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.

So the new faqs are up and GW suggests to house rule all loyalist pre SM codex dreads to gain +2 attacks.

This seems fair to me but how do you guys think about also giving the rule to other walkers such as CSM hellbrutes and Orks Kans / deffdreads.

Yes, and have done in the past.

:: looks at Penitent Engines ::

:: looks at hordes upon hordes of enemy foot Orks ::

:: vicious smile creeps onto her face ::

:: starts chuckling ::

:: chuckling builds into demonic laughter ::

Also where can I find these FAQs?

Helbrutes, sure.

Deff dreads......maybe. They already have 4 attacks base, technically. (3 base, +1 for two CCWs).

Killa kans.......eh, much as I'd like it, no way. 150 points for 3 killa kans, each with 4 base, 5 on the charge - so 150 points for 15 str 7 ap2 attacks? that's.......pretty good. Even at WS2.

Hellbrutes yes. Everything else no.

pm713 wrote:
Hellbrutes yes. Everything else no.

yeah this, the hellbrute is just a chaos dreadnought with a new name. Deff Dreads and Killa Kans are not.

Seriously, where can I find the FAQ?

 Pouncey wrote:
Seriously, where can I find the FAQ?

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/
It's the picture section of this page.

HeLbrutes definitely deserve the same treatment.

 mmzero252 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Seriously, where can I find the FAQ?

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/
It's the picture section of this page.

Thanks.

I'd be fine with it, especially helbrutes/deff dreads, which are pretty much each respective factions dreadnoughts. As nice as it'd be, I doubt people will let my maulerfiend get 4 however I think every walker should get 4, especially the CC ones.

I would be fine with Deff Dreads and Killa Kans getting a +2 boost (even +2 to Killa Kanz despite them being only "mini" deff dreads) in addition to Helbrutes and such.

Orks are suppose to be close combat monsters and Deff Dreads are suppose to be walking idols of that fact. Them having to trade so many guns just to get up to a normal Dread's level is just disgraceful.

No, because I'm not going to accept GW's idiotic "we're not going to errata this officially, but if you're a decent person you should let your opponent use this house rule" approach to fixing stuff. Either errata it properly or don't pretend that you care about the problem.

Already did it with most walkers in the game via my houserules and eratta.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because I'm not going to accept GW's idiotic "we're not going to errata this officially, but if you're a decent person you should let your opponent use this house rule" approach to fixing stuff. Either errata it properly or don't pretend that you care about the problem.

Yeah, that'll show em that you're mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore... I mean, it would, if they were able to actually watch your games where you force certain Codexes to wait for much-needed buffs to their Dreadnoughts when you have GW's blessing to just give it to them in the meantime while waiting for their Codices to get a new version. Good job, stickin it to those other Codexe- I mean, GW.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because I'm not going to accept GW's idiotic "we're not going to errata this officially, but if you're a decent person you should let your opponent use this house rule" approach to fixing stuff. Either errata it properly or don't pretend that you care about the problem.

100% agreed with this. The fact they even included this rule as an option is moronic. Gak or get off the pot. Just make it an official errata. It isn't like they haven't delivered buffs in errata before. Especially given the statement that they had received numerous requests about this. Just fix the issue, GW.

 Pouncey wrote:
Yeah, that'll show em that you're mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore... I mean, it would, if they were able to actually watch your games where you force certain Codexes to wait for much-needed buffs to their Dreadnoughts when you have GW's blessing to just give it to them in the meantime while waiting for their Codices to get a new version. Good job, stickin it to those other Codexe- I mean, GW.

They may not watch my games, but they do see complaints from players (which is where they got this "errata" idea from in the first place) and we as players have the ability to influence what complaints GW receives. If they continue to receive complaints about dreads having only two attacks because the community has rejected their idiotic "errata" attempt then they might be persuaded to do it properly. If they stop receiving complaints because people are happily using their four-attack dreads then they're a lot more likely to "errata" future problems the same way.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Helbrutes, sure.

Deff dreads......maybe. They already have 4 attacks base, technically. (3 base, +1 for two CCWs).

Killa kans.......eh, much as I'd like it, no way. 150 points for 3 killa kans, each with 4 base, 5 on the charge - so 150 points for 15 str 7 ap2 attacks? that's.......pretty good. Even at WS2.

Well the houserule in the FAQ applies to...None of the mentioned.

It's only loyal marines pre-new codex. BA and wolves specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yeah, that'll show em that you're mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore... I mean, it would, if they were able to actually watch your games where you force certain Codexes to wait for much-needed buffs to their Dreadnoughts when you have GW's blessing to just give it to them in the meantime while waiting for their Codices to get a new version. Good job, stickin it to those other Codexe- I mean, GW.

They may not watch my games, but they do see complaints from players (which is where they got this "errata" idea from in the first place) and we as players have the ability to influence what complaints GW receives. If they continue to receive complaints about dreads having only two attacks because the community has rejected their idiotic "errata" attempt then they might be persuaded to do it properly. If they stop receiving complaints because people are happily using their four-attack dreads then they're a lot more likely to "errata" future problems the same way.

