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.

Well, it allows them to "eat" MWs attached to attacks now, since it ends the attack sequence (and an FAQ clarified that this is intended). They may also not be able to use FnP to soak the MW, but I'm not 100% on that one.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What was the point of this release? There are literally no updates except for the Guard Demo cannon...

You mean figuratively.

There were dozens of other updates, but you decided to ignore them. Ignoring rules you don't think matter, but do, is the sign of a new player. You new here? There's some good resources I can provide.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, if its magenta its new.
I don't get what the change is though, does it stop Shield Drones from ignoring wounds, as its after when the sequence is supposed to end?

GW trying to be too smart and still leaving it unclear instead of just giving a simple x=y z=a and c=d result explanation.
It's if anything made it less clearer than it used to be IMHO.

 flandarz wrote:
Well, it allows them to "eat" MWs attached to attacks now, since it ends the attack sequence (and an FAQ clarified that this is intended). They may also not be able to use FnP to soak the MW, but I'm not 100% on that one.

FNPs trigger when a wound is lost, independent of the attack sequence (or else they wouldnt function against anything that didnt happen due to an attack).

Ice_can wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, if its magenta its new.
I don't get what the change is though, does it stop Shield Drones from ignoring wounds, as its after when the sequence is supposed to end?

GW trying to be too smart and still leaving it unclear instead of just giving a simple x=y z=a and c=d result explanation.
It's if anything made it less clearer than it used to be IMHO.

I think they're trying to make the rule less confusing, and the Q and A example helps, but honestly the rule is a "darling" (as Jervis would put it) and needs to be scrapped and done over instead.

Sterling191 wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Well, it allows them to "eat" MWs attached to attacks now, since it ends the attack sequence (and an FAQ clarified that this is intended). They may also not be able to use FnP to soak the MW, but I'm not 100% on that one.

FNPs trigger when a wound is lost, independent of the attack sequence (or else they wouldnt function against anything that didnt happen due to an attack).

That's what I figured, but other folks have argued otherwise, so I was a bit... iffy about it.

Lemondish wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What was the point of this release? There are literally no updates except for the Guard Demo cannon...

You mean figuratively.

There were dozens of other updates, but you decided to ignore them. Ignoring rules you don't think matter, but do, is the sign of a new player. You new here? There's some good resources I can provide.

No, I meant what was the point of releasing a SEPTEMBER FAQ with essentially:

"We think the game is in a good place, and wanted to tell you there are no new updates".

Just tell us there are no new updates, point changes may come in the next CA. No need to waste time or money having someone code up this release.

 Xenomancers wrote:

LOL gaurd rarely count as primary faction and are included in basically every imperial list. The are not fairly balanced. Command tanks and infantry are on a short list of most OP units in the game.

You are demonstrably wrong. Look at the link I said. Guard have a 51.33% win rate when included in any list. That is not imbalanced.

This is not ITC-only, this is across all tournaments. And honestly, if you consider Tank Commanders imbalanced... I'm really not sure what game you're playing.

 Horst wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

LOL gaurd rarely count as primary faction and are included in basically every imperial list. The are not fairly balanced. Command tanks and infantry are on a short list of most OP units in the game.

You are demonstrably wrong. Look at the link I said. Guard have a 51.33% win rate when included in any list. That is not imbalanced.

This is not ITC-only, this is across all tournaments. And honestly, if you consider Tank Commanders imbalanced... I'm really not sure what game you're playing.

The game he's playing is called 'Victimhood'.

 Horst wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

LOL gaurd rarely count as primary faction and are included in basically every imperial list. The are not fairly balanced. Command tanks and infantry are on a short list of most OP units in the game.

You are demonstrably wrong. Look at the link I said. Guard have a 51.33% win rate when included in any list. That is not imbalanced.

This is not ITC-only, this is across all tournaments. And honestly, if you consider Tank Commanders imbalanced... I'm really not sure what game you're playing.

