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.

i understand the problem:
different designers make different codexes/rules and nobody in between has the supervision, id even say, a concept to begin with.
older books are being neglected on top of that and suddenly you have 30 different ways to equip units.
and if we had a guideline, it could really help, or just make up some errata for it.

FreshMeat wrote:
i understand the problem:
different designers make different codexes/rules and nobody in between has the supervision, id even say, a concept to begin with.
older books are being neglected on top of that and suddenly you have 30 different ways to equip units.
and if we had a guideline, it could really help, or just make up some errata for it.

It appears like the faq team doesn't talk to anyone either, or have any oversight. They are all over the place, and some of their rulings literally make certain units/rules completely useless or unusable because it conflicts with their rulings. The lack of consistency is also quite jarring.

I understand that the FAQ isn't meant to fix anything, just clarify.

A lot of Ork players are aggrieved though because GW pretty much confirmed that, yes, the Codex was written to be bad.

I'd have thought if they hadn't returned to the crappy Armoury system there'd be less chance of this happening if "champion" upgrades were listed in the unit entry for each unit as they had been.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I understand that the FAQ isn't meant to fix anything, just clarify.

A lot of Ork players are aggrieved though because GW pretty much confirmed that, yes, the Codex was written to be bad.

yes, they are asking the community what to do. imagine a police officer asking you how to do their job.
the game wasnt designed to be competitively played to begin with, and then there came the new gamebreaker-dexes;
this design change and its(again) poor, seemingly CLUELESS execution might one day destroy the game entirely.
they effectively frikkin ENHANCED the already good books, and nerfed all the others, because no access to similar abilities.
orks were not written to be bad, they had the bad luck to be written before gw changed their concept(in the middle of a new edition.)

Its not the orks or dark eldar being entirely rubbish, its the lack of up-to-date-rules for them that is the main issue(the orkurion is nowhere near what the others have).
and sisters and chaos(the godsdamned bad guys!!) and nids? they might do well too, but again: outdated by supershooty bs5 armys that ignore cover or get free transports or have just the cheapest/best units(thats tau, sm and eldar, respectively). and necrons too oc. and what comes next? autowin on a 4+? two consecutive turns of shooting in one? there is not very much space in that direction.
had the fates wanted it we might now complain that orks are totally op, and why did they not update spacewolves for 2 editions??

golden rule my ass.

People bitch and moan when GW does not offer FAQs and bitch and moan when they do. As a BA player it never occurred to me to expect GW to make changes to my Codex with these clarifications.

Yes, we orks, BA, tyranids and CSM are not going to see change for the better until a new codex comes out and even then I suspect we get the short stick.

I'm glad GW is clarifying things. They have inconsistencies but then again they have a gazillion special rules and the intent of those rules is what matters to me here.

People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.

(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)

Prepare for the coming doom.

Alcibiades wrote:
People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.

(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)

Prepare for the coming doom.

215 for 6 S6 shots in the air doesn't seem worth it now...

If the Wings do take up one pair of Talons, I could certainly see Tyranids taking the crown from CSM for 'Worst Codex'.

Alcibiades wrote:
People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.

(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)

Prepare for the coming doom.

I don't see why the Wings Biomorph would replace a set of Scything Talons. The default kit allows you to build with Wings and 2 sets of Scything Talons. One set is on the second pair of arms. The other set is on the feet. Also, Games Workshop (via Forgeworld) sells a set of Twin-Linked Devourer arms. Just because the weapon configuration isn't in the plastic box doesn't mean it isn't available. It just costs a little more.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-DE/Tyranid-Twin-linked-Devourers

 Kriswall wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.

(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)

Prepare for the coming doom.

I don't see why the Wings Biomorph would replace a set of Scything Talons. The default kit allows you to build with Wings and 2 sets of Scything Talons. One set is on the second pair of arms. The other set is on the feet. Also, Games Workshop (via Forgeworld) sells a set of Twin-Linked Devourer arms. Just because the weapon configuration isn't in the plastic box doesn't mean it isn't available. It just costs a little more.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-DE/Tyranid-Twin-linked-Devourers

That's probably the only thing that will save them. We all know how GW has a penchant for discontinuing things without models.

