New DA FAQ answers some DH questions!

[jakehunter52]

While this is not exactly Inquisition specific, I feel that this will still have a huge impact on us, specifically in the unanswered questions from an outdated codex. First, read the new DA FAQ here:

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...Edition_FAQ.pdf

 

Now, this is not an official amendment to their armoury or differentiating rules. However, what it does is empower people to bring the issue of things that differ (LR transport capacities, Rhino repair, Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, etc.) and work it out w/ the other player so that things are "fair". And while I am sure a lot of us having been doing this for sometime now, the fact that taking this course of action is supported by GW makes it...for lack of a better term, ok. And sure, some things aren't going to be ok, like And I like the fact that even if we aren't able to come to an accord, then we use codex as per written, plain and simple. So what do you think guys think? I think that this is a fairly good answer to alot of the stuff we are putting out their (save the daemon ones which I think aren't as clear cut as stuff/point cost goes).

[Melissia]

I've always thought it official that codex superscedes BRB anyway... BRB < Codex < FAQ.

[jakehunter52]

Me too but the thing was trying to prove it, kinda like w/ the whole argument w/ smoke. Since FAQ is proven to be god authority (like w/ Serephim and their unique Hit and Run rule), this is a clear cut way of saying, "This is how it is going to be." It is unfortunate when it gets their but there has to be a guiding light in the darkness.

[number6]

As I just posted elsewhere in this forum:

 

Strictly, the DA FAQ does not apply to us. :lol: But one can hope (??) that we'll get a similar treatment in the rumored DH FAQ revision that GW will supposedly be publishing any day (week, month, ...) now.

[the jeske]

oh I can see that with my minds eye .

 

WH: "So I would like to use the costs for tanks from codex SM"

Generic SM guy : "Ok np"

WH: "oh man that cool , thx ."

Generic SM guy "so I thought it would be cool to test those medusa siege guns , to reprsent a sm siege force "

WH"Gulp...you know what ... the tanks costs dont look that bad now . Lets play by the rules"

Generic SM guy "Ok,cool with me [plops down his Khan army list]".

[Narthecium]

^ I don't get it.

[boreas]

I think he means, with his unique russian humor, that if one opens the door to any rules from any codecies people will just start cherry-picking stuff from books like IA... Basically, With a poorly worded FAQ like that, we might just all play apocalypse every game, no matter the size...

 

Phil

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I don't understand GW sometimes. I mean, this a question that deserves a clear 'yay' or 'nay', and they write 3-4 paragraphs tip-toeing around the question. As we all know, if something is left ambiguous or unresolved, 'RAW vs RAI' fights break out. It's not just people being anal in tourney's, these kinda problems affect friendly play.

 

How about we all just set a precedent for ourselves, namely, this FAQ does allow wargear of the same name to be the same (ie we ignore older rules)? I'm not about to let a Dark Angels Master get his hands on a relic blade, that's blatantly illegal and pathetic. But I think that a spade is a spade, storm shields = 3+ invul, CML/Typhoon launcher = 2 x frags or 2 x kraks ((and no amount of bluster about 'Mars-pattern' can change that). I don't think there are any other real wargear issues aside from those three, the Dark Angels are fine as they are. Like I said, directly porting new units (like Sternguard or the Landspeeder Storm) is stupid, but wargear should be the same uniform rules across the board.

[Narthecium]

I think he means, with his unique russian humor, that if one opens the door to any rules from any codecies people will just start cherry-picking stuff from books like IA... Basically, With a poorly worded FAQ like that, we might just all play apocalypse every game, no matter the size...

 

Phil

 

 

 

ah. Thanks.

 

 

"Unique" is certainly one word for it lol.

[boreas]

I don't think there are any other real wargear issues aside from those three, the Dark Angels are fine as they are. Like I said, directly porting new units (like Sternguard or the Landspeeder Storm) is stupid, but wargear should be the same uniform rules across the board.

 

What about point cost? Codex: DA has fixed a point-cost for that wargear in accordance with what it did in C: DA. And availability? Cyclone ML is restricted in C:SM to one per five termies. AFAIK, C:DA can still take units of 5 termies with 2 Heavy weapons (can they?).

