GK FAQ is out

[HERO]

I just want to know what happens when you MC a template weapon aka Incinerator.

:<

[Abaddonshand]

I'm not surprised by the falchion ruling, even if I am dissapointed, as I wanted to use them on my interceptors due to looking cool, but the more I think about it the more inclined I am to stick to basic swords and spend the 70pts elsewhere, as it doesn't seem worth it for just 7 more attacks.

 

The big shocker for me is that the dreadknight has no strength benefit from DCCW! I figured this would be like the old wraithlord rules. Instead, it seems that GW have simply found a way to make the psyfleman an even more attractive option.

[Hyaenidae]

Please forgive my ignorance, but concerning this new FAQ, is it finally official that I could build a Coteaz / all henchmen army without taking any Grey Knights troops, since the henchmen now take a force orginization slot? I know that there was some debate about it before, I just want to confirm before I go out and spend cash on the GK codex. Thanks in advance.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

The big shocker for me is that the dreadknight has no strength benefit from DCCW! I figured this would be like the old wraithlord rules. Instead, it seems that GW have simply found a way to make the psyfleman an even more attractive option.

 

I'm amazed that this surprised anyone. Why would fists, the cheapest option with the most attack, be the best weapon the dreadknight can take?

[Entilzha]

See, I always read the box on p73 as referring only to DCCW's in all respects, including the "walker is armed with two or more close combat weapons..."

 

But then the Blood fist entry does actually specify: "If a Dreadnought is equipped with a blood fist and force weapon...will still gain one additional attack."

 

Still, no need for the snarky sarcasm when correcting mistakes :P.

 

This I the reason why I wonder if they could rule it in a similar fashion for the DK. Honestly the nemisis doomfist does nothing for the Dk other then counting as a force weapon. I didn't say it does get an extra attack but if the Blood Angels can attack with a DCCW and Force Weapon getting the best of both worlds with it. Why can't a DK use a Swords and Fist? Rules wise I am perfectly fine with no extra attack but they have allowed it before so can't hurt to wonder/ask.

[Seahawk]

Actually they haven't allowed it before. The Dreadknight is not a Walker, and the Dreadnought is not a Monstrous Creature. The rules regarding their close combat weapons are very different. Monstrous Creatures follow the same rules as everyone else on p42. Dreadnoughts follow the rules as on p73.

 

Basically, GW doesn't need to answer that question because it's explained and answered in the BRB.

[JasoX]

I just want to know what happens when you MC a template weapon aka Incinerator.

:<

 

nothing

[shan vener]

wow, those poor tau.

[BA.Rauk]

It'll be expensive, but I'm gonna try out a Death-star consisting of :

 

Brotherhood Champion, Libby with Halberd / 5 powers, Techmarine with support nades in a 10 man Purifier squads with halberds. Gimmicky and likely to get demolished + expensive, but I suppose we'll see how it works out. Proper use of cover after launching them out of their LRC will result in a 3+ cover, which is as good as you can get against shooting. Primary issue is that STR 9 2d6 AP halberds rerolling hits are going to demolish whatever I throw them at... So they will always get shot afterwards. The upside however is that multi-assaulting a parking lot will be pretty fun to see.

 

The NDK and shunt punch changes were no surprise. The stacking of Psychic powers is kinda of eh, but it's their game so ultimately they can rule it however they wish, may as well take advantage of it. Falchions seemed to be a given at least in my area, and the Syphon doesn't really make too much of a difference in regards to Tau. If you're already that close they're dead anyways.

[Lord_Caerolion]

I don't get why people complain so much about the "poor Tau". Last I checked, the Syphon only works against shots from within 12". If a Tau player has nothing to shoot you with, except stuff within 12", then the Syphon isn't really the problem, it's the fact they have no army left.

 

Oh, and Spacefrisian... way to keep it classy. Good to see you're so "gracious" in victory. There were arguments to read it either way, it got FAQd to support your position. Now that you're done acting childish, can we keep it at that for pointless gloating?

[Nian]

We had that before. Terminators aren't granted permission to ride in Land Raiders, they're denied permission to ride in Rhinos and Razorbacks. So letting them ride in a Chimera was always the RAW as I saw it.

