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.

I guess that answers the question about Power of the Machine Spirit: DELETED!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I guess that answers the question about Power of the Machine Spirit: DELETED!

'I tried talking to Valiant Conqueris, you know my land raider mate, and he's gone all quiet. I hope he's alright....'

Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Found an interesting interaction here with a fringe benefit to Tyranids:

As far as I can see, all sniper-style weapons have been changed to "Each time you select a target for this weapon, you can ignore the Look Out, Sir rule."

Old One Eye just gets made flat-out untargetable if there are Carnifexes nearby:

In addition, while any other friendly <Hive Fleet> Carnifex units are within 3” of this model, enemy models cannot target this model with ranged attacks.

...so he can't be hit by snipers.

Voss wrote:
Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

40 new FAQs. Looks like I have to some work to do...

Heh, I was right:

*Page 155, 156, 157, 158, 161 and 164 – Land Raider, Land
Raider Crusader, Land Raider Redeemer, Repulsor Executioner,
Repulsor and Stormraven Gunship, Abilities, Power of the
Machine Spirit
Delete this ability

Hope Nobody liked this strat:

*Page 136 – Send in the Next Wave!
Add the following:
‘This unit costs reinforcement points in a game that uses a
points limit.’


Edit: Wait, is the ork version still unchanged?

Designer’s Note: When we wrote Edge of Silence, we created some new rules for the relic shield and storm shield. When used in isolation...

Or created in isolation, like your rules are.

This was not our intention...

Even though the Crusade rules specifically call out a 1+ save as being possible.

Open-topped got answered:

Change the second sentence to read:
‘When they do so, all restrictions and modifiers that apply to
this model also apply to its embarked models.’

That should mean that embarked units can shoot at models in engagement range of the vehicle.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What people perceive as white knighting is a pretty deliberate effort to take in all the information and process it in context.

Oh pull the other one. For weeks now you've been on the "wait for the rules!" bandwagon, even as we got more and more and more stuff revealed. Even after the full rulebook leak. And now here we are, with all the points, what some might call the final piece of the puzzle, and you're still acting like everything is fine and nothing is broken.

We've seen a number of reviews for these points, and so many of them are saying that they feel utterly random/inconsistent, and seem to reverse some of the positive changes from 8th. But we need more context, somehow?

No, I think people interpret me saying "lets look at everything together" as "gw did nothing wrong".

Yes, the rules are out. I've played games - out of context of points. I play a really savvy Ork opponent running Deathskulls 70% of the time. The game plays differently. Melee is not dead. Grots hold objectives really well and when holding objectives is half your score or more it matters. That was at 3 points, but my stuff was lower points, too.

The goonhammer review was probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen. They used old lists that can't exist any more and counted soup as mono faction. They rushed their analysis out the door.

The game is not the same. The usual expectations do not apply.

*Page 79 – Triumph of Saint Katherine, Solemn Procession
Add the following sentence to this ability: ‘In addition, for the purposes of any terrain traits (e.g. Dense Cover, Obscuring), this model is considered to have a Wounds characteristic of 9, not 18.’

Whoops! We didn't think that one through. Uhh... they count as having 9, I guess!

Hmm, so Sacred Rose don't get free Overwatch, and the morale part of their rule was changed to auto-passing Attrition tests (same net result as it was originally).

At least the Triumph of Saint Katherine now is treated as having 9 wounds instead of 18... for terrain only. Wish that was just in general, as it would probably make it playable .

 Daedalus81 wrote:


The goonhammer review was probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen. They used old lists that can't exist any more and counted soup as mono faction. They rushed their analysis out the door.

The percentages based on individual lists were skippable nonsense. The faction summaries were largely pretty decent, except when their tournament bias goes hard (like the craftworld entry).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Page 79 – Triumph of Saint Katherine, Solemn Procession
Add the following sentence to this ability: ‘In addition, for the purposes of any terrain traits (e.g. Dense Cover, Obscuring), this model is considered to have a Wounds characteristic of 9, not 18.’

Whoop! We didn't think that one through. Uhh... they count as having 9, I guess!

They can't cover every possible exception in a general rule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Page 79 – Triumph of Saint Katherine, Solemn Procession
Add the following sentence to this ability: ‘In addition, for the purposes of any terrain traits (e.g. Dense Cover, Obscuring), this model is considered to have a Wounds characteristic of 9, not 18.’

Whoops! We didn't think that one through. Uhh... they count as having 9, I guess!

