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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
How many times have we been through this? NO BUFFS in the FAQs, except dreads for some reason.

There have been several Erratas. We are talking about stuff that is obviously a misprint - like the warpspiders errata. Grey-knights teleport into battle - all of them do. There is no reason why purifiers shouldn't have deep strike just like strike squads. This would be akin to GKT having deep strike but Paladins not having it.

Why is the Warp Spider rule obviously a misprint?

Because it allowed a unit to move infinite times in it's opponents turn? Clearly a misprint.

Not really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?
Spider lose Flickerjump
Dragons lose Assured Destruction
Hawk lose Intercept
Avengers Lose Counter Tactics
Spear lose 4+ cover rule

I forget what Banshees, Scorpions and Reapers get, but you see where I am going. Those special powers should all be rules that their respective Phoenix Lords give to the squad if joined to their Aspect. and USRs should be given by Exarchs, Like Tank Hunters for Dragons, and Hit & Run for Spears.

Since Spiders don't have a Phoenix Lord, that would essentially get ride of Flickerjump

-

I like the rules. They just need to rebalance a few and give them to the Phoenix Lords IMO.

 Galef wrote:
Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?

Are you also in favor of all units in the game losing their special rules? Units having unique unit rules is hardly an Aspect Warrior only concern.

Most of those rules are based on other rules older than most of the players.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Am I the only Eldar player that thinks all Aspect warriors should have their special snow-flake rules removed?

Are you also in favor of all units in the game losing their special rules? Units having unique unit rules is hardly an Aspect Warrior only concern.

Most of those rules are based on other rules older than most of the players.

I've played Eldar for their last 2 previous codices and Aspect Warriors did not have the special rules I am referencing. Their Exarchs could give the unit some special rules, but they did not come with an automatic unnecessary rule just for existing.

The Aspects in those books were:
Aspect profile with X armour and X wargear.
Take an Exarch for X special rule and optional X wargear for the Eaxarch

But now you have:
Aspect profile with X armour, X wargear AND X special rule(s)
Take a 2W Exarch for X special rule, Y special rule and X optional wargear
Oh, and most of them got CHEAPER than the previous books.

There are just too dang many special rules. I am all for adding something fun and unique to a unit, but GW has taking it too far, which is why so many FAQs are needed
Too many unit's special abilities are coming into conflict with either the BRB, or another unit's special abilities.

I am really glad GW is doing these FAQ's as a Draft and I hope that they use the feedback for 8th ed. I also hope that they don't "trickle" the official FAQ's like thsy had done for the drafts.

-

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

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

Codex Tyranids HERE

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights HERE

Codex Necrons HERE

This week we see the undying legions of the Necrons. That means that next week we should wrap things up with Chaos Daemons.

Anyone else excited that you can hop back into Night Scythes again?

Things that really piqued my interested:

#1 - Lance vs Quantum Shield; Previous FAQ said they cancelled out, now it says Lance works against the Quantum Shield. So which is it? AV12 or AV11?
#2 - Yes people, it is just 1 Canoptek Spyder. Just the one. Not a unit, but a single model. I understand that some people would state that, by the RAW, it couldn't exist, but the RAI was so crystal clear it was unfathomable to me that someone would actually attempt this.
#3 - The effects last until the start of your next Movement phase, even if the Spyder is destroyed! Ouch. That hurts. Was hoping to turn that aura off immediately.
#4 - The Obelisk still forces the test against Flying Monstrous Creatures, despite the fact that they would auto-pass that test. They did not answer this properly, and should have stated that the Flying Monstrous Creatures cannot auto-pass this test, but the RAI on this seems clear.
#5 - They say for all the effects +1 and -1 effects to RP saves to be applied simultaneously, and the "never reduced below" is just applied to the end result.
#6 - Eternity Gate CAN'T be used on the turn the Monolith Deep Strikes. That's odd, but sure, I'm down.
#7 - I really don't want to check this new Helfrost ruling against the others. Anyone else care to do that?

Unfortunately the Obelisk's firing arc still isn't really answered because sponsons aren't actually defined as to what firing arc they give.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Unfortunately the Obelisk's firing arc still isn't really answered because sponsons aren't actually defined as to what firing arc they give.

Isn't there a diagram in the BRB that shows a sponson's arc? It literally shows that the sponson can see to the edge of the vehicle it's mounted on. On a Land raider that is just past 180 degrees since it's mounted on the flat side.
But for the Obelisk, that would be about a 270 degree arc of sight since they are mounted on a corner.

