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.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

They really need to expand the Argument Phase as the current "roll a D6" resolution mechanic lacks tactical depth. They should add a few tables to roll on. Oh and give bonuses for Chaplains, Dark Apostles and Ethereals too!

They could accompany that with a terrain release for a Temple of Resolution, which gives bonuses in the Argument Phase to Imperial armies, just for that extra touch of fairness!

 insaniak wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

They really need to expand the Argument Phase as the current "roll a D6" resolution mechanic lacks tactical depth. They should add a few tables to roll on. Oh and give bonuses for Chaplains, Dark Apostles and Ethereals too!

They could accompany that with a terrain release for a Temple of Resolution, which gives bonuses in the Argument Phase to Imperial armies, just for that extra touch of fairness!

Yes! And it should be Toughness 7!

I can't find the ruling about the dread's attacks. Where is it?

Ragnar69 wrote:
I can't find the ruling about the dread's attacks. Where is it?

Last page. They get 2 attacks, per their profile.

I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

I was thinking the same thing. They know they have their thumb in the dike, and it's already cracking.

Once they fix all 200 bad units, however, they would be done with balancing and they could concentrate on 8th.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

I was thinking the same thing. They know they have their thumb in the dike, and it's already cracking.

Once they fix all 200 bad units, however, they would be done with balancing and they could concentrate on 8th.

I think that 8th edition will be how GW fixes those 200 "bad" units. Hell, the sheer magnitude of this FAQ effort shows that GW is acknowledging that the game has problems. That's always the first step.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" .

There's a difference between updating a unit to match an identical unit that had been already updated elsewhere and ' fixing' random units that people think need updating.


Historically, GW have flip flopped back and forth between updating everyone to the same rules via FAQ and playing the various codexes as written...

 EnTyme wrote:

I think that 8th edition will be how GW fixes those 200 "bad" units. Hell, the sheer magnitude of this FAQ effort shows that GW is acknowledging that the game has problems. That's always the first step.

And the Dread page shows that GW does not care at all regarding the rules
they just checked that being nice to the players and support veterans increase sales

GW does know that their rules have problems, but they don't care. This FAQ has by know made more problems than it solved (most questions could be answers with "read the rules" anyway) and 8th will not fix anything
It will leave the bad units were they are, give us some shiny new ones and proceed as before

We are at the same stage as at the end of 4th edition. Remember that there the same weapon in different Marine Codex books had different profiles because they never cared about it?
And remember how many of 4th/5th edition bad units were fixed with 6th edi?

and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

That's the thing even with this in effect you will still hardly see dread's on the table and if people are pulling shenanigan's then they will find a lack of opponent's soon enough.

I for one think this is a good thing and will now possibly consider bringing my furioso's back out to play occasionally as now they are half decent instead of total trash. That's all this really does.

I always field dreadnoughts. They're iconic, and they're decent heavy weapons units compared to devastators as you're stuck with the move or fire conundrum.

I like how the 'Official House Rule' excluded Helbrutes.

All we need is for GW to delete the old FaQs once these new ones stop being drafts for Helbrutes to becomes more expensive base (even if it is only by 5 points) than the houseruled Loyalist Dreadnoughts for 2 attacks and no bonuses.

Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Some of those were answerable by the book themselves.

Not sure how I feel about Iron Priest spam...you could literally fun a whole army of them now.

I like how they did a +2 bonus to Dreadnought attacks as opposed to a flat base profile. Means the special CC Dreadnoughts get more attacks as they should

It is annoying that the Space Wolves can do an Iron Hands thing better than the Iron Hands......oh wait Space Wolves pretty much do everything the Iron Hands are supposed to do. So aggravating. And people wonder why I quit buying models.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I like how the 'Official House Rule' excluded Helbrutes.

All we need is for GW to delete the old FaQs once these new ones stop being drafts for Helbrutes to becomes more expensive base (even if it is only by 5 points) than the houseruled Loyalist Dreadnoughts for 2 attacks and no bonuses.

