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.

 Pyriel- wrote:
Did they manage to give the venerable dreadnoughts some extra hull points or are they all still being placed in the trashcan of unusable (to costly) units?

Hmmmm...they aren't THAT bad imo. My team partner usually fields them and they serve him well, both dakkabots and his occasional blenderbot. Sure, they are costly, but they did quite well in tourneys.

"Hey Necron Monolith, how are ya doing in 6th?"

"Uhm, well, I took a pretty hard hit, I'm struggling, but at least I now get a 5++."

- FAQ v1.1 hit -

"Necron Monolith, you've been quiet for a while. Everything ok?"

"..."

"Monolith? You there? Monolith? MONOLITH? MONOLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITH!"

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

I disagree, they have the same weak armour, the same few hullpoints and cost way more.
Their special ability that they pat all those points for does not protect those hull points thus the ven is exactly as easy to kill as the normal dread.
I just dont get it, how can that big crap fall through the cracks?

My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

 Pyriel- wrote:
I disagree, they have the same weak armour, the same few hullpoints and cost way more.
Their special ability that they pat all those points for does not protect those hull points thus the ven is exactly as easy to kill as the normal dread.
I just dont get it, how can that big crap fall through the cracks?

Why you would even take a normal dread now is beyond me.

 Sigvatr wrote:
My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

Were you ever allowed to begin with? Not by raw...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:
Did they manage to give the venerable dreadnoughts some extra hull points or are they all still being placed in the trashcan of unusable (to costly) units?

Hmmmm...they aren't THAT bad imo. My team partner usually fields them and they serve him well, both dakkabots and his occasional blenderbot. Sure, they are costly, but they did quite well in tourneys.

"Hey Necron Monolith, how are ya doing in 6th?"

"Uhm, well, I took a pretty hard hit, I'm struggling, but at least I now get a 5++."

- FAQ v1.1 hit -

"Necron Monolith, you've been quiet for a while. Everything ok?"

"..."

"Monolith? You there? Monolith? MONOLITH? MONOLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITH!"

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

200 point AV 14 all around not worth it? My land raiders weep for thee.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

ADLs? Night/Doom Scythes?
Aside from that, abundant Guass that doesn't care about AV or Tesla Destructors that can cause tons of hits?

Okay.

Still no skyfire. Was hoping for Heavy Destroyers to get it order to justify their 60 points...damn. Do note that Doom Scythes are no longer allowed to lazor flyers.

I've seen this repeated a couple of times and I'd like to point out that the Death Ray can hit Hovering flyers and Gliding FMCs. It can't hit Zooming flyers or Swooping FMCs.

Necron FAQ 1.1 pg.4 (right column)
Q: Can a Doom Scythe’s death ray hit enemy Flyers and/or Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p50)

A: The Death Ray can hit Flyers in Hover Mode (friendly or enemy) and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures (friendly or enemy). It cannot hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures

-Yad

Kevlar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

Were you ever allowed to begin with? Not by raw...

Yes you were, all that was required was to move over the model and skimmers moved over "all" models. Nothing stopped sweep attacks from a skimmer chariot from hitting flyers pre-FAQ. What is your "raw" reasoning that they couldn't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
No skyfire for Necrons. feth you GW!

ADLs? Night/Doom Scythes?
Aside from that, abundant Guass that doesn't care about AV or Tesla Destructors that can cause tons of hits?

Okay.

Still no skyfire. Was hoping for Heavy Destroyers to get it order to justify their 60 points...damn. Do note that Doom Scythes are no longer allowed to lazor flyers.

I've seen this repeated a couple of times and I'd like to point out that the Death Ray can hit Hovering flyers and Gliding FMCs. It can't hit Zooming flyers or Swooping FMCs.

Necron FAQ 1.1 pg.4 (right column)
Q: Can a Doom Scythe’s death ray hit enemy Flyers and/or Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p50)

A: The Death Ray can hit Flyers in Hover Mode (friendly or enemy) and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures (friendly or enemy). It cannot hit Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures

-Yad

I don't think the hover/gliding aspects were "ever" in question about the death ray hitting them. It was only ever zooming/swooping that caused the debates.

Kevlar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
My bad, excuse me, overread the venerable part :(

Just realized that you can't sweep attack flyers anymore with the CCB.

Sigh. So many nerfs :(

Were you ever allowed to begin with? Not by raw...

