take one HQ slot. Also the spirtseer has the ability for anyone within 18" they get to reroll failed to hit rolls. Soooo essential if spaced properly eldar just became twinlinked!

Not really. The problem with Iyanden is that it was written for the 6th edition codex and much of it has been superceded by the current codex. The only thing in it that will be of obvious benefit is making Wraithguard troops, but then you can quickly end up with a supper elite army that relies entirely on very short range shooting.....

It is not possible anymore to make Wraithguard or -blades Troops. The 6th Ed Eldar Codex Entry for the Spiritseer HQ shifted the Wraithguard and Wraithblades to Troops. That book is replaced by the Craftworld Codex, which does not offer this rule.
The Iyanden Supplement was written with the battlefield role shift in mind, but has to do without it today.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

This week, Tau!

I see they contradicted themselves again with Tank Shock. Earlier ruling was that Tank Shock cannot remove units, yet with Tau they just ruled that Tank Shock eliminates anchored Stormsurges.

With their writers would get on the same page.

SJ

Interesting.

Draft Errata resolves the Pulse Bomb issue and rewrites Coordinated Firepower so that are not firing as one unit any more. Coordinated Firepower just resolves all the shooting at the same time and propagates the Markerlight bonuses to all coordinated units, along with the BS bonus.

Tidewall cannot move if any enemy units are on it, the units on are in Combat, or not all of the unit is on it.

Tidewall is anchored if a Stormsurge on it is.

Firestorm Wing Piranhas can be all but wiped out and return at full starting model strength.

A lot more of course.

Can't seem to bring the rest of the pictures past FAQ Page 3 up as they are taking forever loading.

Interesting that they started with Erratas first this go around.

 Charistoph wrote:
Can't seem to bring the rest of the pictures past FAQ Page 3 up as they are taking forever loading.

That's Facebook's doings if you're not logged in Reds8n posted them HERE in the News & Rumours thread for the work blocked.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see they contradicted themselves again with Tank Shock. Earlier ruling was that Tank Shock cannot remove units, yet with Tau they just ruled that Tank Shock eliminates anchored Stormsurges.

With their writers would get on the same page.

SJ

It's not a contradiction because he storm surge CANT move where the other rulings was because they can move just not in a straight line or within coherency.If a unit can't move away from a tank shock it is still destroyed.
If I tank shock your units in a corner near a building and zone edge with my battlewagon you are still destroyed.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Can't seem to bring the rest of the pictures past FAQ Page 3 up as they are taking forever loading.

That's Facebook's doings if you're not logged in Reds8n posted them HERE in the News & Rumours thread for the work blocked.

Oh, yeah, I know. Priority goes to members who log in, and I'm not logged in on this browser, and I don't feel like pulling it up on my phone. I was merely pointing out why I didn't go further through it.

Glad that Coordinated Fire was errata'd. No more firing as a single unit! Clears it up that Uber-Buffmander was NOT an intended consequence! However, the returning full-strength Piranha's gig sure was everything that was feared. All return, even if one was immobilized, and they can come on and leave during the same turn.

I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?

Oh, and being able to run over those Stormsurges with a Chimera or a Rhino is going to be H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S.

 Yarium wrote:
I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?

I can't explain about Scoring, since that honestly doesn't make any sense.

However, Split Fire operates like Stubborn, even having one of the same qualifiers. However, if Split Fire comes from the Detachment, then it shouldn't work any more than any other unit-affecting detachment rules, since the IC doesn't count as part of the unit for them.

 Yarium wrote:
I'm confused as to the answer regarding a Commander with Drones. Used to be fine, because we all thought that special rules transfer over, but then the main FAQ dropped and they said they don't for Independent Characters and the units they join. This FAQ states that if a Commander joined a Drone-Net, he'd also benefit from Split Fire. Can anyone explain this to me, or am I also very confused?

The confusion was over things like formation or detachment rules.

Split Fire has the wording "if a unit contains one or more models with this rule", and the IC rules single out Stubborn (a rule with the same type of wording) as working with IC's that have joined to the unit.
Then there are rules like Deep Strike, which required every model in the unit to have the rule for anyone to benefit.

Formations and Detachments didn't use either of these two wordings, so we weren't sure which side of the line they came down on (apparently, somewhere in the middle, where the unit still gets most of the benefits).