 

Its not a simple thing, overall. But GW definitely should not have given a "tip-toe" answer, you're quite right...

 

Phil

[mughi3]

. So what do you think guys think? I think that this is a fairly good answer to alot of the stuff we are putting out their (save the daemon ones which I think aren't as clear cut as stuff/point cost goes).

 

I think GW spent a huge amount of effort to waste 3 paragraphs of text that fix nothing. the entire point of a FAQ Is to FIX a rules issue.

it would have taken all of a single sentence to actually fix all of problems-IE all like standard wargear and equipment now uses the newest rules incarnation found in C:SM

 

telling us - yes there is a game balance problem, you should really use the new rules but were not really going to fix the problem, everybody have a "group hug", is not an acceptable answer when a serious game balance issue is being FAQ'd.

 

This is not acceptable or a "move in the right direction" since they are telling us what the main rulebook and JJ told us a couple months ago. they fixed nothing.

[mughi3]

oh I can see that with my minds eye .

 

WH: "So I would like to use the costs for tanks from codex SM"

Generic SM guy : "Ok np"

WH: "oh man that cool , thx ."

Generic SM guy "so I thought it would be cool to test those medusa siege guns , to reprsent a sm siege force "

WH"Gulp...you know what ... the tanks costs dont look that bad now . Lets play by the rules"

Generic SM guy "Ok,cool with me [plops down his Khan army list]".

 

 

I have one better-this is posted as a notice on our 40K league board, if you play at our LGS these rules apply-

 

notice:

Due to GWs failure to bring all 3rd & 4th edition codexes in line with 5th edition.

the 40K league, in an effort to avoid rules conflict and confusion, invokes a house rule that all standard wargear, scoring units, equipment etc..

will follow their newest and/or 5th edition versions.

please see me if you have any questions

-matt

 

This fixes the smoke issue, the scoring units issue, the transport capacity issue, the standard weapons profile and cost issue etc... for all armies in the game for 5th.

 

i have found we are not the only gaming group that has followed this course. to bad GW isn't near as smart.

[Red Lost Soldier]

This is simply another thing you will have to sort out with the people you play with, before you start playing. Or another thing you will have to contact tournament organisers to get a ruling before you commit to an army list.

 

I've had discussions of this sort since new SM codex rumors came out. The general consensus was that we would let players use the new rules provided they didn't cherry pick. It's all about agreement.

 

For example, I don't mind BT's using the new CML, so long as they don't take 2 in a 5 man squad with Tank Hunters.

[the jeske]

why? their codex clearlly says they can take 2 . But thats nothing . BT are a stand alone codex . Think of the SW . They got cheap fists/power weapons /plasmas etc and the cost of tanks and all gear taken from codex sm .

Sure they dont have drop pods [stupid FAQ wording] rules , but then again they dont lose much with that .

ah. Thanks.

 

 

"Unique" is certainly one word for it lol.

the sad part is that I remember games like that [a DE player that thought it would be cool and fluffy for DE to have dreadnoughts] in the 3ed , before we got all RAW and tournament . It was really a tough time for any gamer . You practiclly had different rules in all shops and the tournament FAQ's for each tournament were dramaticlly different on some rules .

[Charred Heretic]

Wow. Just wow.

Just when I thought GW couldn't get any MORE STUPID, they actually topped themselves.

I just read the paragraph about how "if you want to have fun, then maybe you should consider changing the rules in a discussion with your opponent".

 

I *THINK* it has already occurred to the gaming community that we play games to have fun.

(But thank you so much, GW for the reminder).

 

And I *THINK* it has already occurred to me that I can discuss anything with my opponent so long as the sun rises and there's oxygen in the air.

 

Bad enough that we have to experience identical pieces working differently in a WYSIWYG game.

On top of that, we are given this half-baked pseudo "ethic". It's pathetic.

[jakehunter52]

Wow, looking at the responses from other people in the forum makes me wonder if I simply give in for too little.

