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.

Only thing I'm missing to be happy is...

weaken resolve vs. mob rule/rites of battle/stubborn/book of St. Lucius

Interestingly enough, this settles about 5 different major flamewar/rules debates that have happened in YMDC since the IG Codex came out!

Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

Um, if you haven't noticed, for over a decade (since 40k3 came out), GW *has* been making figures cheaper.

We pay fewer points per model than ever before.

You haven't noticed that?

The only thing they missed was what counts as the Hull of the Valkyrie/Vendetta.

That, and a clarification of how the manticore is expected to fire.

Overall, though, it's a great product, and I hope GW sees that players are pleased so they keep it up.

I am disappointing that they missed the whole Hunting Lance / Furious Charge question. RAW is clear, if silly. Considering some of the other stuff they took the time to fix, it'd've been nice for them to make some sense of Mogul Kamir's special ability.

Vale,

JohnS

Because their rulings are arbitrary and use fluff to justify them. Why can't I use FRFSRF with Hotshot Lasguns? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Why don't advisors stack? Because of 'fluff fluff fluff'. Now I even like the fluff reason for Advisors not stacking, but it's still an arbitrary ruling based in no way on the rules - it's a rule change, and not a clarification. FAQ's should not change rules. Errata, sure, but that's for fixing mistakes, not for changing things that you didn't intend. Then again GW has an interesting track record for fixing 'mistakes', like when Oblits became T4(5) as T5 was a 'misprint'.

I find it odd too, as only one change had really been made (that being the change to advisors). They solidified the position most had on the hot shot lasguns (which is unfortunate, since the unit needed it) and rightly knocked down advisors which in my opinion were a bit too good in groups. The arbitrary decision was at least one in the right direction, even if they didn't go against common perception in the case where it was needed. I'm thankful here, at least they didn't pull another lashwhip "clarification".

aka_mythos wrote:I think thats one of the most well composed FAQ's. Could this be the start of their "better FAQ support" they'd spoken about? I hope so.

When was this announcement made? I missed it.

GG

JohnHwangDD wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

Um, if you haven't noticed, for over a decade (since 40k3 came out), GW *has* been making figures cheaper.

We pay fewer points per model than ever before.

You haven't noticed that?

And we are encouraged to play larger games and pay more $ per point than ever!!!! win win imo.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

H.B.M.C. you can´t comment on IG until you finish your promised Codex overview. I´m dying to compare your thoughts on IG with Polonius`

M.

Comparing our viewpoints would be like comparing oranges to apples.

He reviewed the Codex from the perspective of the game - looking at unit combinations, effectiveness, etc. I will be looking at the Codex as a whole - Cover2Cover - and while analysis of units will be part of it, I will look just as closely at the fluff and the colour section as I will the rules themselves.

There's nothing wrong with Polonius' approach - if anything, it's a far more useful review from a player's perspective than anything I would write - but it's just different to mine, enough that comparisons aren't really worth much.

Meh, not bad, too bad on the hotshot lasgun and orders to allies thing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Comparing our viewpoints would be like comparing oranges to apples.

He reviewed the Codex from the perspective of the game - looking at unit combinations, effectiveness, etc. I will be looking at the Codex as a whole - Cover2Cover - and while analysis of units will be part of it, I will look just as closely at the fluff and the colour section as I will the rules themselves.

There's nothing wrong with Polonius' approach - if anything, it's a far more useful review from a player's perspective than anything I would write - but it's just different to mine, enough that comparisons aren't really worth much.

Well, what are you waiting for then?????? Post it!

M.

Fattimus_maximus wrote:Meh, not bad, too bad on the hotshot lasgun and orders to allies thing.

Does the orders to allies thing surprise you though?

Miguelsan wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oddly enough that was a good FAQ and wasn't filled with the usual nonsense GW puts out. Only two things strike me as bad:

H.B.M.C. you can´t comment on IG until you finish your promised Codex overview. I´m dying to compare your thoughts on IG with Polonius`

M.

Yeah, I spent about 10% of my time on the stuff HBMC is going to spend 90% of his review on. In retrospect, what I really wrote was a preliminary unit analysis, not a codex review.

Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

H.B.M.C. wrote:Does the orders to allies thing surprise you though?

Honestly, it surprised me. I'm a bit peeved about 3 other points in this faq as well.
#1 Hot shot lasguns not benefiting from the FRFSRF order = stormtroopers are officially gakked.

#2 Hellstrike missles... Without the template the valkyrie is now absolutely worthless without a weapons upgrade, which I find sad. Since the Valkyrie kit was released I have run my valks with no upgrades 90% of the time as that actually filled a nice space in my army list. Now I have to re write virtually every army list I have saved since this book was released as well as find something to fill tha role left empty by the hellstrikes. Thanks GW.

#3 No orders to allies/friendly models? Isn't that the exact reason that it was worded as it was?

Don't make too big a noise about otherwise they'll next be telling you Straken cannot benefit friendly Grey Knights...

Were you really using the Hellstrike as having a template? Even though it's a set precedent that some weapons without templates have counted as ordnance?

