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.

number6 wrote:It's just so patently obvious that nobody at GW even plays this army, and hasn't for years. They really need to playtest stuff outside of HQ. It's patently ridiculous -- and embarrasingly pathetic -- that they miss such obvious loopholes and problems.

If you ask me, each designer should be designated with specific armies for which they are to serve as the house "expert." Just divide all the armies up among all the designers, senior and junior. They wouldn't be responsible for writing those codices, mind you. They'd just be expected to familiarize themselves with and play those armies. They'd be the internal resource who can add the insight that only those that regularly play an army have.

Maybe they do this now, but I agree with you that it looks pretty unlikely. You'd think they'd have a more structured way of supporting their product lines, wouldn't you?

One other thing that just occurred to me: the Machine Spirit FAQ'd rule, as written, only applies to Grey Knight Land Raiders and LR Crusaders. Too bad for you Inquisitors -- especially you Radicals without any other options -- who want to buy a dedicated Raider transport for your own!

Bother.

WH FAQ wrote:Q. Can you clarify how the mancatcher works and who it can effect?

A. The mancatcher functions as described in the Codex for all models engaged in combat, as outlined in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

Is it too rules-lawyery to argue that the mancatcher now effects all enemy models engaged in combat, instead of the one it's B2B combat with? Could argue that it changed the one model rule to all models engaged in combat.

Although it probably means it works against one when the unit is in a fight. With that question and that answer, it's a little ambiguous.

Another interesting catch from the Space Wolves FAQ:

"Space Wolves vehicles: Use the point costs and
rules from Codex: Space Marines for
Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, Attack Bikes,
Whirlwinds, Predators, Land Raiders and
Vindicators. All of the different variants and
options available to these units in a Space Marine
army are also available to the Space Wolves. The
exception to this is the Venerable Dreadnoughts,
which must be chosen from the Space Wolves
army list (as detailed on page 7), and not the
Space Marines army list"

So if this faq doesn't change, then Wolves get to access Iron-Clad dreadnoughts, Land Raider Redeemers, etc. when the new Marine codex is out.

The Wolves will also be affected by any point changes to vehicles in the new codex.

Stinks that we lose Against the Odds though... I was hoping it would read that Space Wolves gain the Stubborn USR. Hopefully in the new Codex...

AgeOfEgos wrote:

AlexCage wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you could only assault out of a Crusader?

Well, it's specific that ANY access point can be used. Before, only the Assault Ramps (Of both Land Raider variants) would be used.

The Assault Ramp rule was never specific to the actual ramp.


Meanwhile, I should have known better than to assume that GW might actually be on the ball with this one... They updated the GK Land Raider, but missed the DH and WH Inquisitor's transport raider, and the Black Templars Land Raiders.



Not a fan of the 'imagine a 25mm base around them' bit for the Guard heavies. Just complicates something that works perfectly well already for no good reason, like their changes to vehicle LOS and range in the recent 4th ed rulebook FAQ.

Q: Does a model with a powerfist/claw that attacks a Monolith get to double its Strength for armour penetration rolls?
A: Yes, powerfists/claws, thunder hammers, and so on still double their user's Strength when attacking a Monolith.

At least no one will try to make that stupid argument anymore.

Q: Can I field the Emperor's Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
A: Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement.

That's actually rather nice of them. There's still the whole has-to-start-the-game-alone-hidden-in-the-woods-while-everyone-else-drop-pods thing, but if I've understood the rumours right, 5th edition will let you attach ICs before the game, so he can come in with one of your other units, yeah?

Moz wrote:Hehe, cityfight faq says locked/engaged in combat happens within 6" of the enemy. Whoops!

Which is how it worked for Cityfight. That's the 4th ed update FAQ for Cityfight, not the 5th ed update for Cities of Death...

Eh, I'm rather disappointed. I don't think they really thought about what issues will crop up (although this is not exactly surprising).

Harlequins with a Shadowseer may be ignored for target priority. What does that mean now? Can I sit my harlies in front of my dark reapers to give the reapers a 4+ cover save, while simultaneously using the veil of tears to prevent my opponent from shooting at the harlies?

The previous Witch Hunter's FAQ specified that celestians' holy hatred was the same as the preferred enemy USR. Now that preferred enemy has changed to be a reroll instead of an automatic 3+, which rule do celestians use? I suppose they'll still use the auto 3+, but it would have been nice had this issue been addressed (not that either result would make celestians good in close combat).

Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man
squad and then put a Combat squad in it,
deploying the other Combat squad on the table
or leave it in reserve, but not in the Drop Pod (so
they’ll have to walk onto the table)? Can you just
use the Drop Pod on its own, with no squad
inside it, and simply use it as a deep-striking
gun platform?
A. Once again, yes to all questions (but it does
sound like a really bizarre tactic…).


So you can split DA units into combat squads while holding them in reserve now?

While its a good thing to see FAQ's out quickly, the FAQ's themselves are *total* crap.

Half the issues they address didn't need to be addressed, a huge number simply don't cover enough (like the IG HW teams on large bases), some are answers to questions nobody had ever asked, and some just granti new abilities to units in contradiction to the actual rules (Warp Spider assault phase movement in both assault phases and after Deep Striking as an example)

Also, there's a lot about Victory Points in a couple of the FAQ's (used only in Ties), but there isn't a *single* mention of Kill Points in *any* FAQ.

While there were a couple of good catches, the vast majority of these documents look like they were written up by the non-gamer office intern in a couple hours for the whole lot.

"F+" for speed I guess.

edit: been corrected

revnow wrote:When you take a Landraider as a dedicated transport you use the stats of the Landraider from the Grey Knight Landraider entry in Heavy Support.

No you don't. You use the Landraider entry in the Transports section on page 30.

Lordhat wrote:Q. Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man
squad and then put a Combat squad in it,
deploying the other Combat squad on the table
or leave it in reserve, but not in the Drop Pod (so
they’ll have to walk onto the table)? Can you just
use the Drop Pod on its own, with no squad
inside it, and simply use it as a deep-striking
gun platform?
A. Once again, yes to all questions (but it does
sound like a really bizarre tactic…).


So you can split DA units into combat squads while holding them in reserve now?

wow, this completely contradicts the blood angel FAQ. from the FAQ..."Units held in Reserve cannot be split into Combat Squads."

usernamesareannoying wrote:wow, this completely contradicts the blood angel FAQ. from the FAQ..."Units held in Reserve cannot be split into Combat Squads."

It also completely contradicts the Dark Angels Codex...

AlexCage wrote:Did I miss something? I've been playing it like that since the very begining

Then you haven't been playing by the rules. The concept and loaders and gunnerd died after 2nd Ed. This FAQ answer actually makes it a rule.

BYE

not meaning to sound like a smart ass HMBC, but ho can it have "died" after 2nd edition, and yet it only now becomes a rule here in 5th?

I thought we all *wanted* GW to quickly release FAQs for all armies for each new edition.

What's that?

"GOOD" FAQs?

Oh, never mind. I don't think GW could have disappointed me more. :(

____

Oh, yeah, it slays me that they're pointing fingers at the Adepticon team. So now we get to blame Yak & co for things that were totally out of their control.

"All Tyranids are Infantry, unless otherwise stated"


soo my FA/biovore spore mines give up kill points now? and are able to control objectives?

Onnotangu wrote:"All Tyranids are Infantry, unless otherwise stated"


soo my FA/biovore spore mines give up kill points now? and are able to control objectives?

They can run too!

JohnHwangDD wrote:So now we get to blame Yak & co for things that were totally out of their control.

Hmm... I didn't think of that. Excuse me a second.



*deep breath*



Hey Yak! You suck! And your FAQ's are rubbish!


I feel better now.



BYE

Given that YakFAQ were written when 4th was in force, I think it's a slap in the face that GW did not even try to update them for 5th. Seems like an easy way out for whatever tool was just cutting and pasting to get something out there before the launch. Shame on them.

Onnotangu wrote:"All Tyranids are Infantry, unless otherwise stated"


soo my FA/biovore spore mines give up kill points now? and are able to control objectives?

Troops control objectives not Infantry.

The YakFAQ was actually really good. To simply drag huge chunks of it into 5th is pure laziness from GW. There’s no reason why they couldn’t write their own FAQs. That being said, there are some useful tid-bits in those FAQs – so I guess they’re not a complete waste of time & bandwidth.

Looks like Yak is going to have to do GWs job for them AGAIN.

I believe Yak said he had no problem writing the FAQs himself. The problem here is that GW decided to take FAQs obviously written for the fething 4th edition and shove it into 5th.