 

I think a lot of you guys are taking a really lot more negative view on this than you should be. Yeah, it is bull that GW doesn't own up and say that everything is the same but they are stuck in their own vicious circle of making codexes more and more powerful, to excite the consumer and to make up the power gap. And it isn't like they can stop everything and bring it to balance, it would ruin the game. Like the rumour a while back that all eldar weaponry was going to be rending. Probably true, they tested it w/ 5th and the changes to rending it brought and thought it would be awesome but because 4th still had a bit more of a run and make for horrendously OP Eldar in the meantime, they didn't. But it is probably more than that, that they are losing sight that this is a game and getting too focused on the profits. Because that is why they won't redo our codex in any good time and I bet there is going to be another new SM codex out before we see ours. But this is a different beef w/ GW than what is being discussed.

 

They know the sad fact of not being able to keep current and conceding defeat into our hands. We know how things work better than they do and can decipher how things are going to be abused. They don't have to run into that, they probably are good pals at the studio and have fun playing the game as per the new emphasis. And that is why they are turning the power over to us (but still need to be reminded that it is their responsibility to make the rules, not the players, otherwise why I am I buy the rule books). I think a lot of you guys are assuming the worst, that assuming every tournament you go to, there will be nothing but big fat, bearded men shoveling cheese into their gullets. Well, I know for a fact that I don't do that and that I am reasonable player and want to play a good, honourable, enjoyable game and I hope you guys are too. What we can be happy about is that when we do run into guys like us, that we can say:

"Hey, my codex is a bit outdated. Is it alright in this game if my Assault Cannons are going to be Rending 4?"

"Yeah sure, so long as the points cost is about the same. GW really left you out in the cold, eh?"

"Yeah...."

"Well cool dude, no biggie. Let's play."

I say that it is better than what I have been hearing from other people, that GW would say no because FAQs are not going to fix points cost so we are going to get shafted. But thankfully, GW cares about it's income and won't do that, simply dodge around the issue and instead let us decide. I sure would like to be able to have some decent rules some of the time instead of crappy ones all the time.

[Gentlemanloser]

The problem lies when a gamer with an older Codex asks his opponent "You mind if I use my Assault Cannons as Rending 4, cuz I've been left out in the cold by GW?" and his opponent says "Er, yes, I do mind. Use your Codex rules, that's what your army is balanced around." (For Example. Or the guy who thinks Temries are totally overcosted and that they're only really Durable enough to warrant thier points with 3+ Storm shields and their opponent who thinks 3+ Squads of Fearless SS weilding Termies is just the eptiomey or powergaming cheese...)

 

You then have the divide of players both thinking they are being reasonable, and the other trying to be an unreasonable powergamer/cheesy/beardy player.

 

With friends, everythings ok, but it is anyway. You're playing with Friends. But this hobby is also (Tournaments aside) about popping into a local store and playing new people.

 

And for that, we need concise standard rules we can all follow, without leaving a potenial bad air because of outdated rules back by ambiguous design. Sure, each store can have thier own 'Friendly' house rules, but what happenes when you pop to the next store?

 

Apoc was designed and released for the free flowing style of play. Not 40K.

 

Besides, GW are ruining the history and fluff of Standard Template Constructs, with a single 'standard' item possibly being different in each individual Codex. How many versions of Storm Shields are there now currently? Three? More? Very STC. And purely from a fluff standpoint, why can't the Inquisition, off all people, get thier hands on the good version? Or the Rending 4 A Cannons. Or the 12 Capacity Land Raiders (Coteaz would sure love one of thoe to stick his retinue in...).

[stinkoman]

The problem lies when a gamer with an older Codex asks his opponent "You mind if I use my Assault Cannons as Rending 4, cuz I've been left out in the cold by GW?" and his opponent says "Er, yes, I do mind. Use your Codex rules, that's what your army is balanced around.

 

I think your on to something there. your war gear/points are balanced around your codex (however outdated that may be, but hey, what do DE have to compare theirs against, they are just out of luck). you should use your codex. if you want 3+invul SS then play ultramarines. I think people make a big stink about very small items and forgot why they picked an army. i know i didn't pick DH for its assault cannons. i think i can only get them on 2 things and one of them id rather have a TWLC. I play with an updated AS sometimes, but really it doesn't make much of a difference, its whats in the LR that really hurts (and in 5e the cargo gets there much more often). I certainly wouldn't want to play against a DWing army full of 3+ invul saves (then again that doesn't matter when faced against 200 Lasguns). my opponents sigh enough when i bust out SotM on my sisters.