But this is balanced by the Crazed special rule. Helbrutes can get Rage!

motski wrote:
Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

Yeah because it makes so much sense for a guy riding a wolf to have the same strength as an Imperial Knight. Or to suddenly get a boost in strength from riding a wolf. A boost in toughness and rending I can sort of get (at least the intent of what it is supposed to represent), but the strength boost has always been silly imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
What garage group/FLGS/TO would not choose to use the +2 attack rule? It obviously balances out the same models with the same rule.
Seriously, I'd love to hear someone's story about how someone was jaded enough not to allow it....and then proceed to use their 4 attack space marine dread against the 2 attack one.

One of the local Eldar players tried to houserule marine dreads back to 2 attacks all the while he is fielding 3 or 4 WK....

motski wrote:
Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

Very few people 'raged' against it. It was just another example of rules not working as they were probably intended due to sloppy writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:

Yeah because it makes so much sense for a guy riding a wolf to have the same strength as an Imperial Knight. Or to suddenly get a boost in strength from riding a wolf. A boost in toughness and rending I can sort of get (at least the intent of what it is supposed to represent), but the strength boost has always been silly imo.

I think you've missed the actual issue. That silliness was already there. The issue that needed clarification was that a regular Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a power fist would be Strength 10 (as the +1 S was included in his profile) while a character with the same gear and mount would be S9.

They're now the same.

Ha, and people think Ultramarines are the favorite...

 insaniak wrote:

motski wrote:
Hooray for strength 10 Thunderwolves. My condolences to the rules lawers out there who raged against it.

Very few people 'raged' against it. It was just another example of rules not working as they were probably intended due to sloppy writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:

Yeah because it makes so much sense for a guy riding a wolf to have the same strength as an Imperial Knight. Or to suddenly get a boost in strength from riding a wolf. A boost in toughness and rending I can sort of get (at least the intent of what it is supposed to represent), but the strength boost has always been silly imo.

I think you've missed the actual issue. That silliness was already there. The issue that needed clarification was that a regular Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a power fist would be Strength 10 (as the +1 S was included in his profile) while a character with the same gear and mount would be S9.

They're now the same.

I get what the issue is/was I just disagree with the str boost they get for riding a wolf in general. I don't even much care for the boost of toughness bikes and wolves get. I honestly wish the str bonus of a lot of things was more selective, like x2 str of thunder hammers ect only working on infantry units, or something along that line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Ha, and people think Ultramarines are the favorite...

Space Wolves and Ultramarines are on the same platform.

I'm slightly confused on the Logan Grimnar on his Stormrider. Why does he die if he's on Stormrider gets destroyed? Isn't Stormrider a chariot? Is there a special rule that I'm missing on chariots? I don't use them at all and never plan on using the Santa Claus' sled.

In the brb in the chariot section it says if the rider is slain the chariot is destroyed and vice versa.

Oh, I did not know that.

Thank you for the info.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can understand GW's reluctance to use this FAQ to update a unit's profile. That's just begging to be inundated with requests to "fix unit X!" We've been playing non-DA/SM dreads as 4 attacks for quite some time now. Between that and the one-grenade ruling, it makes dreads actually viable now.

Oddity is though they are using FAQ to change rules elsewhere. Why avoid changing things elsewhere then?

Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

That would be pretty lousy reading ability from whoever writes those answers seeing they go flat out against what rulebook clearly states.

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

That would be pretty lousy reading ability from whoever writes those answers seeing they go flat out against what rulebook clearly states.

Which would indicate that they actually read the rules while they answer the question (and not just answer them without deeper investigation)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

You can "be positive" and still get your comments deleted. I know. I have had several of my comments/questions deleted. I guess some things they just don't want to answer. Ironically, the posts of mine that have survived are the less than positive ones lol. Go figure.

Really they should be doing rough draft errata for armies at the same time. The faqs + errata could potentially fix a lot of the cluster that they have going on with the faqs. But then again, this is GW. At least having contact with the community again is a huge step in the right direction.

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Because they are not aware that they already changed some rules elsewhere

And if they did, it would be errata instead of FAQ.

You need to tell them in Facebook that their so called "rulebook FAQ" is actually an "rulebook errata" and not a FAQ

Nah. It looks like they already have enough problems with messages and deleting peoples comments. Remember rule number one for them. Be positive.

Literally never have seen a comment deleted on their page, so I feel that either A) you were being a jerk, or B) you are being less than honest in regards to that statement.