 Yarium wrote:

#2 - Yes people, it is just 1 Canoptek Spyder. Just the one. Not a unit, but a single model. I understand that some people would state that, by the RAW, it couldn't exist, but the RAI was so crystal clear it was unfathomable to me that someone would actually attempt this.
#3 - The effects last until the start of your next Movement phase, even if the Spyder is destroyed! Ouch. That hurts. Was hoping to turn that aura off immediately.

That's pretty big. #3 makes #2 mot so bad. Sure there is only 1 Spyder, but killing it doesn't matter until the turn after wards.

On the flip side of this, if the Wraiths are outside 12" of the Spyder at the beginning of the turn (because they charged and had to pile in on the prior turn) than they would not benefit from RP even if they move into 12" later in the turn. They'd have to be in range when the power is activated.

-

Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?

Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?

A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?

Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?

A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.

Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.

Artefacts of the Aeons have always been limited to one per model as that is clearly noted in the Necron Wargear List. What the FAQ does is clarify that you can't have both an Artefact of the Aeons and a Relic of the War in Heaven on the same model.

Galef the diagrams show that sponsons see the the gun physically does. On the land raider that's 270 but in the diagram for the leman Russ it's only 100 degrees because the gun can't physically move that much.

For the obelisk that would mean 45 degrees because the gun can't move at all

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?

Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?

A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.

Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.

Actually all the faqs are still draft and not official so you go by the codex and how your group interprets it currently regardless, however it is another nail in the coffin as how GW is going to rule the final version of the faqs and the relic equivilant signature systems. We will all wait and see how it's finally clarified but if I were you I wouldn't get my hopes up as GW felt the need to clarifiy equivilant systems.

gungo wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?

Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?

A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.

Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.

Actually all the faqs are still draft and not official so you go by the codex and how your group interprets it currently regardless, however it is another nail in the coffin as how GW is going to rule the final version of the faqs and the relic equivilant signature systems. We will all wait and see how it's finally clarified but if I were you I wouldn't get my hopes up as GW felt the need to clarifiy equivilant systems.

Most of the other Codexes had ambiguous wording that could allow for one or many depending on your interpretation. The Tau Codex isn't ambiguous. Tau Crisis Suits are also generally "blank templates" that you add lots of gear to. I can't think of any other Codex that uses a similar "hard point" system. Anecdotally, this supports the idea of adding multiple items to one suit.

 Kriswall wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?

Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?

A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.

Anecdotal at best. This question is specifically in regards to Necrons and has nothing to do with Tau Empire. Without a specific FAQ surrounding Tau Empire, we still go by the Codex, which unambiguously allows it.

Actually all the faqs are still draft and not official so you go by the codex and how your group interprets it currently regardless, however it is another nail in the coffin as how GW is going to rule the final version of the faqs and the relic equivilant signature systems. We will all wait and see how it's finally clarified but if I were you I wouldn't get my hopes up as GW felt the need to clarifiy equivilant systems.

Most of the other Codexes had ambiguous wording that could allow for one or many depending on your interpretation. The Tau Codex isn't ambiguous. Tau Crisis Suits are also generally "blank templates" that you add lots of gear to. I can't think of any other Codex that uses a similar "hard point" system. Anecdotally, this supports the idea of adding multiple items to one suit.

Odd i swear page 74 explicit says only 1 signature system can be taken per army. Or you guys speaking about farsight ones?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Another nail in th coffin of mutiple signature systems on a single model?

Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and an Artefact of the Aeons?

A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic (or equivalent) of any kind.

Signature Systems are not relics, nor are they equivalent. They simply fulfill the same role with similar but not the same limits. Tau rules not only allow for multiple Sig Systems on the same model, GW gave us 8 specific builds that incorporate multiple Sig Systems on each model, and the Tau FAQ errata'd Riptides to be able to take ECP in a FSE, making the ability to build your own O'Vasa legal.

The horse is dead, Jim.

SJ

Lord Perversor wrote:
Odd i swear page 74 explicit says only 1 signature system can be taken per army. Or you guys speaking about farsight ones?

They're not talking about taking multiples of the same system, but multiple systems on a single model.

Well at least they cleared up FNP/RP which is undoubtedly taken before other tests. (Do not remember them addressing FNP specifically in an earlier FAQ).

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Can Necron models benefit from their Reanimation Protocols special rule before testing to see if is removed from play by attacks such as Space Wolves’ Helfrost weapons or the Ravenwing Dark Talon’s stasis bomb?
A: Yes. Necron Reanimation Protocols are taken at the same time as Feel No Pain rolls would be, to potentially avoid suffering unsaved Wounds (and any ensuing tests that suffering an unsaved Wound may cause).

if they keep it that way, no reason they shouldn't though because of the nature of RP/FNP

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well at least they cleared up FNP/RP which is undoubtedly taken before other tests. (Do not remember them addressing FNP specifically in an earlier FAQ).

