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.

 Gamgee wrote:
The ITC tournaments and space marine death stars beg to differ. Space Wolf deathstars are dominating the scene badly. To the point the power creep is so bad they are better than Eldar now. That's how far Space Marine power creep has set in.

I have yet to see high ranking list with dreadnought. Even the loyalist A4 ones. Doubtful you are going to see those even from now.

Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Officially added to the draft, which has been stated to be coming to GW website after some feedback has been received. They intend to do every faction in the game and Reece from ITC has said they've got a pattern of dropping faq's every Wednesday so we should be done by August for all faction in the game. Who knows what they will do then. They might update them all again or just post them to the main site if the feedback has already been received.

Davor wrote:
Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

It'll be up soon, relax.

Davor wrote:
Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website? I checked the Canadian GW site and it's not listed there.

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Well obviously those who aren't aware of the rule won't use it. But eventually it will become available on their site once it's completed. Maybe even mentioned in the white dwarf(remember the time when official FAQ/erraa's were only in WD?-). Expect tournaments to start using those when they become finalized. Some already use the drafts as it is. Since this is marked as official errata tournaments might also use just that. In that case obviously tournament rules will mention it.

Either way 40k is barely workable WITHOUT some sort of presorting of house rules/common grounds so whether these are used will be handled in that part.

And whatever GW says still it remains as it always has been. Players are the ones who decide how to play the game. In the end this is just bit beefier house rule suggestion.

 Gamgee wrote:
Oh you only have the best rules in the game to win. Okay carry on then. My Dark Eldar will just sit over here as you get free buffs.

So is that a yes or no to buffing other factions? What happens when it comes time to buff the Tau? Would you be okay if they made Kroot good in assault and melee again? How about if they buff our heavy rail rifle to str 9 and armorbane? And add armor bane to all of our railguns?

It's not likely to see competitive Tau usage, but would it still be okay?

Or how about if Dark Eldar were given a faction wide ability to jink and shoot due to their insane agility and accuracy even beyond their light kin? Would you be okay with that?

I just hope GW keeps on the path its going and buffs every weak faction and also the weakest units from all the factions a little. I don't need anything too insane here. The weaker the faction the more buffs it should get. In theory. I really hope it doesn't give into the largest group of players ideas for a fair and balanced game.

I think all factions should have decent internal balance in their codex, as well as decent external balance between them.

I’m no expert on tau, but I think they need buffs in places. Their codex is not just giant death mecha. Seeing that railguns on broadsides and hammerheads are generally regarded as sub-par compared to other options, sure, give them a boost. I’m wary of making broad-brush suggestions, as I don’t know the details, but armorbane doesn’t sound like a terrible choice. If you are only getting one shot, at least make it more reliable.

Anything that prevents armies from being a mono-build is a good thing. That’s good internal balance. The dread boost helps with that.

Yes, there are armies out there that need a lot of help, especially with external balance. Hopefully that will get fixed. Should no other problems get worked on until that happens? And just because an army is doing well overall, does not mean it is without problems. I’m glad they are fixing things where they can.

I noticed Dreadnoughts in Battle for Vedros get 4 dice for attacks:

 MattofWar wrote:
I noticed Dreadnoughts in Battle for Vedros get 4 dice for attacks:

Battle for Vedros is its own thing entirely at the moment, and is based upon the C: Space Marine values. So of course they get 4 attacks for CC.

Gamgee complaining about how UP his Tau are, Orks and CSM players fighting each other over who's more hard done by...

Another day in the Dakka.

Hammerheads and Railrifles are fine, they don't need Armourbane. A points reduction, maybe, but they are the Taus version of a Lascannon. All single shot, low AP weapons suck, the Tau aren't unique in that regard. You don't see the marines that are so bemoaned using Predator Annihilators, Land Raiders, or Lascannon armed Devastators competively, do you?

If they took away the extra close combat attack from using Kroot Rifles they should give them back, that's about it.

Dark Eldar need love, Orks need love, Chaos need love. Ideally, the latter two will get buffs to their Dreadnought variants they never take, because clearly that will make everything better.

Why don't we just wait for the rest of the FAQs to come out before we bitch anymore?

 Crazyterran wrote:

Why don't we just wait for the rest of the FAQs to come out before we bitch anymore?

That's crazy talk, sir.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Define 'correctly'...

It's a game. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If both players are having fun, they're playing the game correctly. Whether or not that involves following the rules exactly as provided by the people who wrote the game is entirely up to them.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Stupid question. How can this be official if it's not on the GW website?

The same way anything was official before there was a GW website?

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

Well, a logical move since they are bringing all codices in one line. Next move - BA scouts get WS/BS 4 and their devs get to use grav canons. Not sure how much it would help them, but would at lest make sense. Just hoping my orks get something in their draft...