You can both use it and let GW know it was not good way at the same time you know?

tneva82 wrote:
You can both use it and let GW know it was not good way at the same time you know?

That doesn't get people to keep sending in " YOU GW MY DREADS STILL HAVE TWO ATTACKS BUFF THEM NOW" complaints.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yeah, that'll show em that you're mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore... I mean, it would, if they were able to actually watch your games where you force certain Codexes to wait for much-needed buffs to their Dreadnoughts when you have GW's blessing to just give it to them in the meantime while waiting for their Codices to get a new version. Good job, stickin it to those other Codexe- I mean, GW.

They may not watch my games, but they do see complaints from players (which is where they got this "errata" idea from in the first place) and we as players have the ability to influence what complaints GW receives. If they continue to receive complaints about dreads having only two attacks because the community has rejected their idiotic "errata" attempt then they might be persuaded to do it properly. If they stop receiving complaints because people are happily using their four-attack dreads then they're a lot more likely to "errata" future problems the same way.

So your plan is to make games a bit more miserable for your opponents by denying them a buff you agree they should have and have the legitimate power to grant them, in order to persuade Games Workshop to act reasonably when it comes to their rules?

I'm not sure you thought this through all the way.

 Pouncey wrote:
So your plan is to make games a bit more miserable for your opponents by denying them a buff you agree they should have and have the legitimate power to grant them, in order to persuade Games Workshop to act reasonably when it comes to their rules?

I'm not sure you thought this through all the way.

The fact that they're listening to complaints enough to post their "errata" in the first place is a sign that they might finally be acting a bit reasonably about their rules. And yes, I'm going to refuse to grant that buff, just like I'm sure they're going to refuse to grant all the buffs I want to have for my army. If their game is "miserable" because their dreads aren't powerful enough (and they're still terrible with the buff, so it doesn't make any real difference) and I won't let them have a house rule to buff them then that's a problem with their fragile emotions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So your plan is to make games a bit more miserable for your opponents by denying them a buff you agree they should have and have the legitimate power to grant them, in order to persuade Games Workshop to act reasonably when it comes to their rules?

I'm not sure you thought this through all the way.

The fact that they're listening to complaints enough to post their "errata" in the first place is a sign that they might finally be acting a bit reasonably about their rules. And yes, I'm going to refuse to grant that buff, just like I'm sure they're going to refuse to grant all the buffs I want to have for my army. If their game is "miserable" because their dreads aren't powerful enough (and they're still terrible with the buff, so it doesn't make any real difference) and I won't let them have a house rule to buff them then that's a problem with their fragile emotions.

The Errata/FAQs are probably based on the questions they collected some months ago when they asked all their Facebook followers to submit rules questions.

And I didn't call their gaming experience miserable. I said it would be a bit worse because you're denying them buffs which you agree they should have, which the game devs say you should probably let them have, just because you want to make your opponent complain to Games Workshop to change something which -you- in particular in this situation, are making a problem. You could choose to be a nice guy and just say, "Yeah, that's a ridiculous discrepancy, let's use that house rule they suggested to buff you to where you should be," but instead you're saying, "No, I won't let you have that buff, even though you should have it, until GW forces me to let you have it. I'm doing this so you'll go complain to GW about it."

You're not the good guy in this situation.

I think it's a great thing the official answer is no, use the profile.

It atleast shows that they draw a line between official an unofficial, which means an attempt at consistency if nothing more.

 Runic wrote:
I think it's a great thing the official answer is no, use the profile.

It atleast shows that they draw a line between official an unofficial, which means an attempt at consistency if nothing more.

They could have officially errated it to new attacks. It's not like they didn't errata things differently to what was RAW before. They changed how things work with multipliers and modifiers and plasma get hots answer is completely at odds with what rulebook clearly stated before.

So it's not like they are against making official changes to rules with these FAQ's. They have done that before. They could have done it with this. They could also have done that with the chapter master in decurion.

Instead they went to these odd answers. Dreadnought at least isn't quite as bad(hey it could have been "we think they should have 4A but if your opponent says no then 2A"...) as chapter master but both would have been better if it was simple "yes/no".

I wish the would just have errata's the walker unit type to:

Add +2 attacks to all walker profiles published before the SM codex publication date.

They've done that in the draft. We'll see about the final official version.

 Runic wrote:
They've done that in the draft. We'll see about the final official version.

No they haven't done that at all in the draft this is why I asked the question. ; )

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Runic wrote:
They've done that in the draft. We'll see about the final official version.

No they haven't done that at all in the draft this is why I asked the question. ; )

he means the unoffical house rule thing, GW might sldie an errata release out with the FAQs that formalizes the change

 Runic wrote:
They've done that in the draft. We'll see about the final official version.

No they haven't.

For starters it's house rule.

For seconds it's not for walkers. It's specifically for loyalist dreads. Not for chaos dreads, not for ork dreads, not for any dreadnought other than loyal space marines before codex:SM. Even more specifically for blood angels and space wolves.

I replied to tneva82.

They've done the described things in the draft. And I said we'll see about the final version.