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'm hoping the BA fast vehicles is just a copy and paste error and will get adjusted

 Vector Strike wrote:
I couldn't find any permission for that in the new rulebook. The previous edition had it in the Rulebook FAQ. Can we assume 'aura of effect' wargear still does that?

See the attached pic from the new rulebook below.

The rule is still there, but as I pointed out previously in a post, the Power Field Generator has been permanently fixed in the iBook DA codex, so it doesn't work (is an exception to this rule).

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Blood Angels lost fast vehicles as well as their own powers? Why am I playing blood angels then? May as well have rolled them into the base codex.

I still don't understand why an army themed around vampires who can barely control themselves get fast vehicles at such a level. But at least that makes more sense than apparently being an army of super psykers that have psychic dreadnoughts...

Sanguinary guard, priests and death company all make sense though, emphasise those instead.

Have no fear, there have already been leaks on the new BA codex - they're getting a new vehicle that has the 'fast' status. I believe making their other vehicles comparable to their vanilla cousin variants was to make way for the new one

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The GK FAQ is pretty funny actually. Warp quake vanished before it could screw over summoning lol.

Losing all their special powers for banishing is interesting. Makes them, VERY specialized.

I like that the old broken cleansing flame vanished. Bro banner is a waste now as well.

Instead of warp quake, use sanctuary, pretty much the same thing, makes terrain around them Dangerous and an invuln save to boot. When daemons come in they arrive via deep strike rules right? I really havent bothered to look at the summoning rules.

GKSS don't get Sanctuary. I'll have to either take a vehicle, or hope a random roll with an IC grabs it. And even then, Dangerous Terrain doesn't screw over DS like Warp Quake did. That power was awesome.
Against Drop Pods, my Warp Quake worked wonders. Now...at least I have that 1/6 chance to get a 6++ against the Sternguard combi-plasma unit that just dropped in to blow me away. Yay, I guess?

 yakface wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
I couldn't find any permission for that in the new rulebook. The previous edition had it in the Rulebook FAQ. Can we assume 'aura of effect' wargear still does that?

See the attached pic from the new rulebook below.

The rule is still there, but as I pointed out previously in a post, the Power Field Generator has been permanently fixed in the iBook DA codex, so it doesn't work (is an exception to this rule).

Thanks for that! Missed it in a quick sweep (embarking rules aren't the most interesting to read)

 Compel wrote:
Can someone please tell me why...

Despite not having played a game of 40k since October.
Not having bought the new 40k rulebook.
Having bought very few GW items except paint since August.
Having received an incredibly awesome X-Wing TANTIVE IV in the mail today.

I'm still incredibly irritated about the Blood Angels FAQs.

Too much prior investment into your BA to completely get over it, and also I guess playing competitor's game reminded you how companies that actually respect their customer work.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I've seen multiple threads passing complaints and comments backwards and forwards about the FAQs and what they mean. It's understandable that the FAQs are a mess and seem to make little sense - GKs with whirlwinds and the like. However, rather than reading deeper meanings into these like a seer rattling bones to read the future, the simplest reason is also the most likely...

Games Workshop is just a little bit crud

They rushed out the FAQs, just like they rushed out 6th and now 7th edition - along with the codices. Very little forethought or testing have gone into any of these releases.

Luckily I still have the 6th Ed. with all the 6th Ed. FAQs. I'll be living in the past until some fans group together to produce a non-GW-affiliated working ruleset that makes sense.

I'm going with: the people that put together the FAQs don't actually play the game. Probably interns that work in the mail room or something like that. As far as whether the actual rules authors play test... well, I think they might play so many games trying out various mechanics that they don't really remember what they put in the book versus what they decided to throw out and at some point just say "ship it". Which leads to the opinion that they aren't quite playing the same game we are...right or wrong that would at least explain a few things.

Now, the presentation of the 7e book is far and away better than previous ones. Splitting out pretty pictures and history into their own books just makes so much sense and the new color scheme and font choices make it FAR easier on the eyes. So the layout team gets a nod from me - of course, they managed to screw up Vector Strike in the index yet again (I'm not sure how you do that. Twice. It's an index, this should be auto created by the content editing tools.)

I guess, ultimately, what's really missing here is competent copy and technical editors.

I guess, ultimately, what's really missing here is competent copy and technical editors.

