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.

Oh man, first question, I never even thought about the wave serpents lmao.

Also, I'm glad for the Warp Spider errata. This is how I play it casually and how I feel it should always have been.

I'm quite happy with the Spider Errata as well. No one really played them in my area, nor did I. This takes the pressure off to try them out, as I really don't like T3 models that can't hide in transports.

The Aspect Host Wave serpent change is a surprise. I was aware of the issue, but expected GW to say no +1BS to the Serpent. Well, I guess my Fire Dragons just got a pimped new ride.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Codex Draftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

BTW Ghaz, I see whatcha did there, very clever with that play on words

--

Iyanden is back in good with the Craftworlds codex. I'm sure some people will be very happy with that.

EDIT: I'm stupid, nevermind me. It's been a while since I looked at the Iyanden codex.

More diversity is good!

 Crazyterran wrote:
So, that means you can have a Wraithknight as a Lord of War and as a HQ in a Codex: Iyanden detachment?

Lovely.

Negative. It means you can have your Lord of War WK as your Warlord. Says nothing about taking a Wraithlord or WK as an HQ. Please read the rule before assuming the worst.

--

 Galef wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
So, that means you can have a Wraithknight as a Lord of War and as a HQ in a Codex: Iyanden detachment?

Lovely.

Negative. It means you can have your Lord of War WK as your Warlord. Says nothing about taking a Wraithlord or WK as an HQ. Please read the rule before assuming the worst.

--

Also don't forget the *character* addition if it's chosen as the Warlord so it can challenge for fun!!.

Luckily Iyanden Spirit seers in Wraith host got a bit nerfed his utility if their go for runes of battle (as their primary just grant them the same bonus they have passively due formation) but we all know most of players will go to fish Invisibility instead on Telepathy with them.

On the other hand, crafty players can use it to Grant battle focus to outside Wraithknights in Warhost formations so a double edge thing.

So if Iyanden is legal are we back to Spiritseers making Wraithguard and Wraithblades troops? I believe the supplement still has that statement in the section it talks about the wraith units.

Lord Perversor wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
So, that means you can have a Wraithknight as a Lord of War and as a HQ in a Codex: Iyanden detachment?

Lovely.

Negative. It means you can have your Lord of War WK as your Warlord. Says nothing about taking a Wraithlord or WK as an HQ. Please read the rule before assuming the worst.

--

Also don't forget the *character* addition if it's chosen as the Warlord so it can challenge for fun!!.

Wraithknights used to be Characters in the old Eldar Codex, but lost this in the current one. Iyanden allows you to make it your warlord, but doesn't make it a Character.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So if Iyanden is legal are we back to Spiritseers making Wraithguard and Wraithblades troops? I believe the supplement still has that statement in the section it talks about the wraith units.

No. That used to be a rule of the Spiritseers in the old Eldar Codex. So it's gone.

I don't really get why they 'aye'ed the Iyanden book. The primaris Voice of Twilight didn't properly work when the book was relased (all wraith units are mandatory targets, blessings need LOS). That's in addition to WKs not being characters and Spiritseers not moving Wraithguards/blades to troops anymore. So if you are stuck with 3 elite slots anyway, why not grab a wraith host and gain battle trance and improved Voice of Twilight?

Wraith LORDS have always been characters, but Wraih KNIGHTS have never been characters. I'm gonna have to check the Iyanden supplement when I get home to see that actually wording if they become characters. If they do not, no WL trait.

Galef, Per the Iyanden supplement, a Wraithlord or Wraithknight can be your Warlord even though they are not HQs. IIRC, At the beginning of 7th, I think it was FAQ'd that Wraithknights became characters in this case, however, the BL FAQ link no longer works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, found it (had to download all to view). Per the last update for Iyanden (May 2014), available here www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

AMENDMENTS
Page 50 - Heroes of Iyanden
Replace this paragraph with the following:
'If you are fielding an Iyanden detachment, you may select
a single Wraithlord or Wraithknight in that detachment
to be your Warlord. If you do so, the selected model is a
character and receives a Warlord Trait.'

