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 personally thought it was pretty good and resolved a great deal of issues. Though certainly not all of them.

Hmm, we seem to be dead even here. TBH I'm actually halfway between what I voted (OK) and "I like it".

I do agree that they fixed a large number of issues.

Edit: And of course as I'm typing this more people voted...

I liked it. They cleared up a lot of things. I wasn't too upset about my Black Templars as I never played Righteous Zeal how everyone tried to bend the rules (not going the full distance). RAI was obvious they wanted you to move the whole distance. Mixed feelings about the Eldar. Get to taste the sweet sweet tears of every DE player that tried to say Farseer powers carried over to Dark Eldar units but for some reason they won't allow me to overwatch with my Warlock's Destructor's. Oh well, I never actually even played them that way as I have never overwatched yet with my Warlocks but that sure would have been nice. I'm happy for my groups CSM and Tau player that the changes really buffed/helped them out.

It is pretty good, but there are still a few egregious errors;

Like the explanation of chaos icons which contradicts itself, and the huge blunder on grounded FMC's. Replacing what should have been "swooping" with "gliding".

I don't like my options.

I feel they covered a decent amount of things, but I do not like the results of those FAQ's.

What New FAQ?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=2&_requestid=1773927

Finally cleared up the unusual power weapon debate with Dante and the Sanguinary Guard.

Although I am a bit sad that Dante's high initiative will now be wasted

Oh Sweet, Target Locks are BACK baby.

YES!!! AP2 DEMON WEAPONS!!!

Not sure, how to like it. Don't like how Tyranids get hosed yet again. BL with no BS CAN'T reroll? WTF? I am sure if this was a Space Marine, they would get to reroll.

Not being able to use Emplace Weapons or Weapons Emplacement? FRACK! That was snuck in, since it wasn't in Magenta, but it was Changed.

Yes FMC get skyfire now, but still. Even if FMC wear sunglasses, they still get hit .

Oh it seems they actually made it so heavy flamers need a 2 man squad for vets.

Was hoping it was a Forgeworld mistake :(

Oh yeah target locks are back and desruption pods are better.

also laserpointers scare the crud out of fmcs lol.

only wish they would of faqed the seeker missle at full bs problem

Wish it had resolved the issue of the Avatar of Khaine and Dark Eldar, but it's not that big a thing I guess.

Most of the interpretations made sense, even if they didn't go the way I wanted. I'm absolutely baffled by the "markerlights can knock flying Hive Tyrants out of the sky" thing though. It makes absolutely zero sense.

 Desubot wrote:
only wish they would of faqed the seeker missle at full bs problem

I do wish they had spelled it out completely, but for me the reference to the vehicle firing it at BS 5 as a Snap Shot for shaken/stunned was enough.

Unfortunate that drones can no longer add moral support to characters in a challenge, though

Kevlar wrote:
It is pretty good, but there are still a few egregious errors;

Like the explanation of chaos icons which contradicts itself, and the huge blunder on grounded FMC's. Replacing what should have been "swooping" with "gliding".

My bet is that this is in preperation for the shortly forthcoming new CSM codex.

I'm looking at this new ruling and hedging a bet that things like Personal Icons and/or one of the basic squad-based icons will now work to bring in Daemons as well as the other deep striking units, but there will still be a few super special icons that won't.

Overall I like it, and I'm glad to see that GW finally seems to be taking FAQs/updates seriously. However, there are some things, like the change to LOS that are kind of worrying. This isn't a clarification to an ambiguous rule, it isn't an update to a 5th (or earlier) edition rule that wasn't working right in 6th, it's a complete change to how something works. Which raises two questions:

1) Why wasn't this caught in playtesting? Does GW even have proper playtesting at all? If LOS was really overpowered enough to require a change to the core rules to limit it, GW's internal testing should have noticed the problem and addressed it before the book was even printed. The fact that it wasn't suggests that GW doesn't care enough to get it right the first time, and is chasing the metagame instead of developing a well-balanced system.

2) Was this a legitimate problem, or is GW just giving in to the loudest internet complainers? Should we expect to see more random swings in how stuff works whenever people complain loudly enough about it?

djones520 wrote:
I'm absolutely baffled by the "markerlights can knock flying Hive Tyrants out of the sky" thing though. It makes absolutely zero sense.