Yeah I don't get that. I regularly run 3 executioners and if given the chance they easily delete units and give people that don't know better the feel bads but they're essentially immobile, have no invuln, and are a big liability in certain formats (the ones that matter)

nice changes for GK, they amanded the fact that GK flamers are not called flamers, so GK LR with incinerators aren't stricktly worse then those with flamestorms. And now blessed ammo works the way everything though it was suppose to work. Plus I think we are getting +2A from shock assault and being space marines.

They probably left the bigger changes for the CA.

Did anyone else notice that rather than dump everything into a new document, they just updated the relevant errata's and FAQ specific to the factions/codexes?? I am not seeing things right ?

That's what they've done for the last 3 FAQs.

Bit disappointed they didn't clarify the movement value at deep striking..

Karol wrote:
nice changes for GK, they amanded the fact that GK flamers are not called flamers, so GK LR with incinerators aren't stricktly worse then those with flamestorms. And now blessed ammo works the way everything though it was suppose to work. Plus I think we are getting +2A from shock assault and being space marines.

They probably left the bigger changes for the CA.

The Shock Assault and Flamestorm changes are the same as were in the "Errata for other Space Marine Forces" document when the new Codex: Space Marines came out, so they're not new. You only benefit from Shock Assault once, so only +1A for you, as far as I can tell.

Need to grab my copy of the GK book to see what the tweak to the Blessed Ammo strat is, but that's in another room.

Kinda annoyed the AM Demolisher Cannon update didn't make it to the FW Index, given I'm cleaning up a Thunderer at present.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG Demolisher cannons are now straight D6 shots so they match with Space Marines again. Expect to see a lot more Demolishers going forward.

That's the biggest thing I've noticed thus far.

LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.

To be fair, as soon as the profile got changed for Marines everyone should have expected this, having identical weapons with different profiles is an issue GW has been largely keen to avoid in recent editions.

This is what happens when GW borks weapon profiles, creates a fix for specific units that overkills for some and still doesn't fix others, then goes back and tries to fix the profiles more broadly later anyway. GW didnt want to touch the weapon statlines...until Space Marines, then they had to update the other factions.

That said, the range is a limitation, and I don't expect to see gobs of demolishers everywherr for that reason, the BC is still more than competitive, and it's hardly going to outdamage a titan, but I would expect to see them more often for dealing with stuff like Knights.

 Dysartes wrote:


Kinda annoyed the AM Demolisher Cannon update didn't make it to the FW Index, given I'm cleaning up a Thunderer at present.

I think they've basically written off FW stuff entirely and are leaving the legacy units on life support at this point.

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.

You're more than welcome to. Then we wouldn't have to do this every single release or faq...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.

You're more than welcome to. Then we wouldn't have to do this every single release or faq...

Xenomancers is basicly the DakkaDakka chicken little at this point

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


No, I meant what was the point of releasing a SEPTEMBER FAQ with essentially:

"We think the game is in a good place, and wanted to tell you there are no new updates".

Just tell us there are no new updates, point changes may come in the next CA. No need to waste time or money having someone code up this release.

Thats what they did. They called it what they did because if they didnt, a band of gibbering lunatics on the internet would get angry at them for not releasing a document that they had promised to release.

Sterling191 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


No, I meant what was the point of releasing a SEPTEMBER FAQ with essentially:

"We think the game is in a good place, and wanted to tell you there are no new updates".

Just tell us there are no new updates, point changes may come in the next CA. No need to waste time or money having someone code up this release.

Thats what they did. They called it what they did because if they didnt, a band of gibbering lunatics on the internet would get angry at them for not releasing a document that they had promised to release.

For be fair, it's an FAQ, and they answered questions so clearly it did its job. It's not like we need an errata every single FAQ update.

 Dysartes wrote:

The Shock Assault and Flamestorm changes are the same as were in the "Errata for other Space Marine Forces" document when the new Codex: Space Marines came out, so they're not new. You only benefit from Shock Assault once, so only +1A for you, as far as I can tell.

Need to grab my copy of the GK book to see what the tweak to the Blessed Ammo strat is, but that's in another room.