 Happyjew wrote:
Galef, Per the Iyanden supplement, a Wraithlord or Wraithknight can be your Warlord even though they are not HQs. IIRC, At the beginning of 7th, I think it was FAQ'd that Wraithknights became characters in this case, however, the BL FAQ link no longer works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, found it (had to download all to view). Per the last update for Iyanden (May 2014), available here www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

AMENDMENTS
Page 50 - Heroes of Iyanden
Replace this paragraph with the following:
'If you are fielding an Iyanden detachment, you may select
a single Wraithlord or Wraithknight in that detachment
to be your Warlord. If you do so, the selected model is a
character and receives a Warlord Trait.'

That's tough to say that FAQ is still viable, though. Not only because the link in broken, but because it may lead to an agreement of whether the "Draft FAQ" overrides all previous FAQs. If it does, we ignore what you just quoted. If it doesn't invalidate the FAQ, we start to wonder it the Draft is official yet. That might lead back tot the question of whether you can use the Iyanden supplement.

TLDR, that's a mess and it's better just to say your WL WK can't take a trait or challenge because he's not a character.

-

Even if the FAQ Draft overrides the current drafts, there is (currently) no draft FAQ for Iyanden. Furthermore, if you have the digital copy, it most likely was updated to include that amendment.

I don't know for sure if the link is broken, it may just be my computer (i can't even url link on this forum for some reason). Even then, the download still works.

I had zero difficulty finding the Iyanden FAQ. If you just look up warhammer FAQ, or black library FAQ on google the first link took me to a page with it. Looking up Iyanden FAQ however brought up a dead link. It seems that gw changed the url to warhammer-40k from warhammer-40000. You can look at the cached version by google that still works for the old url.

Either way its the same file just with a different url, and it is easily available from the black libraries FAQ and errata page. It is the "official update for 7th edition". There has been no FAQ since that supersedes it so I don't see any reason that it would not be relevant.

Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

 NorseSig wrote:
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

I think we should be happy they made any errata at all considering they only promised an faq. They offered clarifications not changes.

 NorseSig wrote:
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.

Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.

 NorseSig wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.

Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.

No, they're not since erratas have always been posted as a part of the FAQ document and not separately.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.

To be fair, points have been updated in the Errata section of the FAQ documents before. It is quite rare, though. I can only think of the Hellberute right after CSM's latest launch and adjustments to the Black Templar codex when Codex Marines 5th Edition came out.

In keeping with that, if they haven't errata'd the Scatter Lasers by now, they won't before the next book.

 Ghaz wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.

Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.

No, they're not since erratas have always been posted as a part of the FAQ document and not separately.

Again I will repeat myself I am referencing the ERRATA portion NOT the FAQ. It DOES NOT MATTER that they are usually given together. And there is a difference between ERRATA and FAQ. Are you really going to say there isn't a difference between errata and faq simply because they are released together? If there isn't a difference why is one labeled faq and the other errata? Why do they have different definitions? Like I said before reading comprehension. You are an intelligent individual. I see no reason why you shouldn't use it to comprehend what others write.

To be fair these errata are just as draft status as the faqs.
Example the dreadnauts change was only done AFTER player feedback. Even still some of the errata hasn't been the most clearly written either and i expect some minor rewording before it's officially posted on the GW website in PDF.

The only point changes in errata has Only ever been done when there is a misprint and two different printings have different point costs. Beyond that there has never been a point adjustment to balance a unit..... Ever

It's pretty clear at this point all codexs have been updated to 6/7th standard and we are now in a lame duck period until 8th edition comes out next year and I am sure after that point we will see a mass push for all the codexs to be updated. I'm not saying we won't get campaign style updates and new formations or models but we haven't had a proper codex update in 40k in almost a year.

As an Ork and guard player I can't wait for an updated 8th edition streamlined codex especially under this current administration that seems to pay more attention to detail and I can't wait to see my codexs updated as well but I don't expect much until the summer of next year. I think the review of the faqs will give the devs insight into issues the community is having, I think the fact GW is going to the largest tournament events such as the ITC LVO next year to help run events is a huge insight for them to see the problems with the rules and time issues with the game. I fully expect after all this reviewing and insight GW will produce a much better edition for 40k especially considering what they did for AoS by involving a lot of the community to help produce the generals handbook. However at this point I think GW is gathering data and letting the current ruleset play out before they update any major codex.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
Since apparently erratas included with the faqs is now a thing I am very disappointed that the cost of taking a scatterlaser on a jetbike wasn't bumped up to 20 - 25 points, the jetbikes themselves increased 5 points, and the cost of a WK bumped up 100+ points (150 at most). Seriously, If you gonna issue a few erratas on some things fix the most broken stuff at the same time to make the game better.