It makes perfect sense rule-wise, even if the fluff is a bit silly. The rule very clearly says "hit", not "wound", not "damage", not any other thing that would rule out markerlights. So, there are three ways to resolve it:

1) RAW: a hit is a hit, so markerlight hits inflict a grounding test just like any other hit.

2) Come up with some kind of definition for what a "real" hit is, in a consistent way that can be applied across all weapon types. Since this would be very difficult, if not impossible, it probably leaves it open to endless debate about whether or not weapon X is a "real" hit or not.

3) Make a special case ruling and errata the markerlight rules to specifically say that they don't cause grounding tests, at which point everyone starts complaining about how weapon X should or should not get the same special case ruling.


The simplest and most consistent solution is option 1, and that is what GW did.

I liked them all, except the note about eternal warrior not allowing feel no pain, that doesn't make any sense...

 juraigamer wrote:
I liked them all, except the note about eternal warrior not allowing feel no pain, that doesn't make any sense...

It actually makes perfect sense. FNP doesn't work against wounds that inflict instant death, while EW just makes you immune to the effects of instant death, it doesn't change the fact that the wound still carries the instant death rule.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Oh it seems they actually made it so heavy flamers need a 2 man squad for vets.

Was hoping it was a Forgeworld mistake :(

Are there new forgeworld faq's as well? Because that isn't mentioned in the regular FAQ for the IG codex.

As for my impressions, rest in peace lumbering behemoth, you will be missed. I loved Leman russes with a battlecannon and a lascannon. They were so versatile and powerful. Now that lascannon is a 15pt paperweight sticking off the front. I have to rip apart at least 3 now

However, ork battlewagons got better. Now, no matter what, when they tankshock they always do 1d6 hits. Even if the enemy unit passes its leadership check to move out of the way. That's pretty handy. However, somehow people get cover saves against them??? I have no idea how that works. Does that mean a deffrolla hitting an infantry unit in terrain let's the infantry have a cover save? Or that deffrollaing nob bikerz let's them use their cover save?

And then of course the big "nob squads are no longer characters." I understand why they did it, but it still makes me sad. Nobz in a battlewagon were on the fence before the faq, now they're not really worth the points at all. I feel like it's bikerz or nothing now :\ At least paladins and wolf guard don't have it anymore either.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Oh it seems they actually made it so heavy flamers need a 2 man squad for vets.

Was hoping it was a Forgeworld mistake :(

Are there new forgeworld faq's as well? Because that isn't mentioned in the regular FAQ for the IG codex.

No, its quite old and pissed me off to no end, Krieg heavy flamers need a 2 men team, regular IG one don't. Now its fixed, but not in the way I would like xd

Kevlar wrote:
It is pretty good, but there are still a few egregious errors;

Like the explanation of chaos icons which contradicts itself, and the huge blunder on grounded FMC's. Replacing what should have been "swooping" with "gliding".

I think that call on grounded FMCs was a good one. It was pretty clear before that the rules intended grounded to lose hard to hit, in my estimation, and personally I'm in favour of the clarification.

Glad to see skyfire on FMCs, and that look out sir goes onto the nearest model rather than any within 6", which should clear up LoS shenanigans a bit. All in all I'm in favour of the changes, I think they cleared up a few exploits, though admittedly they'll invalidate a few builds that depended on a character spreading wounds around units of 2 wound models.

amasokka88 wrote:
I think that call on grounded FMCs was a good one. It was pretty clear before that the rules intended grounded to lose hard to hit, in my estimation, and personally I'm in favour of the clarification.

That complaint was about an obvious typo, not a balance decision. The part about whether line/area/etc attacks can hit flyers or FMCs says that they can't hit gliding FMCs, not that they can't hit swooping FMCs. It's annoying if you have to deal with WAAC rules lawyers, but it was obviously meant to say "swooping" and you shouldn't have a problem with a reasonable player during the (hopefully) short time before the typo is fixed. It's just kind of disappointing that GW didn't check the FAQs a bit more carefully before publishing them.

 Peregrine wrote:

amasokka88 wrote:
I think that call on grounded FMCs was a good one. It was pretty clear before that the rules intended grounded to lose hard to hit, in my estimation, and personally I'm in favour of the clarification.