Naw wrote:
People bitch and moan when GW does not offer FAQs and bitch and moan when they do.

It isn't that the FAQ's are fine. Its the missed Errata opportunity that I feel strongly about.

Just a few simple errata's like:

-Models with Boss poles can also re roll LD test.
-Add boss poles to any mek or mekboys equipment list.

Would have made a world of a difference for the army. And we all know that they have had bigger errata's for a smaller issues in the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that is even if we ignore the most obvious ones such as.
Add the following special rules to the nauts profile:Super heavy, Assault vehicle.

Simple lines like these would, change that model from being a joke to being sold out for the next few weeks.

 Kriswall wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
People are going to be completely irate when the FAQ says, as I'm almost sure it will, that the Tyranids Wings Biomorph replaces one set of Scything Talons.

(Since it is impossible to build a Flying Hive Tyrant with the everpresent TLD WYSIWYG.)

Prepare for the coming doom.

I don't see why the Wings Biomorph would replace a set of Scything Talons. The default kit allows you to build with Wings and 2 sets of Scything Talons. One set is on the second pair of arms. The other set is on the feet. Also, Games Workshop (via Forgeworld) sells a set of Twin-Linked Devourer arms. Just because the weapon configuration isn't in the plastic box doesn't mean it isn't available. It just costs a little more.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-DE/Tyranid-Twin-linked-Devourers

The other set. is on. the feet.

I have a strong hunch that this is going to happen. We shall wait and see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me ask this. Have you ever see, anywhere, in any Tyranids model photos or artwork in any GW product, a Flyrant with two sets of weapons?

I'm 90% sure they're not intended to be able to. That's why the Wings are relatively cheap.

Some simple fixes from this FAQ could have made orks a bit more playable, a few Erratas would allow orks to compete a bit more until our next codex comes out in 2020.

FAQ Fixes: Git finda works no matter what, doesn't have to stand still. Boom, Flash gitz become slightly less garbage.

Cybork adds +1 to FNP, 6+ with nothing, 4+ when in a painboy unit.

Mob rule can be used to negate Fear tests.

Erratas: Lootas D3+1 shots a turn. Can purchase Git finda for 3pts a model. Moved to Elite slot where they belong.

Meganobz +1 Toughness. (makes their 2+ save and 2 wounds worth something).

Nobz: Reduce price by 2pts a model, can purchase PKs for 20pts. Nobz come standard with Eavy Armor. Suddenly Nobz aren't laughable.

Boyz: S4, Eavy armor is 2pts a model.

I could keep going on but really its just sad how little love GW has for Orks. If you honestly don't think the Ork army is meant as the NPC race for 7th edition then you don't know what your talking about.

And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.

There are usually quality of life or balance corrections, such as the misprint of the Hellbrute price, the Dreadnought Attacks for non-Dark Angels/Codex Marines, etc.

To a point, I can understand why they don't, that leaves the major changes in print, which requires less on the owner to account for. Unfortunately, you deal with the current situation where armies, especially the first 2-3 codices in an Edition, get overrun by crazy design concepts which either weren't thought of by the time they were sent to print, or had too little time to implement them. And they generally don't redo a codex in an Edition (3rd was an exception).

 Charistoph wrote:
And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.

I have to disagree on that one. The old ork codex and most of other codexes had some quite heavy (and game changing) errata's at the end of the 6th edition.
Allowing bosspoles also to reroll ld doesnt come close to some of those changes. I do agree with you that the suggestions of SemperMortis go beyond what they did then. That list is just the suggestion of a new codex disguised as a FAQ.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.

I have to disagree on that one. The old ork codex and most of other codexes had some quite heavy (and game changing) errata's at the end of the 6th edition.
Allowing bosspoles also to reroll ld doesnt come close to some of those changes. I do agree with you that the suggestions of SemperMortis go beyond what they did then. That list is just the suggestion of a new codex disguised as a FAQ.

After having several factions FAQ'ed with no or very few changes by way of errata I need to ask again: Why would the Orks get a special treatment?

They didn't and here we are. Your opinion has been agreed with but it's not going to change anything.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And yet, GW has not really ever used the Erratas for that high level of adjusting a codex.