Why does this keep coming up? No points are being adjusted in these FAQs. If we want balance, we need to persuade GW better than we have in the past. It will not happen without effort. Unless GW is secretly tired of our gripes, and is secretly planning to balance 40k, somehow. Without telling anyone.

Reading comprehension helps here I said ERRATA not FAQ. BIG difference.

No, they're not since erratas have always been posted as a part of the FAQ document and not separately.

Again I will repeat myself I am referencing the ERRATA portion NOT the FAQ. It DOES NOT MATTER that they are usually given together. And there is a difference between ERRATA and FAQ. Are you really going to say there isn't a difference between errata and faq simply because they are released together? If there isn't a difference why is one labeled faq and the other errata? Why do they have different definitions? Like I said before reading comprehension. You are an intelligent individual. I see no reason why you shouldn't use it to comprehend what others write.

And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.

And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.

I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.

Back to the topic of the thread. this wasn't too bad of a set of faqs/erratas. Didn't like all of them, but I don't think anything really gave much if any of a helping hand to the power of the eldar.

wraithknight as a character can get FnP wow!

 Nithaniel wrote:
wraithknight as a character can get FnP wow!

Wraithknights are Gargantuan Creatures, which have Feel No Pain as standard.

The bigger deal is that WK as a character can challenge!

Anyone else notice that they ruled a blast marker that clips an unintended unit counts as "targeted" at that unit? This contradicts previous rulings that allowed us to drift a marker onto an untargetable unit.

SJ

Roknar wrote:
Does the harlequin faq also mean that the fist of khorne special rule for assaulting after disembarking now officially does nothing, since it doesn't specify assaulting after deepstriking/reserve?

My opinion is 'no' because games workshop have said time and time again that a rule in one book does not affect rules in another book.

Also the following draft faq is for a formation outside of the BRB which means that it overrides the BRB not allowing them to charge after deepstrike:

Q: Under the Hungry for Blood special rule, are the Berzerkers in the Fist of Khorne Formation allowed to charge in turn one, or from turn two, when they disembark?
A: The Berzerkers can charge on the same turn they disembark, regardless of which turn that is.

 NorseSig wrote:

And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.

I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.

Arguing semantics of calling the overall thing an FAQ vs calling it FAQ and Errata doesn't change the fact that it really would not have made a lot of sense to do point changes within the documents. Someone called the whole thing an FAQ, so what, we know there's errata in there as well, it's easier colloquially to just call it all one thing.

You can feel they should have done points adjustments, but I don't think points adjustments should be done in an errata unless an actual mistake was made when publishing a book. It's not a good precedent and then people have to check to see if their units actually cost what they claim in the book when they're list-building.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

And yet again, they're all in the FAQ document so there is a tendency to call the entire thing a FAQ. Your arguments don't change that, just like your arguments that they can change points in the errata doesn't make it something that they normally do. Its not something that is going to happen, so move on.

I never said it was going to happen. All I said was they should have done that and they could because they were also proposing erratas at the same time. YOU decided to keep bringing it up by attacking me saying it was faq only. And again, for the record, issuing faq and errata together or one within the other doesn't negate either of those two things from doing something within their definition of what they are (especially when they are distinctly labeled as to what they are). Your argument that issuing one in the other (errata within an faq where both are clearly marked as to what they are) does not hold water.

Arguing semantics of calling the overall thing an FAQ vs calling it FAQ and Errata doesn't change the fact that it really would not have made a lot of sense to do point changes within the documents. Someone called the whole thing an FAQ, so what, we know there's errata in there as well, it's easier colloquially to just call it all one thing.

You can feel they should have done points adjustments, but I don't think points adjustments should be done in an errata unless an actual mistake was made when publishing a book. It's not a good precedent and then people have to check to see if their units actually cost what they claim in the book when they're list-building.

If the points cost is wrong - as it is for [b]many[/b] units in 40k it should absolutely be errated.

The fact that GW kept waiting for a couple for years each time until actual codexs are updated is one of the reasons the game is in such a state.