Ah I thought it is +1A extra, on top of the +1A from being space marines. Well at least there were no nerfs this time. That is good.

blessed ammo adds +1str and 1AP to bolter weapons. so hvy bolters can be str 6 ap-2


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


No, I meant what was the point of releasing a SEPTEMBER FAQ with essentially:

"We think the game is in a good place, and wanted to tell you there are no new updates".

Just tell us there are no new updates, point changes may come in the next CA. No need to waste time or money having someone code up this release.

Thats what they did. They called it what they did because if they didnt, a band of gibbering lunatics on the internet would get angry at them for not releasing a document that they had promised to release.

But that kind of a means that to get any fix, people have to pay for them. A fix in a FAQ anyone can use, to use CA rules which sometimes are less then 2 pages, you have to buy a high cost book.

If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

The updated missions in there were pretty good, and if you can talk people into letting you use the looted wagon rules, you can slip those into matched play by paying the points out of the relevant wargear lists.

I dont get it...

Imperial Fist Infiltrators do get an extra hit on unmodified 6 or auto wound? Do I chose which effect I want?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What was the point of this release? There are literally no updates except for the Guard Demo cannon...

You mean figuratively.

There were dozens of other updates, but you decided to ignore them. Ignoring rules you don't think matter, but do, is the sign of a new player. You new here? There's some good resources I can provide.

No, I meant what was the point of releasing a SEPTEMBER FAQ with essentially:

"We think the game is in a good place, and wanted to tell you there are no new updates".

Just tell us there are no new updates, point changes may come in the next CA. No need to waste time or money having someone code up this release.

Code up?

You must be real new.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

that is like saying, if you buy a codex your not getting your money's worth, specially if the army is bad. One can not not buy a CA if it has point cost updates, unless you skip the update units. Now maybe some people get lucky and GW changes costs of stuff they do not use. But at least in GK case, stuff like draigo and GM NDK are kind of a important part of the army.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

that is like saying, if you buy a codex your not getting your money's worth, specially if the army is bad. One can not not buy a CA if it has point cost updates, unless you skip the update units. Now maybe some people get lucky and GW changes costs of stuff they do not use. But at least in GK case, stuff like draigo and GM NDK are kind of a important part of the army.

There's more than just the points in CA. I'm a massive fan of the custom character ruleset.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

that is like saying, if you buy a codex your not getting your money's worth, specially if the army is bad. One can not not buy a CA if it has point cost updates, unless you skip the update units. Now maybe some people get lucky and GW changes costs of stuff they do not use. But at least in GK case, stuff like draigo and GM NDK are kind of a important part of the army.

There's more than just the points in CA. I'm a massive fan of the custom character ruleset.

You mean the ones where people started showing off their custom fan made characters that had stories that were far more Mary Sue than ANYTHING that GW made and they stacked on 6+ of those rules because?

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

that is like saying, if you buy a codex your not getting your money's worth, specially if the army is bad. One can not not buy a CA if it has point cost updates, unless you skip the update units. Now maybe some people get lucky and GW changes costs of stuff they do not use. But at least in GK case, stuff like draigo and GM NDK are kind of a important part of the army.

No, I mean it's like buying car just for it's windhshield. CA is more than just points costs and -only- using it for points costs is a bit silly. The last one gave us an improves mission pack for matched play, and had the Sisters beta dex on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

that is like saying, if you buy a codex your not getting your money's worth, specially if the army is bad. One can not not buy a CA if it has point cost updates, unless you skip the update units. Now maybe some people get lucky and GW changes costs of stuff they do not use. But at least in GK case, stuff like draigo and GM NDK are kind of a important part of the army.

There's more than just the points in CA. I'm a massive fan of the custom character ruleset.

You mean the ones where people started showing off their custom fan made characters that had stories that were far more Mary Sue than ANYTHING that GW made and they stacked on 6+ of those rules because?

Pretty sure that's normal. I mean how else are they going to know the exploits of Captain Thunderfist Bloodhammer who surfed an Avatar of Khaine down the slopes of an exploding volcano?