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.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Personally, because it answers some questions that come up in my games. The Lance vs Quantum Shield rule, for example. Or the fact that my Harlequins no longer have to roll to-hit with Mirror of Minds. A lot of these are questions that are honest questions that people NEEDED answers for.

And really, what's the point in not adopting them? Yeah, they might change, but they also might stay the same. GW is never going to be done changing rules. It's also not for-sure that they will release a final version - they might just skip that and go straight to 8th edition. This process might take half a year to complete - and it's already been half that long!

Lastly, no, I am not a Marine or Eldar player (I do have Eldar, but they're not my main army). I play Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Harlequins, and Genestealer Cult. So it's not just a "they just like it 'cause it helps them" thing - a lot of us actually just appreciate the answers and are hungry for them.

i play eldar, what was the ruling on lances on shielding? seems obvious that it shoudl reduce the shield down to 12 just like it reduces any armour value over 12 to 12.

Neither rule is used. Necrons don't use shielding and lance does nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:
"A model may take ONE of the following" If that isn't a specific number per model then what is?

The quotes I listed, with page numbers, did not actually state "a specific number per model". They state that there is a cap as to how many of a relic can be taken in an army.

Fine it made them a great deal more consistent which is still an improvement.

No, it didn't. If we have a number of books that say one thing("A model may take items from X list, and those items may be taken once per army") and one book which says another("A model may take one item from X list, and those items may be taken once per army")...you don't make things "more consistent" by going with the odd book out.

If there was nothing unclear why were there so many arguments?

Before the FAQ, I didn't see any arguments regarding wargear.

The quote I listed does.

Before we had at least three different ways of doing it. Now we have two. We have increased consistency.

Someone didn't go into YMDC.

If you want to bring YMDC into this, cite a page for the quote you listed.

I'll do it for you:

Codex: Space Marines page 115 wrote:
Chapter Relics..............................................pg 198
Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:
-The Primarch's Wrath......................<Points Cost>
-Teeth of Terra..........................<Points Cost>
-The Shield Eternal.........................<Points Cost>
-The Burning Blade...............................<Points Cost>
-The Armour Indomitus *5*...........................<Points Cost>


5-Does not replace one of the character's weapons. May not be chosen by models wearing Terminator armour.

So, by your logic it should say "A model may replace only one of their weapons with one of the following"--what with it specifically stating "Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army".

It doesn't say that however, it says they may replace one weapon with one of the following, and the Armour Indomitus does not replace a weapon. Since a Space Marine character has a Bolt Pistol and a Chainsword, they could swap each of their weapons if they chose to.

Page 70 Harlequin codex. "A model may take one of the following".

Page 93 Harlequin codex.

Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army.

Funny how it doesn't say that "Only one relic may be chosen by a character", huh?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Page 93 Harlequin codex.

Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army.

Funny how it doesn't say that "Only one relic may be chosen by a character", huh?

Because it says that earlier. On page 70 which is where the relics are purchased. There's also the fact that every character who purchases them is limited to one. "The Troupe Master may take ONE item from the Enigmas of the Black Library list." Replace Troupe Master with whatever unit you mean because that's the only difference.

Well it is hit or miss, some factions want to use the new FAQs like crazy because it gave them buffs, while other factions don't want to because it nerfed what little hope they had left for the game (Orks). So really it isn't 100% one way or the other, it really depends on what faction you are.

A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:

Is exactly the same thing as

A model may replace only one of their weapons with one of the following

In neither case does not having "only" imply that you can take two.

one = Only one.

If one is not only one, then it's two? That's just bananas.

 JimOnMars wrote:
A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:

Is exactly the same thing as

A model may replace only one of their weapons with one of the following

In neither case does not having "only" imply that you can take two.

one = Only one.

If one is not only one, then it's two? That's just bananas.

This is exactly what caused the arguments.

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

Um... im not sure thats an accurate portrayal of someones character who asks you to use the FAQ. And your "entire list" is going to change, inevitably.