 

 

Where does it say they can't ride in land raiders?

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

It doesn't need to. By default, they can ride in everything with a transport capacity.

[Wildfire]

Pretty much everything is as expected in this FAQ, except the doomfists on DKs. Perhaps it shouldn't be, as now the daemonhammer might get taken some.

 

Please forgive my ignorance, but concerning this new FAQ, is it finally official that I could build a Coteaz / all henchmen army without taking any Grey Knights troops, since the henchmen now take a force orginization slot? I know that there was some debate about it before, I just want to confirm before I go out and spend cash on the GK codex. Thanks in advance.

 

yes

[Inquisitor Fox]

wow, those poor tau.

Actually it's not that big a deal for Tau. There's still plenty of weapons they have to inflict death, including but not limited to: rail guns (solid shot and submunitions), rail rifles, ion cannons, cyclic ion blasters, missile pods, fusion blasters, SMS, seeker missiles, kroot rifles, the krootox gun thing, vespid blasters.

 

Pulse rifles affect the Fire Warriors, and some of the vehicles (mostly transports) and a few Crisis Suit or Stealth Suit builds. As a rule though, those weren't doing the damage in the first place. And those units can simply avoid the Inquisitorial unit and shoot something else.

[Chengar Qordath]

wow, those poor tau.

Actually it's not that big a deal for Tau. There's still plenty of weapons they have to inflict death, including but not limited to: rail guns (solid shot and submunitions), rail rifles, ion cannons, cyclic ion blasters, missile pods, fusion blasters, SMS, seeker missiles, kroot rifles, the krootox gun thing, vespid blasters.

 

Pulse rifles affect the Fire Warriors, and some of the vehicles (mostly transports) and a few Crisis Suit or Stealth Suit builds. As a rule though, those weren't doing the damage in the first place. And those units can simply avoid the Inquisitorial unit and shoot something else.

Not to mention that the Inquisitor with the syphon would be a priority target for all of the non-plasma firepower, and thus might not be getting close enough to use the syphon anyway.

[greatcrusade08]

i think despite alot of 'moaning' about the possible +1A on falchions. those players who play low initiative opponents moreoften that not will see alot of use from falchions..

personally i think anything at I4 without Pws is a good target for them too

[RedemptionNL]

I don't get why people complain so much about the "poor Tau". Last I checked, the Syphon only works against shots from within 12". If a Tau player has nothing to shoot you with, except stuff within 12", then the Syphon isn't really the problem, it's the fact they have no army left.

Not to mention you can only take two in an army list, and for that you have to give up powerful HQ units like Librarians and Grandmasters. For something that is so situationally useful, I don't see it as a big deal.

 

Oh, and Spacefrisian... way to keep it classy. Good to see you're so "gracious" in victory. There were arguments to read it either way, it got FAQd to support your position. Now that you're done acting childish, can we keep it at that for pointless gloating?

Aye, it could be read either way, and even if it was +2 attacks it was in most cases outshined in performance by a Halberd or even a pair of Lightning Claws, which both are cheaper wargear options in most cases. Now at +1 attack it joins the ranks of the Psilencer in terms of usefulness. A loss for the codex IMO.

[Tankred]

Don´t know it is already mentioned:

 

Comrd from the BRB Errata/Faq:

Q: Can a psyker attempt to cast the same psychic

power more than once in a turn? (p50)

A: No, unless the psychic power itself specifically allows

it.

 

So no double (or even) tripple summoning :)

[the jeske]

i think despite alot of 'moaning' about the possible +1A on falchions. those players who play low initiative opponents moreoften that not will see alot of use from falchions..

personally i think anything at I4 without Pws is a good target for them too

not for the points . also what does low initiative mean , when 60%+ of all armies everywhere are made out of meq armies ? only IG and orks have lower I , necron doent matter and Sob die from rate of fire .even against chaos that spam pms halabards are better because they give options to lose fewer wounds when killing DPs .

 

falchions if they give only +1A are not worth the points they cost.

 

What does make me sad is that this is again one of those moments when GW writes a rule and then FAQs it in another way only because of the cry from players and not because of testing of said rules. Just like nid aura rulings .