But the fact that it's covered in the FAQ before the game launch means... they did think it through?

 xttz wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Page 79 – Triumph of Saint Katherine, Solemn Procession
Add the following sentence to this ability: ‘In addition, for the purposes of any terrain traits (e.g. Dense Cover, Obscuring), this model is considered to have a Wounds characteristic of 9, not 18.’

Whoops! We didn't think that one through. Uhh... they count as having 9, I guess!

But the fact that it's covered in the FAQ before the game launch means... they did think it through?

They fixed it after the fact.

Nice, my Eldar army that I built for 1762 pts. comes in as 1997 pts. Sweet!

Now to look through all the FAQs....

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They fixed it after the fact.

You don't know if they "fixed it after the fact" or not. You cannot know that unless you were on the design team, given that the FAQs for 9E went up today.

You can speculate on that, certainly, but you cannot know.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They fixed it after the fact.

You don't know if they "fixed it after the fact" or not. You cannot know that unless you were on the design team, given that the FAQs for 9E went up today.

You can speculate on that, certainly, but you cannot know.

Its entirely irrelevant unless people want them to write that rule and then say, "excluding these following units that exist now and any potential units we might make in the future".

Are all chainswords in the Space Marine codices not now Astartes Chainswords?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They fixed it after the fact.

You don't know if they "fixed it after the fact" or not. You cannot know that unless you were on the design team, given that the FAQs for 9E went up today.

You can speculate on that, certainly, but you cannot know.

Its an exception to a rule. It cannot be anything other than 'after the fact'
It isn't necessarily particularly meaningful, but there is no possibly way in a linear progression of time that it would anything other than after.
Unless, I guess, you believe that they decided 'Hey, we want the Triumph to be an exception to something, what kind of rule can we make up that we can exempt them from?'

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Are all chainswords in the Space Marine codices not now Astartes Chainswords?

That change will likely occur in the shiny new codex that's going to drop within a month or two.

Exceptions to rules can be done simultaneous to the writing of a rule.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Are all chainswords in the Space Marine codices not now Astartes Chainswords?

Nope.
They aren't changing datasheets except in very specific circumstances. They even make a point of it with the new (boxed set) stormshields errata.
Demolisher cannons are one of the big exceptions, because they changed mid-edition and they have to deal with old wording in some books.

LOL, they errataed "fire and fade" from the DRUKHARI codex to only be usable on ASURYANI units.

GG Gee-dubs.

Voss wrote:
Open-topped got answered:

Change the second sentence to read:
‘When they do so, all restrictions and modifiers that apply to
this model also apply to its embarked models.’

That should mean that embarked units can shoot at models in engagement range of the vehicle.

I don't think so. The land Speeder Storm had a new sentence added that said models embarked can not fire if the vehicle is in engagement range. Are all open topped changed to add that or just the storm?

mightymconeshot wrote:

Voss wrote:
Open-topped got answered:

Change the second sentence to read:
‘When they do so, all restrictions and modifiers that apply to
this model also apply to its embarked models.’

That should mean that embarked units can shoot at models in engagement range of the vehicle.

I don't think so. The land Speeder Storm had a new sentence added that said models embarked can not fire if the vehicle is in engagement range. Are all open topped changed to add that or just the storm?

No, you're right. I just missed that in the sea of blue (and trying to do other things while scanning the FAQs)
Pistols only for embarked units.

mightymconeshot wrote:

Voss wrote:
Open-topped got answered:

Change the second sentence to read:
‘When they do so, all restrictions and modifiers that apply to
this model also apply to its embarked models.’

That should mean that embarked units can shoot at models in engagement range of the vehicle.

I don't think so. The land Speeder Storm had a new sentence added that said models embarked can not fire if the vehicle is in engagement range. Are all open topped changed to add that or just the storm?

Venoms and Raiders got that same nerf. Starweavers didn't - they already had similar language in their rule, but it is based on the limitation on the Starweaver itself, so now RAW Harlequins in open-topped transports can fire in combat with everything because the transport can and therefore they can too. Another GG Gee-dubs moment here.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Are all chainswords in the Space Marine codices not now Astartes Chainswords?

That change will likely occur in the shiny new codex that's going to drop within a month or two.

Silly, but it's not like I'd have an opportunity to field any marines before the new Codex drops anyway.

Just looking at deathguard it seems the FAQ is not going to fix any of the lost abilities going into 9th.

I was hoping we might get a replacement for Inexorable Advance as the heavy weapon part is no longer valid (Only heavy weapons are on vehicles anyway, bar reaper Autocannon on Terms). The 18" rapid fire was basically trumped by malicious volleys anyway already.
Leaving the only benefit being advance and shoot assault weapons with no -1.