That's been the problem for 15 years tho.. Hard to really excuse it year after year imo

ErikSetzer said:

Still no rulebook FAQ, though. Or answers on things like how you determine what facing a barrage hits a Knight for determining the shield. Ah well.

Page 75 main rule book, vehicle facing and armor values, blast weapons, templates. Then go to page 160 to see that the 2nd bullet point actually says the blast comes from the direction of the center of the blast marker. Hits are resolved from side armor.

Lamens terms, armor 12, and the direction is whichever side of the base the center of the blast marker is on to determine if the shield is activated. It doesn't need a FAQ.

TheKbob said:

On the same accord, I guess my Dreadknights lose an attack for having two weapons.

Nope, if this was the case it would be an errata or amendment or GW would specifically say they did not get it. The FAQ part of the errata is only a question and answer to common questions, that question in GW's eyes is no longer a frequently asked question. There is t a reason for people to go round and round on this one because it's been answered before.

Do I still need typhus for plague zombies?

I'm not sure I understand the FAQ

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm in the same boat only for me "no update" is "no plastic models, no codex that's fun and playable, and no codex in dead tree format".

Now you are not being reasonable. If you are looking for any semblance of fairness in term of which factions get what, you are with the wrong editor here.

Pft. Who said "reasonable" was something I had to be at this point? I think we passed that point when GW beat the Sisters codex so hard with the nerf bat that they could be tried for Domestic Violence.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was just pointing out that looking for a FAQ is pointless when you need to be basically checking the digital versions instead.

That is what I did just after I saw no pdf on the page at the end of the link. I remember well how it worked the last time our codex was “updated”… to remove what could have been a very nice answer to all those horrible psyker-reliant deathstars, like the screamerstar. I did not forget. I did not forgive .

Looks like none of the Digital Versions have been updated, so give it a few more days.

I mean GW can't even get the BA Vehicles right and you want them putting their jam covered fingers all over the Sisters codex?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Pft. Who said "reasonable" was something I had to be at this point? I think we passed that point when GW beat the Sisters codex so hard with the nerf bat that they could be tried for Domestic Violence.

Let us stop annoying azreal13 anymore. Because as much as I love ranting about GW, I understand how it can be annoying even to people that are sympathetic to our plight. I would totally join you in a rant on a dedicated thread, though .

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Looks like none of the Digital Versions have been updated, so give it a few more days.

Well, is there something that you feel would need to be adapted to 7th ed though? Maybe there is no errata because there is no need for one.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, is there something that you feel would need to be adapted to 7th ed though? Maybe there is no errata because there is no need for one.

Frankly nothing strikes me as not being compatible with 7th, but just because I can't think of anything doesn't mean nothing exists. Or that updates of other kinds could occur.

Where's all the ragers who said GW would never release FAQ's ever again?

Well then, I do not think GW will errata us. They do not even consistently fix glaring problems, so why would they fix non-obvious ones?
I have yet to try my first 7th ed game though. It may happen next week, during the week-end.

There is a lot of gak who need a good errata to make it work, but once again GW decided to give use erratas with 3 sentences ...

Still hope for a balancing of Dark Apotheosis to be like in Fantasy, think i can still dream about that one...

The removal of all the fun unique GK powers has me kind of pissed off. Individual units lose their flavor (no more sacrificial champions, or horde-scorching purifiers, etc) and legitimate tactical considerations are now thrown out the window. I would be less displeased with GW for getting rid of Warp Quake (which i loved to use to deny my opponent safe drop pod landing zones in my backfield) if they'd given me something worthwhile in return, but instead they ALSO got rid of fun stuff like "The Summoning" Librarian power. Thus, not only am I prevented from using Drop Pods in my GK army (and feth the new allies matrix, GK isn't your lap dog, ultrasmurfs et al, they shouldn't be allies with anyone but the inquisition), I can't pretend my Libby is a psyker drop pod equivalent to bring my own Dreadnought or unit of Termies into the enemy's side with a risky turn one DS attached to Mordrak, followed by a casting of the Summoning. So my defensive and offensive options for DS operations are both boned. And let's nerf the crap out of Brotherhood Banners, yet keep the potentially game-breaking Ulumeathi Plasma Syphon intact . . . great idea.

At least the Aegis was adapted to be useful, unlike a certain Tyranid analog . . .