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

That's because it was a mobile facebook link.

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

If you mean the link in THIS POST, its because its a link to the mobile version of Facebook, easily identified by the 'm.facebook' in the address.

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So how can we claim this official if you can't find it?

Why can't you find it? It was already posted, along with a link to the original source, in this very thread that you're posting in.

It leads me to a link in Facebook. When I clicked on it again, it went to a different part of facebook that looked "flat". For some reason it doesn't look like a regular facebook page to me. So hence why I ask for an Official place to look. I don't know what is real or what is fake. I am not as internet savy as a lot of people are on here. So if that makes me an idiot, then fine I am an idiot. So why a link I click on twice looks different each time, I don't know.

Most major websites at this point have a "mobile" version designed specifically for your smart phone/tablet. This is because when you have a really huge computer screen to work with, you can design a website to fit a lot of info on it, but when you open up a web page designed for a full computer on your phone, all the text is teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeny tiny and you have to zoom in to see anything.

Mobile sites (you can tell by looking at the webpage, it will generally say "m.facebook.com" instead of "www.facebook.com") are the same as regular sites, just displayed a different way. The link provided is in fact official.

Any one else notice the ork warboss in battle for Vedros has 4 wounds not 3 ?

They should make Dreadnoughts MC with T7 and W5 while they're at it.

 insaniak wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Define 'correctly'...

Yes, I should rephrase.

This particular rule should now be officially the default in any game of 40k, without any kind of discussion required. When the dread closes in (if it does) the BA/SW/GK player should just count the attacks according to the rule and use it.

My use of "correctly" above should have been "as designed."

GW's always been averse to these sort of errata; I have to believe they thought we'd be adverse to them working out these kinds of fixes. Watching these drafts you can see reality setting in and GW realizing the community likes to see more definitive fixes.

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW's always been averse to these sort of errata; I have to believe they thought we'd be adverse to them working out these kinds of fixes. Watching these drafts you can see reality setting in and GW realizing the community likes to see more definitive fixes.

Their philosophy has always been "if you want fixed rules, you have to pay for them". They seem to have walked back on that. I am hoping for more stuff like this in the Blood Angels FAQ.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Gamgee complaining about how UP his Tau are, Orks and CSM players fighting each other over who's more hard done by...

Another day in the Dakka.

Hammerheads and Railrifles are fine, they don't need Armourbane. A points reduction, maybe, but they are the Taus version of a Lascannon. All single shot, low AP weapons suck, the Tau aren't unique in that regard. You don't see the marines that are so bemoaned using Predator Annihilators, Land Raiders, or Lascannon armed Devastators competively, do you?

If they took away the extra close combat attack from using Kroot Rifles they should give them back, that's about it.

Dark Eldar need love, Orks need love, Chaos need love. Ideally, the latter two will get buffs to their Dreadnought variants they never take, because clearly that will make everything better.

Why don't we just wait for the rest of the FAQs to come out before we bitch anymore?

Add to the list I want cheaper wraith's from guard,lord and knight for more core choices.

 Desubot wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Jesus....could you screw Orks and CSM anymore GW?

Yes.

Yes they can

Orks and CSM are destined to be punching bags forever ya know.

Actually the CSM FAQ will give the Helbrute -2 attacks making them literal punching bags.

Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

 Breotan wrote:
Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

That one is fan created.

You think?



And as so often with these things, it completely misses the point of the complaints.

 insaniak wrote:
You think?



And as so often with these things, it completely misses the point of the complaints.

Had to state the obvious. I think people are complaining about the BA and GK getting the boost ahead of their FAQS but not CSM and KDK(who already had their FAQ). They are fully justified, if annoying.

Now excuse me while I order another Furioso or two online.

 hordrak wrote:
Well, a logical move since they are bringing all codices in one line. Next move - BA scouts get WS/BS 4 and their devs get to use grav canons. Not sure how much it would help them, but would at lest make sense. Just hoping my orks get something in their draft...

Easiest way to make all the units comparable would be to merge DA and BA into Codex SM, and expand that book to fit them (and the new Angels of Death stuff)
That way everyone can have Grav Cannon Devs and Heavy Flamers in Tac squads.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Interesting...this is the first final-draft FAQ. It's not a first draft, so it is official now. Anyone not using this rule is not playing the game correctly.

Question, I don't have the GK codex: Is a DreadKnight a Dreadnought?

DK already has 4 attacks but the FAQ brings the Dreadnought up to 4 as well.

 Breotan wrote:
Facebook has an update if anyone cares.

Am I alone is this, or would anyone else love this style of errata ?