The FAQ actually says you can't sweep against a Zooming flyer. Says nothing about a flyer that is Hover mode. So sweep away

Q: Can a character on a Chariot that is also a Skimmer make a Sweep Attack
against a Zooming Flyer? (p82)
A: No.

-Yad

 Pyriel- wrote:

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

I think they are really awesome because you can deepstrike them pretty much anywhere without the fear of misshap. The only way a Monolith can misshap is if it scatters off the board. Read up on the deepstriking skimmers rule, it states that if a skimmer is forced to end it's move ontop of enemy models you simply move it the shortest way possible so it's 1" away from them. Skimmers can land on pretty much any terrain as it is so the only way to misshap with a Monolith is to scatter off the board.

I think I'll place my Monolith right on top of that deathstar unit over there... Portal of Exile and a nice Particle Whip should do nicely...

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:

Glad I was able to sell mine for 35€ a few days ago. It's way, way too overpriced now. Bye monolith, we had good times. May thee fare well, wherever your path may lead ya. Farewell, my friend.

Farewell.

I think they are really awesome because you can deepstrike them pretty much anywhere without the fear of misshap. The only way a Monolith can misshap is if it scatters off the board. Read up on the deepstriking skimmers rule, it states that if a skimmer is forced to end it's move ontop of enemy models you simply move it the shortest way possible so it's 1" away from them. Skimmers can land on pretty much any terrain as it is so the only way to misshap with a Monolith is to scatter off the board.

I think I'll place my Monolith right on top of that deathstar unit over there... Portal of Exile and a nice Particle Whip should do nicely...

That's how movement works, yes, but not deep strike. You roll to mishap before you ever start your deep strike movement with the monolith, as it's not on the board nor has it ended it's move it will still mishap as normal.

"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because
at least one model would land partially or fully off the table,
in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of
or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong."

I bolded the important bit.

Also, you can't fire the portal of exile and particle whip in the same shooting phase.

"If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

RAW vs RAI I guess.
Is deepstrike a type of move?
Does a deepstriking unit count as having moved when it comes in?
So if a skimmer that deepstrike lands on impassible terrain it mishaps because the skimmer rule doesn't work when deepstriking?
Which rules apply and which ones dont when you deepstrike? The Skimmer rule doesn't apply, which others dont apply? What parts of rules apply? Does some parts of a units rule apply and other not? Do you get to cherry pick?

Can you name 1 instance where a skimmer is forced to end it's move ontop of friendly models? Other than deepstrike? Tank shock is the only instance I can think of for enemy models.

I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

 insaniak wrote:
I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

Lifta droppa?

Bottom of page 36, it says that vehicles count as moving at Cruising Speed when they deepstrike. Personally, if my opponent was deep striking a Monolith on top of my units, I would fallow the skimmer movement rule. It would just be stupid not to.

Think about it, if a huge monolith started slowly floating down on top of you, would you stand there and go "don't worry, it'll stop", or would you get the hell out of the way?

 insaniak wrote:
I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

Passing over models and getting immobilized by terrain.

Also, locked velocity flyers act as skimmers for that purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Raikoh wrote:
Bottom of page 36, it says that vehicles count as moving at Cruising Speed when they deepstrike. Personally, if my opponent was deep striking a Monolith on top of my units, I would fallow the skimmer movement rule. It would just be stupid not to.

Think about it, if a huge monolith started slowly floating down on top of you, would you stand there and go "don't worry, it'll stop", or would you get the hell out of the way?

Yes, WHEN they deep strike. You have not completed deep striking until after you have rolled your mishap if you mishap. The rule for mishaps says "if you WOULD end up in...." It does not say "if you DO end up in..."

I'd believe it works either way, the writing in the book and these FAQs is very schizophrenic. I very much doubt Matt Ward is the only person writing these, but I very much doubt he is aware that there's someone else.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Yes, WHEN they deep strike. You have not completed deep striking until after you have rolled your mishap if you mishap. The rule for mishaps says "if you WOULD end up in...." It does not say "if you DO end up in..."

Yupp yupp, using the same argument Plague Bearers could never use their FNP in 5E because they did not have an armour save...

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Yupp yupp, using the same argument Plague Bearers could never use their FNP in 5E because they did not have an armour save...

That's not even remotely the same argument.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

I bought my rulebook at a local games store to, you know, support the local club and stuff.

So it cost me $125, instead of the $70 I could have got it for online. But, it's a pretty great product so I don't really care. The production values are high, the rules are tight, over-all I'm pretty happy. Now they dump these FAQ's on us and I need to print out a sheaf of paper to take with me to each game, because my $125 book is already invalidated?