WooHoo! Faqs! Now, if 7th faqs are like 6th faqs, then once faqs for 7th stop, then 8th edition will come out 13 months later!

(it was noted that 6th edition faqs stopped & 1 year, 1 month, and 5 days passed since any faqs, then 7th was released...)

Plague Zombies can take pistols and CCWs now.. As if they weren't already broken :c

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Plague Zombies can take pistols and CCWs now.. As if they weren't already broken :c

Unless im missing something that entry in the FAQ is exactly the same as before. Furthermore it says directly in the codex that they are only with a single ccw.

The errata for the banner of devastation not working on stormbolters has been removed

 yakface wrote:

Syphid wrote:
Power Field Generators in scoring land raiders, good times.

That's actually been updated permanently in the iBooks version of the codex.

I don't own the iBooks codex, so my PFG still protects the vehicle

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
The GK FAQ is pretty funny actually. Warp quake vanished before it could screw over summoning lol.

Losing all their special powers for banishing is interesting. Makes them, VERY specialized.

I like that the old broken cleansing flame vanished. Bro banner is a waste now as well.

Instead of warp quake, use sanctuary, pretty much the same thing, makes terrain around them Dangerous and an invuln save to boot. When daemons come in they arrive via deep strike rules right? I really havent bothered to look at the summoning rules.

GKSS don't get Sanctuary. I'll have to either take a vehicle, or hope a random roll with an IC grabs it. And even then, Dangerous Terrain doesn't screw over DS like Warp Quake did. That power was awesome.
Against Drop Pods, my Warp Quake worked wonders. Now...at least I have that 1/6 chance to get a 6++ against the Sternguard combi-plasma unit that just dropped in to blow me away. Yay, I guess?

Yea I really don't see them being that useful for their cost now. Hammer hand is ok and force, except you need to get it off before you get into assault. banishing is utter trash IMO. 24" range hitting a single target, probably containing a herald or being a stand alone psycher of higher mastery level equals poor odds it resolves unless your pouring dice into it.

GK dreadnoughts appear to be the best way to go now. Lots of henchmen units and psyflemen galore. Load the henchmen squads with crusaders and go for that 2++ at the front from sanctuary while dumping s8 goodness. All the actual GK units seem over priced now (never thought I'd say that).

 44Ronin wrote:
Where's all the ragers who said GW would never release FAQ's ever again?

I would suspect that most of them were people with tongues rather firmly planted in cheeks, rather than 'raging'...

I used to be registered with Dakka years ago, but I can't find any mention of it in my notes, nor what email address it was tied to. So new account it is.

Anyways, I pulled up a search about this, and found some lukewarm reactions to this CSM FAQ change. Decided to bring the issue to a bigger thread for more clarification, as that's what this topic seems to have been designated for.

I quote verbatim:

Page 60- The Black Staff of Ahriman, rules The second sentence should be replace with: 'It allows Ahriman to attempt to manifest the same witchfire power up to three times per Psychic phase.'

So what, RAW says you can assign 4 different witchfire powers to Ahriman, and given enough luck, can fire off each one three times? 12 psychic powers in a single phase?!

This is touhou territory. How would you feel if an opponent read this ruling in this way?

JubbJubbz wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Plague Zombies can take pistols and CCWs now.. As if they weren't already broken :c

Unless im missing something that entry in the FAQ is exactly the same as before. Furthermore it says directly in the codex that they are only with a single ccw.

FAQ states that they're just cultists with x and y special rules.

 Victory wrote:
So what, RAW says you can assign 4 different witchfire powers to Ahriman, and given enough luck, can fire off each one three times? 12 psychic powers in a single phase?!
:

He can cast the same power multiple times, but is still bound by the restriction on how many powers can be cast in a turn.


Although the rules on how many powers can be cast in a turn are rather vague at the moment...

I think you all need to go read the psy powers again....
Biomancy is sneaky good now. As are others...

Also the rulebook states you cannot generate powers from the book if the profile states a power.

Pink horrors can onky take change powers...

Yiu also dont get a free primarys with chaos marks as you are no longer a focused psyker.

The GK Plasma Syphon got nerfed to be the same as the Inquisition version. (No longer applies to Pulse Weapons or Plasma Missiles.)

Kinda miffed about my GK Care Bear Psykers losing Large Blast on their attack. Oh well.

It changes the second sentence. The third sentence there doesent go away.