 

I also just recently picked up BA because i wanted a SM army, and that was after the new C:SM came out. If your are going to take the updated war gear, take your hits on your other stuff, like C:SM chaplain stats and lose RoB (and then you got to pick up Combat Tactics). There are just to many variables that go into coming up with the rules/point costs and you have to look at the whole codex. arbitrarily changing point costs or rules drastically (SS being pretty drastic) would cause a good rewrite of the codex, and we know that isn't happening soon. i would love to have a FnP HG, but my apothecary can only save one wound. i would love to have rhinos cost only 35 points, but then my sisters would cost more. ill be patient, because when they rewrite the rules for your army (that contains SM STC) then your points/stats for other units will also be adjusted.

 

or maybe I'm giving GW too much credit, but i can see why they don't amend this rule and leave it up to you (though i thought the hint about sticking to your own codex was quite clear). if they said flat out NO, then half the community would be griping. if they said yes, the other half would be. this is a lose/lose situation for GW until they rewrite the codex and make it the same. but then something else might change. the game is evolving. some rules will change and some won't. it all depends on the style of game play. its almost like Darwinism for 40k. hey sorry your war gear hasn't evolved yet, give it time.

 

Stinko

[Gentlemanloser]

this is a lose/lose situation for GW until they rewrite the codex and make it the same

 

Yes. Something they should have done. Codexes spanning 3 editions of main rulebooks, over many years. Identicle items being updated hodge-podge until there's a mess of multiple identical items.

 

LotD (not a 'codex' chapter) where included in the new SM Codex. They should have done the same for all the varients.

 

That or release all the 'Imperial' Codexes at the same time...

[Red Lost Soldier]

why? their codex clearlly says they can take 2

 

It is because you're taking the advantage from one codex (the new CML rules from CSM) and combing it with two advantages (ability to take 2 and veteran skills) from another codex. It's just an example.

 

I'm fine with the DA FAQ thing because it's what I already do. I play with H4 Rending AC. I don't use kill points because I think it's a horrible idea. Most of the games I play are with friends at houses. In tournaments, I simply find out what the score is before I go, and things have never gone wrong for me.

[stinkoman]

this is a lose/lose situation for GW until they rewrite the codex and make it the same

 

Yes. Something they should have done. Codexes spanning 3 editions of main rulebooks, over many years. Identicle items being updated hodge-podge until there's a mess of multiple identical items.

 

i agree, GW is really falling behind on the codices. how do you get a new edition of the rules when you still have codices that are now 2 editions behind?! i like what Privateer press is doing. every faction gets an upgrade at the same time and FAQs aplenty. when new releases come out, everyone gets something new to try.

 

LotD (not a 'codex' chapter) where included in the new SM Codex. They should have done the same for all the varients.

 

That or release all the 'Imperial' Codexes at the same time...

 

this is the way LoTD were back in 5E. heck that was the only reason to play ultramarines (well that and tigurius). i like the apoc data sheet better. they are cheaper and you get more unit types.

[Gentlemanloser]

And FNP! :P

 

Who needs updated rules to give DA Terminator Apothecaries FNP when you've got the LotD! :P

[mughi3]

I certainly wouldn't want to play against a DWing army full of 3+ invul saves

Except you can basicaly still do that now witha lysander wing in the new codex.....just take some cheep scout squads.

So your not really avoiding anything.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup, and Stubborn beats the pants off Fearless. :lol:

 

The only thing DW would have (if they got the 3+ SS) is thier Termies would be scoring.

 

If that's too much to give the DA access to the proper Wargear, then all the SM codex would need is for Lysander to make Termies scoring (not a troop choice like the DW) like Kantor does for Sternguard, and that's it.

 

Apart form the one Termy Apothecary DW would then get...

[stinkoman]

I certainly wouldn't want to play against a DWing army full of 3+ invul saves

Except you can basicaly still do that now witha lysander wing in the new codex.....just take some cheep scout squads.

So your not really avoiding anything.

 

not even close.