 Jancoran wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

Um... im not sure thats an accurate portrayal of someones character who asks you to use the FAQ. And your "entire list" is going to change, inevitably.

Agreed. It seems that dante is either trolling or a master at self-parody.

Just thought of this...
The FaQ states that "A Character may only take a single relic (of any type)" (or something along those lines)
However, some Unique Characters have 2 relics (E.G Saint Celestine, who has the Ardent Blade and Armour of Saint Katherine)
So wouldnt it be kinda Contradictory?

commander dante wrote:
Just thought of this...
The FaQ states that "A Character may only take a single relic (of any type)" (or something along those lines)
However, some Unique Characters have 2 relics (E.G Saint Celestine, who has the Ardent Blade and Armour of Saint Katherine)
So wouldnt it be kinda Contradictory?

No. A character only has two relics unless specifically stated to be otherwise.

Might as well play test them, what harm will it do? These are possible changes. If they are cemented, I would like to get used to them, if they are not, I can easily go back.

If I refuse to use them, it will suck all the more if they are cemented. If I start now, I will have practice with them for when they are cemented (if they are).

I just don't see a downside to it.

Oh my head is spinning and we are not even in YMDC. Ouch.

Another reason we need 40K to be Sigmarised.

Davor wrote:
Oh my head is spinning and we are not even in YMDC. Ouch.

Another reason we need 40K to be Sigmarised. [/quote
40k should not be sigmarised. If you like sigmar play sigmar.

Davor wrote:
Oh my head is spinning and we are not even in YMDC. Ouch.

Another reason we need 40K to be Sigmarised.

You Came to the Wrong Neighborhood....

People use the FAQ because most of them are just clarifications, and how the rules are intended to be used. The best example of this would be the clarification to tank shock, GW stated they originally intended it to be a way of dealing with unit overlap and allowing tanks to move freely through units. They never intended it to be used as a mechanic for killing anything that gets cornered, so they clarified it so that tank shock dosn't kill units anymore (unless your tau, still find it hilarious they have the only unit in the game that can be killed by tank shock lol) rather it is used as a tool for a more coherant and fun game.

I much prefer games with the FAQ because its how the game was intended, and it makes games more enjoyable without all the rule debate.

Also I dont agree SM got a buff, they lost tank shock among other little gems of bullsh*t so no more "my 35pt model killed your 350 point model" well, that is to say unless you are Tau, but f*ck Tau anyway hahaha

I'm not sure if its the way the game is meant to be played. The Swooping hawk change seems so...weird to me. I never doubted it before, and I've never heard of anyone who did either. They were a semi-common choice in tournament lists, I can't believe a unit with weird rules that can be taken a different way depending on the TO would make that cut.

Then again, sometimes FAQs are rule adjustments. PP is known for making dramatic changes through FAQs after all. If I can handle my H2 being nerfed, and my Denny 2 (why so much hatred for one family PP?) I can handle this.

Akiasura wrote:
I'm not sure if its the way the game is meant to be played. The Swooping hawk change seems so...weird to me. I never doubted it before, and I've never heard of anyone who did either. They were a semi-common choice in tournament lists, I can't believe a unit with weird rules that can be taken a different way depending on the TO would make that cut.

Then again, sometimes FAQs are rule adjustments. PP is known for making dramatic changes through FAQs after all. If I can handle my H2 being nerfed, and my Denny 2 (why so much hatred for one family PP?) I can handle this.

Your right that they arent all just clarifications, some are outright changes to the rules, but most of the FAQ are clarifications

Our group is using it because:

- Its good to have a single set of rules that people play by.
- 95% of the questions are uncontroversial.
- Another 4% were controversial, but we already played that way anyway.
- 1% of things (eg Grenades change) tripped us up, but we figure if these things are coming in we may as well start playing with them now and get used to the changes earlier rather than later.