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Can Necron models benefit from their Reanimation Protocols special rule before testing to see if is removed from play by attacks such as Space Wolves’ Helfrost weapons or the Ravenwing Dark Talon’s stasis bomb?
A: Yes. Necron Reanimation Protocols are taken at the same time as Feel No Pain rolls would be, to potentially avoid suffering unsaved Wounds (and any ensuing tests that suffering an unsaved Wound may cause).

if they keep it that way, no reason they shouldn't though because of the nature of RP/FNP

They previously ruled that the player whose turn it is decides which comes first. Which of course means no RP would be allowed. I wish these were more consistent.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Galef the diagrams show that sponsons see the the gun physically does. On the land raider that's 270 but in the diagram for the leman Russ it's only 100 degrees because the gun can't physically move that much.

For the obelisk that would mean 45 degrees because the gun can't move at all

From the BRB: "On some models, it will actually be impossible to move the gun and point it towards the target because of the way the model is assembled. In this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

So now that the FAQ has stated the Tesla Sphere are sponsons (which we all agree can move side to side and are only blocked by the hull of their vehicle) if is more than fair to say the Spheres can "rotate or swivel on their mounting".

-

Except the Tesla Spheres can't turn due to the way the model is assembled, but due to the way it is designed.

Also, sponsons have no set arc. The arc is determined by how far they can turn and the Tesla Spheres as designed can not turn.

Why would they bother answering the question about the Tesla Spheres and say they specifically aren't hull mounted if they intend for them to be locked in place with a 45 degree angle. If that was what they wanted they would have just ruled it as hull mounted. There is literally no point in even saying they are sponsons otherwise.

I think it's pretty obvious what they intend they just failed to clarify it correctly.

Qlanth wrote:
Why would they bother answering the question about the Tesla Spheres and say they specifically aren't hull mounted if they intend for them to be locked in place with a 45 degree angle. If that was what they wanted they would have just ruled it as hull mounted. There is literally no point in even saying they are sponsons otherwise.

I think it's pretty obvious what they intend they just failed to clarify it correctly.

Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.

Very first page carries a contradiction. Not unusual.

Second answer is if they are still affected by Difficult Terrain's Initiative penalty for charging through it.

Third answer is that the very rules that allow them to ignore Difficult Terrain are in affect no matter which phase they move, including Charging.

So does the One Cryptek Spider question have any bearing on the Tank Commander question since it directly contradicts it? IIRC.

 Ghaz wrote:

Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.

Are you sure that the bit that you think is the bolt projector isn't anything more than housing for the sphere, and the bolts don't come from the surface of the sphere itself? Kind of like the inner sphere of a plasma ball.

Torquar wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.

Are you sure that the bit that you think is the bolt projector isn't anything more than housing for the sphere, and the bolts don't come from the surface of the sphere itself? Kind of like the inner sphere of a plasma ball.

Do you have support for your claims that the entire surface of the sphere is the barrel?

 Ghaz wrote:

Torquar wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Just saying its a sponson doesn't help when the arc of the sponson is determined by how far it can physically turn. Therefore we have no idea what they intended for the arc of the Tesla Spheres are supposed to be.

Are you sure that the bit that you think is the bolt projector isn't anything more than housing for the sphere, and the bolts don't come from the surface of the sphere itself? Kind of like the inner sphere of a plasma ball.

Do you have support for your claims that the entire surface of the sphere is the barrel?

Has it ever been said what that piece is? I don't have the model so can't check the instructions. It is called a Tesla Sphere though, not a gun, cannon or projector. The description in the fluff is "glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning". Why would they iris open if they had a barrel?

Also, google image search Tesla sphere. Maybe GW didn't realise there would be any need to specify judging by those images.

There is nothing else on the Tesla Sphere which could realistically be a barrel and resembles the barrel of the tesla carbine/cannon/destructor.

 Ghaz wrote:
There is nothing else on the Tesla Sphere which could realistically be a barrel and resembles the barrel of the tesla carbine/cannon/destructor.

If we are basing how a weapon "looks" to determine how far it can swivel, then the Spheres clearly have a 270 degree arc. It doesn't matter that those pieces are "set in place" since Necron vehicles are made of "Living metal" and those pieces could easily morph away Terminator 2 style.

-