That complaint was about an obvious typo, not a balance decision. The part about whether line/area/etc attacks can hit flyers or FMCs says that they can't hit gliding FMCs, not that they can't hit swooping FMCs. It's annoying if you have to deal with WAAC rules lawyers, but it was obviously meant to say "swooping" and you shouldn't have a problem with a reasonable player during the (hopefully) short time before the typo is fixed. It's just kind of disappointing that GW didn't check the FAQs a bit more carefully before publishing them.

In another 2 months or so.

 Peregrine wrote:

amasokka88 wrote:
I think that call on grounded FMCs was a good one. It was pretty clear before that the rules intended grounded to lose hard to hit, in my estimation, and personally I'm in favour of the clarification.

That complaint was about an obvious typo, not a balance decision. The part about whether line/area/etc attacks can hit flyers or FMCs says that they can't hit gliding FMCs, not that they can't hit swooping FMCs. It's annoying if you have to deal with WAAC rules lawyers, but it was obviously meant to say "swooping" and you shouldn't have a problem with a reasonable player during the (hopefully) short time before the typo is fixed. It's just kind of disappointing that GW didn't check the FAQs a bit more carefully before publishing them.

Fair one, agreed in that case.

I think I saw only two real errors; the swoop/glide typo and the ruling on Destructor.

Overall these are pretty great, and impressively comprehensive. Covered most of my questions and issues, and they weren't afraid to fix some stuff which was broken and written badly in the rulebook.

Well, there's two things that stick out to me:

Firstly, Characters in units. If you're resolving saves and allocating wounds in any unit that contains mixed armour saves, or a a character (this includes Squad leaders, or IC's with the same armour save as the rest of the unit) then you have to resolve the wounds one at a time. Why? The old mechanic worked fine, and sped up game play considerably. Since almost every squad comes with some form of character, this means that almost every shooting attack will need to be resolved one dice at a time.

Secondly, Paladins (and Nobs and Wolfguard) are no longer Characters. Are they freaking kidding me? Paladins were perfectly priced when they were Characters. Removing the ability to take a 4+ Look Out Sir almost completely nerfs this unit, it's cost now significantly outweighs it's abilities, and I can't imagine a way to justify it's existence in any list. Purifiers come at a third of the price, and are just as effective in combat and shooting. Yay, let's make Purifier spam even more of a no brainer choice!

Not happy Jan.

Yes.

 Kaldor wrote:
Removing the ability to take a 4+ Look Out Sir almost completely nerfs this unit, it's cost now significantly outweighs it's abilities, and I can't imagine a way to justify it's existence in any list. Purifiers come at a third of the price, and are just as effective in combat and shooting. Yay, let's make Purifier spam even more of a no brainer choice!

Not happy Jan.

Paladins became right priced instead of getting a ridiculous discount due to the fact that you had to do 11 wounds to remove one?

Purifiers are nice, but hardly as handy when staring down the barrel of a battle cannon or three.

Kevlar wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Removing the ability to take a 4+ Look Out Sir almost completely nerfs this unit, it's cost now significantly outweighs it's abilities, and I can't imagine a way to justify it's existence in any list. Purifiers come at a third of the price, and are just as effective in combat and shooting. Yay, let's make Purifier spam even more of a no brainer choice!

Not happy Jan.

Paladins became right priced instead of getting a ridiculous discount due to the fact that you had to do 11 wounds to remove one?

Purifiers are nice, but hardly as handy when staring down the barrel of a battle cannon or three.

Paladins were adequately priced as Characters. Being able to shunt wounds around on a 4+ made their extreme price justifiable, but at 55 points per model at a minimum NOT being able to shunt those wounds around makes them ridiculously overpriced.

And while Purifiers can't eat AP3 shots like Paladins can, they cost about a third of the price, have a much better psychic ability, can spam Razorbacks, and can take four psycannons per squad at 10 points each.

Dude.... Klaives and Huskblades are now always AP2. Return of the Incubi killing off Termie squads! and Instant Death AP2! On Archons and Succubi! I'd make a thankful prayer to the god-emperor, but I'm afraid they'd turn to ashes in the air and ruin this beautiful aroma of dessicated corpses.