I have to disagree on that one. The old ork codex and most of other codexes had some quite heavy (and game changing) errata's at the end of the 6th edition.
Allowing bosspoles also to reroll ld doesnt come close to some of those changes. I do agree with you that the suggestions of SemperMortis go beyond what they did then. That list is just the suggestion of a new codex disguised as a FAQ.

Considering that it was updating a 5th Edition codex to 6th Edition mechanics, that part isn't unusual. Necron's was almost as big, and they were the last codex before 6th Edition!

But for a codex in the middle of an edition? Or even to an edition where the mechanics were minimally changed? No, they have not made such extensive changes as what are being proposed.

As I have been saying quite a bit lately, the correct forum to address needed changes is the GW FB FAQ thread, which they are actively watching and are quick to respond with changes. GW has zero interest in proposed changes being voiced here in this forum. If you dislike an FAQ response, or don't a need being address, let them know over there! If you don't, these FAQs will go from draft to official as is.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As I have been saying quite a bit lately, the correct forum to address needed changes is the GW FB FAQ thread, which they are actively watching and are quick to respond with changes. GW has zero interest in proposed changes being voiced here in this forum. If you dislike an FAQ response, or don't a need being address, let them know over there! If you don't, these FAQs will go from draft to official as is.

SJ

I have already posted there several times. I am only doing that to cover all my bases, but having sent in letters, e-mails and called several times in the past not to mention posting on their new facebook page a few times I know that nothing useful will come out of that. Orks this edition are the NPC race.

 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

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

GW must be gluttons for punishment, publishing the Chaos Space Marine FAQ a week after the Ork FAQ

CSM still need an actual codex, but some nice stuff in there. Kharn hitting invisible units on 2+ is nice, as giving helbrutes +2 attacks.

Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.

So I guess you would have to roll the champion's overwatch separately, and hope it kills a character?

Kap'n Krump wrote:Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.

I too was positive that it was only in challenges. I'll have to check when I get home. It may have been that the rule for rolling on Chaos Boons table was in the same section as the "must accept and issue challenges" section, in which case we all thought it meant that the rule to roll for killing characters only applied in those challenges. Even still, it's odd, but yeah I'm game for this change.

Lord Blackscale wrote:So I guess you would have to roll the champion's overwatch separately, and hope it kills a character?

Aye. Separate attacks, separate shots, separate everything. On the plus side, Ahriman's got a much better reason for using psychic shooting attacks than previously.

Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.

The confusion came from the fact that the rule states in the same paragraph that you must always issue or accept challenge and (it's another sentence) that you can roll on the table whenever you kill a character.

I just saw the "+2 attack" to helbrutes and was like

"IT'S FISTING TIME BABY"

I'm breaking out the Helfist Murderpack. LOTS OF FISTS TO GO AROUND.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I just saw the "+2 attack" to helbrutes and was like

"IT'S FISTING TIME BABY"

I'm breaking out the Helfist Murderpack. LOTS OF FISTS TO GO AROUND.

Now the CSM can get in on the Dreadnought Proctology!

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.

The confusion came from the fact that the rule states in the same paragraph that you must always issue or accept challenge and (it's another sentence) that you can roll on the table whenever you kill a character.

It's funny, isn't this the exact opposite of how it was ruled for KDKs getting blood tithes from characters dying?

i was wondering, concerning the question about the deep strinking helbrute: It just means that I have to run when there are no enemies in 12'', but when there are enemies within 12'' I can shoot instead, since I can't charge after deep striking. Right?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
CSM still need an actual codex, but some nice stuff in there. Kharn hitting invisible units on 2+ is nice, as giving helbrutes +2 attacks.

So, Kharn's rule gets to have precedence instead of just canceling out like Quantum Shielding does with Lance? Gotta love the insanity of the drunken monkeys.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Champions of chaos working at range is.......odd, I always thought that only worked in challenges. But sure, why not.

The confusion came from the fact that the rule states in the same paragraph that you must always issue or accept challenge and (it's another sentence) that you can roll on the table whenever you kill a character.

It's funny, isn't this the exact opposite of how it was ruled for KDKs getting blood tithes from characters dying?

Kdk rule is entirely different. At no point does the character have to be in a challenge, close combat or otherwise.