What a joke. If you're changing the wording so soon after the release, I think that warrants a free book exchange IMO. I should be able to take my now outdated and invalid book to a GW store and swap it for one with the current rules.

 Kaldor wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

I bought my rulebook at a local games store to, you know, support the local club and stuff.

So it cost me $125, instead of the $70 I could have got it for online. But, it's a pretty great product so I don't really care. The production values are high, the rules are tight, over-all I'm pretty happy. Now they dump these FAQ's on us and I need to print out a sheaf of paper to take with me to each game, because my $125 book is already invalidated?

What a joke. If you're changing the wording so soon after the release, I think that warrants a free book exchange IMO. I should be able to take my now outdated and invalid book to a GW store and swap it for one with the current rules.

And that's exactly how its been since 2nd edition. A sheaf of FAQs to fix the game.

And then there was the time when GW decided to stop making FAQs because it was too confusing, not everyone had access, etc. and they caught a raft of stuff for it.

Now they do the FAQs more quickly, and make substantive changes to improve things, and people complain and give them a raft of stuff about it.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'd rather the FAQs to make the game better.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I wonder if they'll come out with those little paragraph replacement stickies that they used to come out with in white dwarf issues for FAQs. The main rulebook certainly needs them to be even remotely useful now. Pick up games are going to be a nightmare unless everyone's got an open internet connection and three FAQs open.

I bought my rulebook at a local games store to, you know, support the local club and stuff.

So it cost me $125, instead of the $70 I could have got it for online. But, it's a pretty great product so I don't really care. The production values are high, the rules are tight, over-all I'm pretty happy. Now they dump these FAQ's on us and I need to print out a sheaf of paper to take with me to each game, because my $125 book is already invalidated?

What a joke. If you're changing the wording so soon after the release, I think that warrants a free book exchange IMO. I should be able to take my now outdated and invalid book to a GW store and swap it for one with the current rules.

And that's exactly how its been since 2nd edition. A sheaf of FAQs to fix the game.

And then there was the time when GW decided to stop making FAQs because it was too confusing, not everyone had access, etc. and they caught a raft of stuff for it.

Now they do the FAQs more quickly, and make substantive changes to improve things, and people complain and give them a raft of stuff about it.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I'd rather the FAQs to make the game better.

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

 Cruentus wrote:
And then there was the time when GW decided to stop making FAQs because it was too confusing, not everyone had access, etc. and they caught a raft of stuff for it.

Well, yeah... If you stop releasing the fixes for your broken game without actually fixing the game first, that's going to happen...

 insaniak wrote:
I was initially inclined to say that the Deep Strike rules would take precedence, as they apply specifically to Deep Striking.

But then I find myself wondering under what other circumstances would a skimmer be 'forced' to end its movement over other models...?

You can be flying over a unit with a skimmer tank and then attempt to tank shock an enemy unit on the other side, but then get stunned via Death or Glory, which stops the skimmer's movement 'over' another unit.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

Including 4th? Wow. That's an accomplishment.

 Nagashek wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

Including 4th? Wow. That's an accomplishment.

Hahaha damn straight! 4th was probably the true worst, yet it never gained a re-release.

I for one, as a mostly casual player am fairly happy about the FAQs. They're pretty much all clarifying what was supposed to be there in the book but was yeah, badly written.

The only one I'm a bit wary on really is the Look Out Sir to the closest model. The way I see it (though, of course, the You Make Da Call lawyers would disagree, but meh, casual player), that's the only proper change to the rules, which I find a bit odd.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Games workshop hasn't broken 40k this badly since second edition. The sixth edition rulebook is one of the worst written and most poorly edited technical documents I have ever read. Sure, they've always had FAQs. They've never had a product so in need of so many at once though. Even if the edition didn't require major FAQs for every codex the rulebook contradicts itself dozens of times anyway, and that's when it bothers to be detailed in the first place. I'm shocked people are even able to play this game without having Matt Ward in the room with them to adjudicate the rules disputes that occur every five seconds.

What sixth is going to need is a rerelease of the core rulebook. They sold a broken and dysfunctional document.

It does seem pretty bad, doesn't it?

I can't see them re-releasing the core rules within the next 2 or 3 years though.

Maybe after that... maybe?

Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

Wow... Dark Angels' venerable dreadnoughts got a big boost. Codex stats for a bargain price'