As for the stormtrooper ruling I was hoping for the opposite answer but i'll take it. And the orders to allies was ridiculous so i'm glad they nixed it. Even if they did use "fluff" as the justification.

Yeah, the Hellstrike one doesn't strike me as a problem because they never said 'Blast'.

Ordnance =/= Blast.
Ordnance = Ordnance.

Ironically if they'd kept the name "Hellguns", the question about FRFSRF would probably have never come up. Well that's when happens when Jervis jumps on board and tries to make his writers bring back as many 2nd Ed concepts (but none of the fun) into 40K.

It may be a set percedent in other books, but I had no knowledge of it. The only Army I have run in 40k is IG and there was no precedent in the IG. I ran them like that in the ard' boyz and against many veteran players and nobody ever corrected me. meh. I hate the MRP's and the vendetta can't move quickly and utilize it's firepower so I guess that the airplanes will be vanishing from my army lists from now on. sad times.

Kungfuhustler wrote:I ran them like that in the ard' boyz and against many veteran players and nobody ever corrected me.

I will admit that there are a number of rules that, due to false assumptions, have become de facto rules themselves. I know that ever since 3rd Ed our group (and, as I have since found out, a lot of people here and elsewhere) played Marine Dread CCW's as always having 2D6 armour penetration vs vehicles. We were shocked when we found out that wasn't true.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ironically if they'd kept the name "Hellguns", the question about FRFSRF would probably have never come up. Well that's when happens when Jervis jumps on board and tries to make his writers bring back as many 2nd Ed concepts (but none of the fun) into 40K.

If they kept them named hellguns, I think that many people would try to argue that their IST had AP3. I am in favor of the name change as it averts this potential problem altogether. I think the "hot-shot lasgun != lasgun" problem is pretty obvious to solve, and is now even addressed in the FAQ.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jervis reads dakka...


MAKE YOUR FIGURES CHEAPER!!!

Let's see if that has a similar effect! =P

Um, if you haven't noticed, for over a decade (since 40k3 came out), GW *has* been making figures cheaper.

We pay fewer points per model than ever before.

You haven't noticed that?

Nice shootin Tex!

ph34r wrote:If they kept them named hellguns, I think that many people would try to argue that their IST had AP3.

Any more than Black Templar, Chaos and Inquisitorial players want their Land Raiders to hold more models? Or their Assault Cannons to be better? Or their Storm Shields to have the same rules???

No, leaving them as Hellguns would have avoided the whole issue as then names wouldn't be similar to another item in the same Codex (rather than a different item with the same name in a different Codex - something GW obviously has no problem with).

ph34r wrote:I think the "hot-shot lasgun != lasgun" problem is pretty obvious to solve, and is now even addressed in the FAQ.

I think Hellguns =/= Lasguns would have been easier, given the two works only share 'guns', where as the current form both share 'Lasgun', and therefore that sparks confusion.

Polonius wrote:In retrospect, what I really wrote was a preliminary unit analysis, not a codex review.

Part of me is wondering if I should go back and update the things that have changed. Some units are a lot better than I thought they would be (Vendettas, Armored Sentinels), and others aren't quite as good as I thought (Valks).

I think an update might well be a good idea, now that we've all had some time to chew things over and let things digest.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ph34r wrote:If they kept them named hellguns, I think that many people would try to argue that their IST had AP3.

Any more than Black Templar, Chaos and Inquisitorial players want their Land Raiders to hold more models? Or their Assault Cannons to be better? Or their Storm Shields to have the same rules???

No, leaving them as Hellguns would have avoided the whole issue as then names wouldn't be similar to another item in the same Codex (rather than a different item with the same name in a different Codex - something GW obviously has no problem with).

ph34r wrote:I think the "hot-shot lasgun != lasgun" problem is pretty obvious to solve, and is now even addressed in the FAQ.

I think Hellguns =/= Lasguns would have been easier, given the two works only share 'guns', where as the current form both share 'Lasgun', and therefore that sparks confusion.

They want them to be better, but according to GW they aren't. I'd rather new items with the same name updated old ones myself... BT/Chaos/Inq could have decent land raiders, assault cannons, storm shields, consistent smoke launchers, etc. But... then we would have the problem of inquisitorial storm troopers costing 10 points and having AP3 hellguns, which might actually make them good. So what's it gonna be? I prefer the new(old) name. If people can be not confused by things like Lysander's bolter drill listing the variants and FRFSRF not (can they? Am I assuming too much of 40k players?) then people can not be confused by hot-shot lasguns.

ph34r wrote:But... then we would have the problem of inquisitorial storm troopers costing 10 points and having AP3 hellguns, which might actually make them good.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ph34r wrote:But... then we would have the problem of inquisitorial storm troopers costing 10 points and having AP3 hellguns, which might actually make them good.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Well, to GW it is. Not that 16 pt new storm troopers are good at all, but making a 40% less expensive version minus a few extra rules would be silly.

Making them 16 points in the first place was silly, unless their intention was to keep up the 10+ year tradition of Storm Troopers always sucking ass.