[Decoy]

What does make me sad is that this is again one of those moments when GW writes a rule and then FAQs it in another way only because of the cry from players and not because of testing of said rules. Just like nid aura rulings .

 

I think it's less about GW's writing rules poorly and more on the community blatantly misinterpretting said rules. I'm willing enough to slap up GW's writing ability from time to time, but major rules disputes are almost always the fault of bawwwwing people thinking they know how a rule works. When it comes down to it, I can't remember a time that GW has been blatantly "wrong" in regards to rules. By the same token, the number of times the gaming community has been wrong couldn't be counted if I used every hair on my head.

 

Although I am glad that the NDK/Jump Pack issue is finally resolved. I got sick of Devil's Advocating that one something fierce.

[the jeske]

do you want to tell me that because of the whole nid write up all auras in the game , now target ? they dont . if they didnt want a non nid cry about doom , then why the hell did they make the special ? nid players would have been perectly happy without him[ok they wouldnt , but it is not our foult they made the nid dex "balanced"] . they nerfed shadow , over reacted on the alfa prime [meq HQs can join units in pods , but nids ones cant ] only because a doom would drop kill 6-9 dudes[if it would land good , if the opponent didnt have mystics , if the opposing army didnt have anti deep strike powers and if it wouldnt scated too far] and then die the next turn .

 

When it comes down to it, I can't remember a time that GW has been blatantly "wrong" in regards to rules

the so called 2 weeks nid faq from 4th ed , when GW said to nid players that because of the wording of our eternal warrior at that time , we dont get instant killed by weapons that double our T , but we sure get instant killed by weapons that have more then double our T. they changed it after 2 weeks .

[Decoy]

do you want to tell me that because of the whole nid write up all auras in the game , now target ? they dont . if they didnt want a non nid cry about doom , then why the hell did they make the special ? nid players would have been perectly happy without him[ok they wouldnt , but it is not our foult they made the nid dex "balanced"] . they nerfed shadow , over reacted on the alfa prime [meq HQs can join units in pods , but nids ones cant ] only because a doom would drop kill 6-9 dudes[if it would land good , if the opponent didnt have mystics , if the opposing army didnt have anti deep strike powers and if it wouldnt scated too far] and then die the next turn .

 

I'm failing to see any issues here.

 

 

the so called 2 weeks nid faq from 4th ed , when GW said to nid players that because of the wording of our eternal warrior at that time , we dont get instant killed by weapons that double our T , but we sure get instant killed by weapons that have more then double our T. they changed it after 2 weeks .

 

But that's the thing. GW wasn't wrong; They were perfectly correct in their interpretation. As the rule stood, that's exactly the correct response. They changed how it worked simply because the mechanic of it was proving to be an issue, not their interpretation of the rule.

[Brother Valerius]

We had that before. Terminators aren't granted permission to ride in Land Raiders, they're denied permission to ride in Rhinos and Razorbacks. So letting them ride in a Chimera was always the RAW as I saw it.

 

 

Where does it say they can't ride in land raiders?

 

I may not have been clear. Terminators can ride in Land Raiders, but what I'm saying is that this is not because they were given explicit permission. By default, any unit can ride in any Transport. It's semantics, but it's important because if you start thinking of the rules as "Terminators are only allowed to ride in Land Raiders" simply because that's their only option in other codices, you're misleading yourself. It's the difference between the rules saying "Terminators may only ride in a Land Raider" and "Terminators may not ride in a Rhino or Razorback". It seems small, but it's important.

[renegadewarp]

It'll be expensive, but I'm gonna try out a Death-star.

 

Primary issue is that STR 9 2d6 AP halberds rerolling hits are going to demolish whatever I throw them at... So they will always get shot afterwards. The upside however is that multi-assaulting a parking lot will be pretty fun to see.

 

I think I found a new sig

[BA.Rauk]

It'll be expensive, but I'm gonna try out a Death-star.

 

Primary issue is that STR 9 2d6 AP halberds rerolling hits are going to demolish whatever I throw them at... So they will always get shot afterwards. The upside however is that multi-assaulting a parking lot will be pretty fun to see.

 

I think I found a new sig

 

Glad to see you're as amused as I am about it. ;)